Appendix E - Standing Structures Report

APPENDIXE

StandingStructuresReport

F I N A L
R E P O R T
NATIONAL HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ACT SECTION
106 CONSULTATION FOR MARC
NORTHEAST MAINTENANCE
FACILITY, PERRYVILLE, CECIL
COUNTY, MARYLAND
CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
REPORT: ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC
PROPERTIES
Prepared for
Maryland Transit Administration
6 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, Maryland, 21202-1614
July 2014
URS Corporation
12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150
Germantown, MD 20876
Project Number 20836023
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. vi
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1
Background .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1.1 Description of the Undertaking.................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Purpose of the Report................................................................... 1-2
1.2
Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................... 1-3
SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
Background Research .............................................................................. 2-1
2.2
Fieldwork ................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3
Evaluation of NRHP Eligibility ............................................................... 2-4
SECTION THREE: HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1
Exploration and Colonization .................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Farming and Industry............................................................................... 3-4
3.3
Revolutionary War and Religion ............................................................. 3-7
3.4
War of 1812 ............................................................................................. 3-9
3.5
Agrarian Reform ...................................................................................... 3-9
3.6
Industrial Prosperity and Transportation Expansion.............................. 3-12
3.7
Post-Civil War Cecil County ................................................................. 3-13
3.8
Twentieth Century Cecil County ........................................................... 3-14
SECTION FOUR: SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Delineation and Justification of Above-Ground Historic Properties
Area of Potential Effects.......................................................................... 4-1
4.2
National Register of Historic Places Properties in the
Above-Ground Historic Properties APE.................................................. 4-3
4.2.1 Properties Not Listed in the NRHP or Considered
Eligible for Listing....................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2 Properties Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible
for Listing................................................................................... 4-11
4.2.3 Summary of Properties in the Above-Ground Historic
Properties APE........................................................................... 4-12
SECTION FIVE: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS.................................................................................... 5-1
5.1
The Anchorage (CE-1230)....................................................................... 5-2
5.2
Crothers House (CE-1566) ...................................................................... 5-5
5.3
Lindenwood (CE-700) ............................................................................. 5-7
5.4
The Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145).................................. 5-10
5.5
Other Indirect Effects............................................................................. 5-23
5.6
Summary of Effects on Above-Ground Historic Properties .................. 5-24
SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 6-1
SECTION SEVEN: BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 7-1
17-JUL-14\\
Table of Contents
Attachments
Attachment 1
Federal Transit Administration Section 106 Initiation Letter
Attachment 2
MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Open House, October 2013,

Presentation Materials
Attachment 3
Resumes of Key Personnel
Attachment 4
Woodland Farm, 1940 Appraisal
Attachment 5
Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Forms and

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Forms
The Anchorage (CE-1230)
Baker House (CE-1561)
Baker-Howe House (CE-1569)
Bromwell House (CE-1564)
Crothers House (CE-1566)
Lindenwood (CE-700)
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85 (CE-1562)
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake
View Road (CE-1565)
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34 (CE-1563)
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (CE-1568)
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (CE-1567)
Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145)
Figures
Figure 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project location........................................... 1-18
Figure 2: The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project ................................................. 1-19
Figure 4: Captain John Smiths Map of Chesapeake Bay Perryville Area Segment with
Susquehanna Figure 1612 (north is right side of image) ........................................... 3-1
Figure 5: Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670
by Augustine Herman, Published by Augustine Herrman and Thomas
Withinbrook, 1673 ..................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 6: Disputed Areas on Maryland Pennsylvania Border, c. 1673 .................................... 3-4
Figure 7: 1799 Hauducoeur Map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay......................................... 3-7
Figure 8: Embankments: High and other land, to prevent them from being inundated
by land-floods, or tide (Farmers Register, 1838:429).......................................... 3-10
Figure 9: Woodlands Farm, haying ........................................................................................... 3-11
17-JUL-14\\
ii
Table of Contents
Figure 10: Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington Railroad Systems and
Connections, January 1, 1904 (northern half of map) ............................................. 3-15
Figure 11: Woodlands Farm Property of Coudon Estate, June 1940..................................... 3-16
Figure 12: Atlas Powder Company............................................................................................ 3-17
Figure 13: Surveyed Properties in the Above-Ground APE........................................................ 4-2
Figure 14: Baker House, facing north.......................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 15: Baker-Howe House, facing north............................................................................... 4-5
Figure 16: Bromwell House, looking west .................................................................................. 4-6
Figure 17: PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85, looking southwest .................................................... 4-7
Figure 18: PW&B Railroad Bridge 58-34, looking southeast ..................................................... 4-8
Figure 19:PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View Road, looking
northwest.................................................................................................................... 4-9
Figure 20: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, looking east................................... 4-10
Figure 21: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, looking south ................................ 4-11
Figure 22: Above-Ground historic properties APE showing NRHP listed or eligible
buildings/structures and non-NRHP eligible buildings/structures........................... 4-13
Figure 23: The Anchorage, main house faade, facing northeast................................................ 5-3
Figure 24: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area................................. 5-4
Figure 25: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area, with
computer-simulated building silhouette..................................................................... 5-4
Figure 26: Crothers House faade facing southeast..................................................................... 5-5
Figure 27: View from Crothers House facing southwest toward the project area....................... 5-6
Figure 28: View from Crothers House, facing southwest toward the project area with
computer-simulated building silhouette..................................................................... 5-6
Figure 29: Lindenwood, facing northwest ................................................................................... 5-8
Figure 30: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward project area........................................ 5-9
Figure 31: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward the project area with
computer simulated building silhouette ..................................................................... 5-9
Figure 32: Woodlands Farm North Complex ............................................................................ 5-12
Figure 33: Woodlands Farm South Complex ............................................................................ 5-12
Figure 34: Farm Fields 1 and 2 (North Complex) and Farm Fields 3 and 4 (South
Complex) within the Woodlands Farm Historic District......................................... 5-13
Figure 35: Woodlands Main House faade and east elevation, facing northeast ...................... 5-15
Figure 36: Woodlands Main House west elevation, facing east................................................ 5-16
17-JUL-14\\
iii
Table of Contents
Figure 37: Bank barn and loafing sheds, north complex south elevation, facing
northeast................................................................................................................... 5-16
Figure 38: Implement shed and granary, south complex south and east elevations,
facing northwest....................................................................................................... 5-17
Figure 39: Springhouse, south complex north and west elevations, facing southeast............... 5-17
Figure 40: Locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion of
MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of the Woodlands
Farm Historic District .............................................................................................. 5-19
Figure 41: Detail: locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion of
the MARC improvements superimposed, on aerial map of the south
complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District boundary.................................. 5-20
Figure 42: Detail: locations of elements of the project and possible future expansion of
the MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of the south
complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, showing buildings to be
demolished highlighted............................................................................................ 5-21
Figure 43: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District, next to Main House facing
southeast toward the project area............................................................................. 5-22
Figure 44: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District next to Main House facing
southeast, toward project area with computer-simulated building silhouette.......... 5-22
Figure 45: Location of NRHP listed and eligible approximate property boundaries and
footprint of MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project elements (red)........... 5-26
Tables
Table 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Site Search Matrix ......................................... 1-4
Table 2: Repositories and Research............................................................................................. 2-2
Table 3: U.S. Non-population Census, Products of Agriculture: Selected Totals,
Average, and Coudon Farms, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District, 1860............. 3-11
Table 4: NRHP Determinations for Historic Properties in the Above-Ground APE ................ 4-14
Table 5: NRHP Listed or Eligible Properties within the Above-Ground Historic
Property APE Evaluations for Criteria of Adverse Effect ......................................... 5-2
Table 6: Contributing and non-contributing resources, north and south complex,
Woodlands Farm Historic District ........................................................................... 5-14
Table 7: Recommended Determination of Effects for the MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility on Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties....................... 5-24
17-JUL-14\\
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE
Area of Potential Effects
APG
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
BMP
Best Management Practices
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CA
Critical Area of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays
DOE
Determination of Eligibility
EA
Environmental Assessment
EUL
Enhanced Use Lease
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIDS
Forest Interior Dwelling Species
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
MARC
Maryland Area Regional Commuter
MHT
Maryland Historical Trust
MIHP
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties
MOW
Maintenance of Way
MTA
Maryland Transit Administration
NEC
Northeast Corridor
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NPL
National Priorities List
NRA
National Recovery Act
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
PW&B
Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad
SEI
Straughan Environmental, Inc.
URS
URS Corporation
U.S.C.
U.S. Code
VA
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
17-JUL-14\\
Executive Summary
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) is proposing to construct a Maryland Area
Regional Commuter (MARC) maintenance facility in Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland. The
proposed project will address MARC needs on the Penn Line, one of three MARC operating
commuter lines, which stretches from Washington D.Cs Union Station to Perryville, MD.
The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that would efficiently serve operation,
maintenance, and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. A new facility would
accommodate current operational needs and projected ridership growth, and allow for future
expansion. The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project would address four specific
needs:
x
x
x
x
Need for additional MARC Penn Line train storage

Need to consolidate maintenance and storage functions for the current MARC system
Need to support ridership growth expected by 2035 and system expansion north of the
Susquehanna River
Because of shared infrastructure, need to support Amtraks Northeast Corridor (NEC)
growth plan and planned expansion of high speed rail
Site selection criteria for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility were developed to evaluate
potential sites. Eleven sites were evaluated based on each sites ability to provide optimal
acreage, engineering feasibility, systems requirements for the railroad facilities, Amtrak
connection requirements, and environmental considerations. MTAs preferred location,
Perryville A, is located in Perryville, MD south of Principio Furnace Road between Firestone
Road and Principio Station Road. The other sites were determined not to meet the projects
purpose and need and/or contain significant environmental, socioeconomic or construction and
operational constraints.
The project will use both state and federal funding. Because federal funding is involved, the
proposed project is subject to a review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The
Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of
Federal undertakings through consultation among Federal agencies and other parties with an
interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of
project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected
by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse
effects on historic properties.
The above-ground historic properties within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site were identified
and evaluated for their potential to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The below-ground historic properties were evaluated in a separate study.
A survey of the project area resulted in the identification of 12 properties that dated back to the
early 19th century, and these properties were evaluated for NRHP eligibility. The evaluation
indicated that eight were not considered eligible for NRHP listing. Three properties, The
17-JUL-14\\
vi
Executive Summary
Anchorage, Crothers House, and Lindenwood, were considered NRHP eligible for their
association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history
(Criterion A) and/or for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction or for possessing high artistic values (Criterion C).
The last property, Woodlands Farm, was listed in the NRHP in 1979. The evaluation of
Woodlands Farm (outlined herein) has resulted in a recommendation that the property be
expanded into a larger NRHP Historic District.
The project was evaluated for its potential to adversely affect the NRHP-listed property and the
three NRHP-eligible properties, and it was determined that the project will have an indirect
adverse effect on The Anchorage, as well as significant direct adverse effects and indirect
effects on the Woodlands Farm Historic District. MTA consultation with the Maryland
Historical Trust, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation regarding the adverse effects on historic properties will be required.
The results of the Section 106 review will be used in the Environmental Assessment that is being
developed for the project.
17-JUL-14\\
vii
Introduction
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
The Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) Northeast Maintenance Facility in Perryville,
Cecil County, Maryland (project), will provide the MARC Penn Line with a maintenance and
storage facility that will accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth, and
planned system expansion.
The purpose of the project is to develop a facility that will efficiently serve operation,
maintenance, and storage requirements of the MARC Penn Line Fleet. The new facility would
accommodate current operational needs, projected ridership growth on the MARC Penn Line,
and allow for expansion in the future.
1.1.1
Description of the Undertaking
Facilities at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be located within an
approximately 60-acre footprint and would include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Servicing and inspection pit that consists of two-tracks, a full-train-length open pit and
multi-level inspection platforms located within two of the trainset storage tracks; the pit
will be covered with a semi-open shed to provide some protection from weather
Semi-permanent building for the storage of parts, supplies, and consumables
At least two semi-permanent buildings for train crews, supervisors, and maintenance and
inspection personnel
Locomotive servicing station equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel
locomotives and non-revenue vehicles that may operate from or cycle through the
proposed facility, and for filling of locomotive sandboxes
Parking area
Fueling and sanding pad
Commercial power substation
Two 20,000-gallon, aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks and fuel truck delivery pad
with spill containment
Access road from Principio Furnace Road to the maintenance facility, as well as access
roadways within the facility
Stormwater management facility
Activities to be performed at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would require
a workforce of 90 during construction of the facility and approximately 30 employees during
operation of the facility for jobs including train crew members, inspectors, car cleaners,
administrative staff, and shop and maintenance staff. During operation, the facility would operate
24 hours per day with peak operations during nighttime hours. Activities would include:
x
x
Daily and periodic inspections and servicing of locomotives and coaches, including
inspection of wheels and brakes, cab signals and sanders of locomotives,
dumping/servicing of on-vehicle toilet systems, and replenishing potable water supplies
Daily locomotive fueling and sanding and inspection of cab signals and brakes
17-JUL-14\\
1-1
Introduction
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Maintenance for coaches such as; interior coach cleaning, replenishing of consumables
and periodic emptying of on-board wastewater treatment systems
Daily inspections of brakes, wheels and truck frames on coaches
Longer period inspections will be done at 180- and 365-day intervals for coaches and
30-, 180- and 365-day intervals for locomotives.
Mid-day Storage for trainsets receiving inspection and servicing
Overnight storage of trainsets
Daily assignments of train crews
Periodic deliveries of diesel fuel, sand, parts, supplies and consumables
1.1.2
Purpose of the Report
The proposed project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) because the project will use federal funds. A
Section 106 initiation letter is provided in Attachment 1. The purpose of Section 106 is to
determine whether a proposed project will have any effect on historic properties. The
implementing regulations for Section 106 are set forth in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of
Historic Properties. As part of the planning process and environmental review for the proposed
MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility, MTA contracted URS Corporation (URS) to provide
Section 106 consultation services. MTA is a division of the Maryland Department of
Transportation.
The information obtained during the reviews that were conducted as part of the Section 106
consultation process will also be used in the development of an Environmental Assessment (EA),
under the authority of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in accordance with NEPA, the
Council on Environmental Qualitys NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the
FTAs Environmental Impact and Related Procedures at 49 CFR Part 622.
The Section 106 consultation process was initiated in December 2013 with a letter from FTA to
the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT), which functions as Marylands State Historic Preservation
Office (Attachment 1). The letter provided an overview of the proposed undertaking, research
and site investigation methodology for above-ground historic and archaeological resources, and a
draft schedule for Section 106 consultation.
This report presents the results of the identification and evaluation of above-ground historic
properties and the determination of effects of the proposed undertaking on these historic
properties. An undertaking is defined in 36 CFR Part 800 as a project, activity, or program
funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including
those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial
assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit license or approval. (36 CFR Part 800, Section
16:15). A report with the results of the archaeological analysis has been submitted separately to
the MHT.
17-JUL-14\\
1-2
Introduction
1.2
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
MTA evaluated potential sites along the NEC corridor to accommodate the proposed MARC
Maintenance Facility. Based on MARC needs, criteria were developed to identify a site to
accommodate a MARC maintenance facility. Minimal criteria included:
x
x
x
x
x
x
A site 60 acres or greater

Directly adjacent to the NEC
Allow for Amtrak connection requirements which include a minimum length of lead
tracks and two points of connection
Minimum storage capacity for current and future Penn Line trains
Space to accommodate a shop facility including inspection pit and sanding facility
A site north of the Susquehanna River to provide a storage facility at the current end of
the Penn Line.
MTA selected eleven preliminary locations that met the minimal criteria. MTA evaluated the
eleven potential locations based on acreage and systems requirements for the railroad facilities,
Amtrak connection requirements, and environmental requirements necessary to accommodate
the proposed MARC Maintenance Facility. Some sites had fatal flaws including environmental
impacts or operational impacts to Amtrak rail service that would prohibit construction at those
locations. Costs were a consideration in potential alternative locations, but costs were not used
as an absolute measure for feasibility of locations. This evaluation was documented in the MARC
Maintenance Facility Site Selection Report, February 2012 for the following sites: Opus,
Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Prologis, Perryville B and Perryville A. Additional sites were
evaluated in 2013 and 2014 and are summarized in Table 1.
17-JUL-14\\
1-3
Introduction
Table 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Site Search Matrix
Aberdeen
New
Proving
Prologis
Chesapeake
Bengies
(south of
Ground
(Site 2)
Site (Site 1)
Trimble Rd) (Superfund
site)
Chelsea
Road Site
(Site 3)
Perryman
Site (Site 4)
Opus
Perryville B
(south of Perryville
(Adjacent
Carpenters
Maryland
A
to Amtrak Point (Site 5)
Blvd in
(Coudon)
M-O-W)
Perryman)
MasonDixon Site
(Site 6)
Provides
additional MARC
train storage
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Allows
Consolidation of
Maintenance &
Storage
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Supports
expected
ridership growth,
NEC growth plan,
& is located north
of Susquehanna
River
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Impacts to
protected Zones
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Impacts to
wetlands (acres)
4.4
4.6
21-Nov
3.3
1.1
3.7
No
1.2
No
0.2
15.9
Superfund Site
No
No
No
yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Site can be
double ended
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Interferes with
Amtrak
operations
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Impacts to
Hydrology
(streams &
wetlands)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Impacts to
forests (acres)
43.9
52.7
8.2
25.1
25.8
5.9
3.4
4.4
2.3
52.7
32
Impacts to
cultural
resources
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Significant soil
contamination
present
No
Potentially
Potentially
Yes
No
No
Potentially
No
Potentially
No
Potentially
51.3
47.3
No
13.4
19.2
1.2
No
No
No
53.4
59
Impacts to
Critical Area
(acres)
No
12.2
No
No
52.7
No
No
No
No
No
Impacts to 100
year Floodplains
(acres)
No
21.9
4.5
1.8
1.3
No
No
No
No
No
No
Significant Noise
Impacts
No
No
Potentially
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Impacts to Rare,
Threatened, or
Endangered
Species - FIDS
Habitat (acres)
17-JUL-14\\
1-4
Introduction
Aberdeen
New
Proving
Prologis
Chesapeake
Bengies
Ground
(south of
(Site 2)
Site (Site 1)
Trimble Rd) (Superfund
site)
Significant earth
moving required
Chelsea
Road Site
(Site 3)
Perryman
Site (Site 4)
Opus
Perryville B
(south of Perryville
(Adjacent
Carpenters
Maryland
A
to Amtrak Point (Site 5)
Blvd in
(Coudon)
M-O-W)
Perryman)
MasonDixon Site
(Site 6)
Potentially
Potentially
No
No
Potentially
Potentially
No
Yes,
berms
No
Yes
Yes
Access to
highways
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Site Access
restrictions
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Construction
timeframe in line
with MTA needs
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Requires
construction of
turnout
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Requires
reconstruction of
roadways/bridges
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Source:MARC Maintenace and Storage Facility Draft Environmental Assessment, 2014
Below are brief descriptions for the 11 evaluated sites; each sites land use and space
characteristics; and each sites pros and cons as presented in the Site Selection Report and
determined in subsequent investigations.
Opus
The Opus Site is located on the east side of the NEC, south of Maryland Boulevard (MD 715)
and north of East Michaelsville Road in Perryman, Maryland in Harford County. The site is
approximately 57 acres and bound on the east side by the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG)
property. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs improvements would be
approximately 48 acres, including an access road that will connect the state highways at the north
end.
The Opus Site would require the construction of two new crossovers in Perry interlocking. This
site location may create possible interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity
improvement work (additional tracks). These conditions are not consistent with the project
purpose and need, specifically Amtraks NEC growth plan. The Opus Site would require
property easements. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility Is $446 Million, not including right-of-way costs.
The Opus Site is located in the vicinity of industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk and would require both Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessments prior to selection of the site. Additional potential environmental
impacts would include impacts to 3.4 acres of forested area (requiring 11.9 acres of
reforestation). The site is located within the Perryman Wellfield Protection Zone and is not
compatible with Harford County zoning restrictions.
17-JUL-14\\
1-5
Introduction
Although the Opus Site has the appropriate acreage required for the MARC Maintenance
Facility, the site location (south of the Susquehanna River) does not meet the projects stated
purpose and need, there are engineering issues adding significant cost to the project,
unacceptable safety and operational problems with Amtrak operations on the NEC, and the
project would result in severe environmental impacts and would be incompatible with Wellfield
Zoning restrictions (Table 1).
Aberdeen Proving Ground

The APG Edgewood Site is located on the south side of the NEC, north of Magnolia Road
(MD 152) and south of Emmorton Road (MD 24). The site is approximately 6,800 feet long and
ranges from approximately 30 feet wide on the railroad tracks to approximately 800 feet wide
and has a total site of approximately 74.1 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by
MTAs facility would be approximately 59 acres. The proposed site is located entirely within
APG, which is federal land and currently under military use. The APG Site would require
construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in MAGNOLIA Interlocking. The APG
Site is located within the vicinity of military/industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk. The APG Site is listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) Database as a Superfund cleanup location.
The site would require 60 acres from APG through an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL). This process
would require coordination with an approval from APG for security clearances; therefore,
construction time is unknown. As a tenant of a superfund site, the MTA may be subject to
liability concerns. An additional 15.1 acres of land would be acquired for utility relocations and
1.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction. The total estimated cost to develop
this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is $529 Million, not including right-of-way
costs.
Additional potential environmental impacts would include impacts to hazardous materials;
wetland areas; 100- and 500- year floodplains; 25.1 acres of forested area (requiring 25.4 acres
of reforestation); and 13.4 acres of Forest Interior Dwelling Species habitat (Table 1).
Although the APG Site has the appropriate acreage, there are engineering issues adding
significant cost to the project and it causes severe impacts to environmental resources protected
under Federal statutes, including Superfund hazardous materials concerns. In addition, the
location is not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically being located south of
the Susquehanna River.
Prologis
The Prologis Site is located on the north side of Amtraks NEC and approximately 1,800 feet
south of Trimble Road in the City of Edgewood, Maryland. The site is approximately 8,200 feet
long and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the railroad tracks to 1,300 feet wide
with a total site area of approximately 73 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by
17-JUL-14\\
1-6
Introduction
MTA would be approximately 56 acres. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a MARC
Northeast Maintenance Facility is $483 Million.
The Prologis Site would require construction of one new crossover and one new turnout in
MAGNOLIA Interlocking. This site requires full acquisition of an industrial property and several
partial residential property acquisitions. Several homes abut the Amtrak right-of-way at the north
end near WOOD Interlocking. Additional train movements may produce noise impacts. Further,
this location may require modification to the MD 152 and MD 24 bridges, if it is found that the
retaining walls required for installation of the lead tracks would be insufficient to support the
abutments.
Construction of the site would require relocation of a stormwater management pond. Additional
environmental impacts include impacts to forested areas (13.2 acres) requiring 16.5 acres of
reforestation; 100- and 500-year floodplain; and 19 wetlands and 6 waterways systems (Table 1).
Although the Prologis Site has the appropriate acreage, there are engineering issues adding
significant cost to the project, stormwater management pond relocation and severe impacts to
environmental resources with significant cost to mitigating these impacts. In addition, the
location is not consistent with the project purpose and need, specifically being located south of
the Susquehanna River.
Perryville B
The Perryville B Site is located on the south side of the NEC, directly east of the IKEA
Distribution Center, and northwest of Furnace Bay in Perryville, Cecil County, Maryland. The
site is approximately 6,500 feet long, and ranges from approximately 30 feet wide along the
railroad tracks to 1,400 feet wide. The site would be adjacent to the existing Amtrak
Maintenance of Way (MOW) base of operations for the personnel and equipment that maintain
the NEC. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs facility would be
approximately 44 acres.
Perryville B would require the complete relocation of the MOW facility (estimated cost of $58
Million) and construction of two new crossovers in Perry Interlocking. This site location may
create possible interference with proposed future Amtrak capacity improvement work (additional
tracks and new Susquehanna River Bridge). These conditions are not consistent with the
projects stated purpose and need, specifically Amtraks NEC growth plan. Perryville B would
require 15.3 acres of full property acquisition (MOW Base), 45.6 acres of partial acquisition
(Ikea Distribution Center) and 15.8 acres of temporary easements. The total estimated cost to
develop this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is $531 Million.
Perryville Site B is located within the vicinity of industrial land uses that may pose a hazardous
materials subsurface contamination risk. Additional potential environmental impacts would
include impacts to 2.3 acres of forested area (requiring 13.6 acres of reforestation); impacts
17-JUL-14\\
1-7
Introduction
within the Critical Area; and potential cultural resources present within and adjacent to the site
(Table 1).
Although Perryville B location meets the projects purpose and need, there are engineering issues
adding significant cost to the project, this location causes unacceptable safety and operational
issues with Amtrak operations on the NEC, and there are significant impacts to environmental
resources.
Perryville A
The Perryville A Site is located on the north side of the Amtrak NEC, south of MD 7 (Principio
Furnace Road), and south and east of the intersection of MD 7 with Broad Street. The proposed
project site is approximately 8,000 feet long and ranges from 30 feet wide along the railroad
tracks to 1,500 feet wide where the access road is proposed and the total site area is
approximately 110 acres. The portion of the site that would be occupied by MTAs
improvements would be approximately 56 acres.
Perryville A is used for agricultural purposes but is zoned medium density residential. The
majority of the site is cleared, providing onsite mitigation for wetland and forest area impacts.
Potential environmental impacts would include less than 1 acre of wetland impacts, 4.4 acres of
forested area impacts and purchase of right-of-way along the edge of a golf course to connect to
the NEC. There is a high potential for full acquisition of historic resources (farmstead) located on
the site. The total estimated cost to develop this site for a MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility
is $355 Million, excluding property acquisition.
The Perryville A Site location meets the projects purpose and need as well as providing land for
wetland and forest area mitigation. However, there would be a significant impact to historic
resources.
New Bengies (Site 1)

The New Bengies Site is located south of the Susquehanna River, on the west side of the NEC
along New Bengies Road in Baltimore, Maryland across from the Martin State Airport
Maintenance Facility. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that
the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3
which is, and will be in the future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically
allow tracks to diverge from an 125 mph track into low speed facilities, so they may require the
construction of a 4th track (Track 4) to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move
onto Track 4 where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC
yard. Track 4 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction
of Track 4 would be costly due to the length of track required, possibly from as far as existing
GUNPOW Interlocking to the site of proposed ESSEX Interlocking, a distance of approximately
5.3 miles, which could result in approximately $133 Million - $177 Million in additional project
17-JUL-14\\
1-8
Introduction
costs. The addition of new, electrified track along the existing Northeast Corridor is estimated to
be approximately $25 Million to $33.33 Million per mile.
There is an existing highway bridge MD Route 43 (Whitemarsh Boulevard) that crosses over the
NEC tracks within Site 1. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the lead
tracks and would therefore add significant cost to the project. Further, this site is constrained to
the north by a large building currently under construction. If Amtrak would allow the lead tracks
to be connected to Track 3, the layout would require modification in order to provide a direct
connection.
Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately 44 acres
of forested area, 4 acres of wetlands, and 51 acres of FIDS habitat. Forest impacts of this
magnitude would require the MTA to comply with the Maryland Forest Conservation Act.
Approval would be contingent upon providing adequate forest mitigation, which is likely 50 to
60 acres. Mitigation costs for large tracts of forest impacts often include the purchase of land for
mitigation and planting or payment into a forest conservation bank.
Construction of a maintenance facility at this site would result in approximately 0.4 acres of
residential property impacts. Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army
Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment. Mitigation costs for these
impacts would likely cost approximately $100,000 per acre, for a total of approximately
$500,000 for this site, not including costs for design or property acquisition.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3 which is, and will be
in the future, the southbound high speed track. The required construction of over five miles of
Track 4 and potential reconstruction of a highway bridge would result in engineering issues
adding significant cost to the project. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to
environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests and wetlands.
Construction of this site for the maintenance facility would also result in impacts to residential
properties.
Chesapeake (Site 2)
The Chesapeake Site (Site 2) is located south of the Susquehanna River, on the east side of the
NEC, just north of where it crosses the Gunpowder River and south of Hoadley Road in
Edgewood, Maryland. This site is part of the Aberdeen Proving Ground and is currently owned
by the US Government.
Access to this site is provided through the APG property. Negotiations regarding access rights
with APG could delay the project for an extended period of time. This site would not be
compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan and the stated purpose and need for the project, in
that the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak
Track 2 in a curve which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak
17-JUL-14\\
1-9
Introduction
would likely not allow this connection with tracks to diverge from 125 mph track into low speed
facilities due to safety concerns. Another option for lead tracks to this site would be placing the
turnout on the existing Gunpowder River Bridge in tangent track, but still in Track 2. This option
would likely be even less acceptable to Amtrak. The only other option for lead tracks to this site
would be to extend existing Track A across the Gunpowder River on a new bridge from
GUNPOW Interlocking to the site, a huge cost that would likely be unacceptable to the State.
Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to unknown hazardous
materials on the APG, 53 acres of forested area, 5 acres of wetlands, 47 acres of FIDS habitat, 22
acres within the 100-year floodplain, and 12 acres within the Critical Area (CA). Forest impacts
of this magnitude would require extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would
be approximately $750,000 to $900,000 for this site. Impacts to wetlands would require
coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the
Environment. Mitigation for wetland impacts would cost approximately $500,000 for this site
(not including costs for design or property acquisition).
Impacts within the 100-year floodplain resulting in added fill material would require
coordination with and a permit from the Maryland Department of the Environment. Increases to
elevations within the floodplain would require extensive coordination with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and potentially the purchasing of floodplain
easements.
Impacts within the CA of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination
with the Critical Area Commission and adherence to the requirements stipulated for work
occurring within the CA. The CA requirements will dictate the type, extent and location of
improvements particularly within the 100-foot buffer. The CA requirements may involve fee in
lieu or plantings to offset impacts.
It is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need,
as the site is south of the Susquehanna River and therefore does not support system expansion
north of the River. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan in that the
lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2 in a
curve which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track, or new lead tracks off
an existing bridge; both options would likely be unacceptable to Amtrak for safety and
operational reasons. There are unknown risks for encountering contaminated materials as the site
is part of the APG. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to environmental
resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests, floodplain, wetlands, and the
CA.
Chelsea (Site 3)
The Chelsea Site (Site 3) is located, south of the Susquehanna River, on Chelsea Road on the
east side of the NEC, just north of where it crosses Bush River in Aberdeen, Maryland. This site
17-JUL-14\\
1-10
Introduction
was previously considered in the initial site search for the 2012 Site Selection Report, and was
eliminated.
in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak may require the construction of the future
4th track, Track 1, to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto Track 1
where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track
1 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC, causing safety concerns.
Construction of Track 1 would likely be very costly due to the length of track required, possibly
as far as from existing BUSH Interlocking to the site of proposed BOOTH Interlocking, a
distance of approximately 4.4 miles. This would add approximately $110 Million to $147
Million project costs for the construction of the tracks required. Also, the north lead track would
require connection to Track 2 (or Track 1) in a curve, which would not be permitted due to the
superelevation of the tracks and the geometry of the turnout. The north lead track would have to
be extended approximately 2 miles northward to reach tangent track near Chelsea Road overhead
highway bridge.
Developing the Chelsea Site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately
26 acres of forested area, 1 acre of wetlands, 19 acres of FIDS habitat, 1 acre within the 100-year
floodplain, and 53 acres within the CA. Forest impacts of this magnitude would require extensive
coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $400,000 for this site,
not including property acquisition.
Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers and
Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint Federal/State Permit, and mitigation. Wetland
mitigation costs would be approximately $100,000 for this site, not including design or property
acquisition.
The addition of fill material in the 100-year floodplain would require a permit from the Maryland
Department of the Environment. Increases to elevations within the floodplain would require
extensive coordination with the FEMA and potentially the purchasing of floodplain easements.
Impacts within the CA of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays would require coordination
with the Critical Area Commission, adherence to CA requirements, and may involve fee in lieu
or plantings to offset impacts.
It is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of the projects stated purpose and need,
as the site is south of the Susquehanna River and therefore does not support system expansion
north of the River. This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that
the lead tracks to a maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 2
which is, and will be in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of
over four miles of Track 4 and an additional two miles to reach a tangent section of track would
result in engineering issues adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts
17-JUL-14\\
1-11
Introduction
with safety and operations. Development of this site would cause severe impacts to
environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes, including forests, floodplain,
wetlands, and Critical Area. Site 3 is therefore not feasible and prudent and is eliminated because
it causes other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of
protecting the Section 4(f) properties.
Perryman (Site 4)
The Perryman Site is located, south of the Susquehanna River, on the west side of the NEC, near
Perryman and Canning House Roads just north of the Bush River. This site was previously
considered in the initial site search for the 2012 Site Selection Report, and was eliminated.
There is an existing bridge crossing (Chelsea Road) that crosses over the NEC tracks within the
Perryman Site. This bridge would need to be reconstructed to accommodate the lead tracks on
the northern end and would therefore add significant cost to the project. Perryman Road (MD
Route 199) would have to be relocated to skirt the proposed facility. This road relocation would
be approximately 7,000 feet in length and could displace residential properties at the south end of
the project.
There is no existing track connection to Amtraks NEC. A new interlocking plant will be
required on the NEC north of the site. The south lead track would enter the NEC within a curve
and would therefore require an approximately 4,800-foot extension southward to reach tangent
track and make a connection to the mainline at the existing Bush interlocking. The interlocking
additions would provide the necessary crossovers to make MARC train movements between any
main line track and a double-ended facility. However, Amtrak has stated it is not in favor of the
addition of a new interlocking in the section of track north of the site because the MARC train
crossover movements would slow Amtrak traffic in what is considered high speed track.
The above highway and track work would result in approximately $25.8 Million to $33.3 Million
in additional project costs for the construction of the tracks required. Developing the Perryman
Site for a maintenance facility would result in impacts to approximately 5.9 acres of forested
area, 3.7 acres of wetlands, and 1.2 acres of FIDS habitat. Forest impacts would require
extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $90,000 for
this site, not including property acquisition. Impacts to wetlands would require coordination with
the US Army Corps of Engineers and Maryland Department of the Environment, a joint
Federal/State Permit, and mitigation. Wetland mitigation costs would be approximately $400,000
for this site, not including design or property acquisition.
In accordance with Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006 (FTA-VA-901003-06), screening distances were applied to the Perryman Site to identify potential noise
impacts. Cranberry Methodist Church is the only cultural resource identified by the MHT. It is
located north of the site, on the west side of Perryman Road (MD Route 159) and falls within the
screening distance and could be potentially impacted by noise. An industrial park is located east
of the site, across the existing Amtrak right-of-way and is currently under construction but would
17-JUL-14\\
1-12
Introduction
not be considered noise sensitive. Single family residential properties are located adjacent to the
site boundary to the north. Approximately thirty two (32) residences fall within the screening
distance and could potentially be impacted by noise from the proposed Perryman Site.
Approximately twenty (20) of the potentially impacted residences are first-row. In the event
Perryman site is selected, a general noise analysis, in accordance with FTA guidelines, may be
required to determine noise impacts to these residences and the Cranberry Methodist Church, and
to explore mitigation options if impacts occur.
While it is not quantifiable, development of this site can be expected to be opposed by the
residents of Perryman and the adjacent settlement of Michaelsville which straddles the NEC.
Recently the Michaelsville residents, the Bush River Community Council, and the Forest Greens
& Perryman Community Association raised concerns about the planned development by MRP
Industrial (MRP Realty) of the Mitchell farm property on the east side of the NEC that was the
site identified as the Opus Site in the site alternatives study for this project. Their stated concerns
essentially match those of the residents around the Perryville Site A.
Although the Perryman Site would avoid impacts to the cultural resources identified at Perryville
Site A, it is not feasible because 1) it is unreasonable to proceed with the alternative in light of
the projects stated purpose and need, 2) it results in additional construction and mitigation costs
of an extraordinary magnitude, 3) Amtrak has stated that it is not in favor of the installation of a
new interlocking in this section of track due to the impact on train speeds and 4) the project
would result in severe environmental impacts.
Carpenters Point (Site 5)

This site is located north of the Susquehanna River, along the east side of the NEC in Perryville,
Maryland south of US 40 and MD 7 intersection, and east of the intersection of Principio
Furnace Road (MD 7) and Baltimore Street (MD 267). The Carpenters Point Site would not be
compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that it is located adjacent to a portion of the twotrack section of the NEC, where both tracks are considered high-speed. The lead tracks to a
maintenance facility at this site would have to diverge from Amtraks Track 2 which is, and will
be in the future, the northbound high speed track. Amtrak may require the construction of the
future 4th track, Track 1, to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto
Track 1 where they can then decelerate to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC
yard. Track 1 would also serve as an acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction
of Track 1 would likely be very costly due to the length of track required, possibly as far as from
existing BACON Interlocking to the site of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of
approximately 5.4 miles (approximately $135 Million to $180 Million1 in additional project
costs), or to existing PRINCE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 6.4 miles ($160 Million
to $213 Million in additional project costs).
At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks. The lead track
would have to be extended approximately 2 miles northward to reach a tangent to make the
17-JUL-14\\
1-13
Introduction
connection to the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million) in additional project
costs. This would also require a significant length of retaining walls and the extension of
(reconstruction) the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two existing
highway bridges that cross over the NEC tracks would need to be reconstructed adding
significant cost to the project.
The south lead track connection to either Track 2 or Track 1 would be made in the vicinity of the
future Amtrak FURNACE Interlocking. This may require additional future costs for relocation of
the MARC turnout to accommodate Amtraks track layout for the interlocking.
This property is currently zoned agricultural; however, the entire site is forested and
undeveloped. Developing this site for a maintenance facility would result in 53 acres of forest
impacts and 53 acres of FIDS habitat impacts. Forest impacts of this magnitude would require
extensive coordination, compliance and mitigation which would be approximately $750,000 to
$900,000 for this site, not including property acquisition.
in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of over five miles of
Track 1, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, potential reconstruction of
two highway bridges, and relocation of the MARC turnout would result in engineering issues
adding significant cost to the project, as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations.
Development of this site would cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under
other Federal statutes, including forests and FIDs habitat.
Mason-Dixon (Site 6)
The Mason-Dixon Site is located north of the Susquehanna River in Perryville, Maryland along
Amtraks NEC, south of US 40 and MD 7 intersection, and just west of the intersection of
Principio Furnace Road (MD 7) and Baltimore Street (MD 267). This site is part of the active
Mason-Dixon Quarry. The total site area needed for improvements to support a MARC
Maintenance Facility at this location is approximately 87 acres.
This site would not be compatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan, in that the site would not
have access to the proposed low-speed third track on the east side of the current two high-speed
tracks. The lead tracks would have to diverge from Amtrak Track 3 which is, and will be in the
future, the southbound high speed track. Amtrak does not typically allow tracks to diverge from
125 mph track into low speed facilities, so they may require the construction of a 4th track
(Track 4) to allow MARC trains to make a high-speed diverging move onto Track 4 to decelerate
to a suitable operating speed for entering the MARC yard. Track 4 would also serve as an
acceleration track for trains entering the NEC. Construction of Track 4 would be costly due to
the length of track required, possibly from as far as the existing BACON Interlocking to the site
of proposed FURNACE Interlocking, a distance of approximately 5.4 miles (approximately $135
Million to $180 Million in additional project costs), or to existing PRINCE Interlocking, a
17-JUL-14\\
1-14
Introduction
distance of approximately 6.4 miles ($160 Million to $213 Million in additional project costs).
Construction of a Track 4 may also be incompatible with Amtraks NEC Master Plan track
configuration, and connections to Track 3 may not be possible in this area.
Amtraks NEC Master Plan shows that the two existing tracks are slated to become the high
speed tracks using the proposed new Susquehanna River Bridge. As part of that project, Amtrak
plans to add a third track, which would be an extension of Track 4 (the track to connect to the
maintenance facility). This would cut off access between the planned low-speed track and the
west side of the NEC.
At this site, the north lead track could not connect into a curve in the tracks to make the
connections to the mainline. The lead track would have to be extended approximately 2 miles
northward to reach a tangent on the mainline (approximately $50 Million to $66.7 Million). This
would also require a significant length of retaining walls and the extension of (reconstruction)
the Baltimore Street and Bladen Street bridges on Route 267. These two existing highway
bridges that cross over the NEC tracks would need to be reconstructed adding significant cost to
the project.
There are unknown risks associated with an existing 750 foot-deep mineral extraction pit that
would require fill and other unknown refill areas on the site that may not be suitable for railroad
loading.
The site proposed is heavily forested with an excavated settling pond at the western end and an
open water area at the eastern end. Construction of a MARC Maintenance Facility at this site
would result in extensive environmental impacts including: 32 acres of forest impacts, 16 acres
of wetlands, 8,240 linear feet of waterways, and 59 acres of FIDS habitat. The extent of the
potential wetlands, waters, and forest impacts are so great the MTA may not be able to obtain the
necessary permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Maryland Department of the
Environment for construction on this site. In addition, mitigation for these impacts could be costprohibitive. Preliminary costs for forest mitigation would be between approximately $450,000
and $600,000 and wetland mitigation would be between approximately $2,080,000 and
$8,320,000, not including land purchase and waterway mitigation.
in the future, the northbound high speed track. The required construction of approximately five
to six miles of Track 4, an additional two miles of track to reach a tangent section, and potential
reconstruction of two highway bridges would result in engineering issues adding significant cost
to the project, as well as potential conflicts with safety and operations. Development of this site
would cause severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes,
including wetlands and waterways, forests and FIDs habitat. There are also unknown risks
associated with the existing mineral extraction site that would have to be filled to develop this
site into a maintenance facility.
17-JUL-14\\
1-15
Introduction
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative proposes no new MARC maintenance facility along the NEC corridor.
This alternative provides a baseline for comparison of the proposed MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility.
Build Alternative (Perryville A Site)

MTAs preferred location for the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility is located in Perryville,
Maryland, south of Principio Furnace Road between Firestone Road and Principio Station Road.
The EA considers the Perryville A site as the Build Alternative. The other alternatives studied in
the Site Selection Report were determined not to meet the projects purpose and need.
As shown in Figure 1, the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility will be north of an
existing Amtrak Maintenance of Way (MOW) Base facility. Other surrounding land uses include
a large IKEA distribution center immediately west of the Amtrak facility. Northwest of the
IKEA facility is a community volunteer fire station, school, and suburban residential
development. A privately owned golf course is east of the proposed project site, and farmland
and rural development are north of the site.
Facilities at the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility would be located within an
approximately 60-acre footprint and would include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Servicing and inspection pit that consists of two-tracks, a full-train-length open pit and
multi-level inspection platforms located within two of the trainset storage tracks; the pit
will be covered with a semi-open shed to provide some protection from weather
Semi-permanent building for the storage of parts, supplies, and consumables
At least two semi-permanent buildings for train crews, supervisors, and maintenance and
inspection personnel
Locomotive servicing station equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel
locomotives and non-revenue vehicles that may operate from or cycle through the
proposed facility, and for filling of locomotive sandboxes
Parking area
Fueling and sanding pad
Commercial power substation
Two 20,000-gallon, aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks and fuel truck delivery pad
with spill containment
Access road from Principio Furnace Road to the maintenance facility, as well as access
roadways within the facility
Stormwater management facility
The project (Figure 2) will support the existing eight trainsets currently operating on MARCs
Penn Line and include construction of the following:
17-JUL-14\\
1-16
Introduction
x
x
x
2-Track, 485 Inspection and Servicing Area Extension dedicated work area
equipped with spill containment for fueling diesel locomotives and non-revenue vehicles
that may operate from or cycle through proposed facility and for sandbox filling for
diesel and electric locomotives.
Train Storage Tracks 17,700 feet of track for train storage, inspection pits, the fueling
and sanding station, turnouts, yard throat tracks to allow trains to change tracks, and
access.
Diesel Fuel Tanks two 20,000 gallon above-ground diesel fuel storage tanks will be
located next to the fueling and sanding station.
Staff Buildings and Parking two semi-permanent buildings to accommodate train
crews, inspectors and car cleaning personnel and for storage of materials and supplies, 40
parking spaces, and two structures over the fueling and sanding station and the inspection
and servicing pit, and sand silo.
Stormwater Management Facility an approximately 3 acre storage pond with a fence.
Approximately 30 employees will work at the facility after the project is complete. Project
development includes ongoing coordination with property owners, surrounding neighbors,
Amtrak, Cecil County, and the Town of Perryville. The public was provided with information on
the proposed project at the first public meeting in October 2013. The informational materials
from this meeting are provided in Attachment 2. The next public meeting is scheduled for spring
2014. If the proposed project is approved, construction is slated to begin in 2016.
17-JUL-14\\
1-17
Source:MTA
Figure 1: MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project location
17-JUL-14\\
1-18
Introduction
Source: MTA
Figure 2: The MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project
17-JUL-14\\
1-19
Introduction
Methodology
SECTION TWO: METHODOLOGY
MTA provided URS with background information on previous MTA-led cultural resource
investigations, documentation, and other project-related materials including photographs, maps,
and other information. URS and its Small Business sub consultant, Straughan Environmental,
Inc. (SEI), reviewed existing background information relevant to this study, including the 1977
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) Form CE145 for Woodlands and
preliminary research, photographs, maps, and other information provided by MTA.
The URS team that conducted this study consisted principally of historians and architectural
historians who exceed the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification Standards cited
in 36 CFR Part 61 in their respective disciplines. Project Manager Mark Edwards and Technical
Lead and Assistant Project Manager Jeff Winstel directed the team of URS Germantown cultural
resource management professionals. Architectural Historians Brian Cleven and Lorin Farris
assisted with research and completed site visits to survey and photo-document historic properties
in the Above-Ground Historic Properties Area of Potential Effects (APE) and developed the
MHT MIHP forms for the surveyed properties and MHT National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) Determination of Eligibility (MHT DOE) forms. SEI Cultural Resource Specialist Sarah
Michailof conducted primary source and chain-of title-property research on the surveyed
properties. Copies of project staff resumes may be found in Attachment 3.
2.1
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Research methodologies targeted repositories with high potential for containing relevant
historical materials. Selection of repositories with the highest potential to contain useful
background information resulted from discussions with MTA staff, URS project staff, and local
property owners, and reviewing past reports and online research catalogs. Data collection
emphasized reviews of historical photographs, maps, accounts, and period descriptions to
document the design, setting, and alterations to the properties in the project area.
Research materials included MIHP forms, photographs, historical newspaper accounts, and
histories related to the project area and buildings or sites in the project area. URS and SEI
reviewed existing background information relevant to the study, including the 1977 Woodlands
MIHP Form CE145 and preliminary research, photographs, maps, and other information
provided by MTA.
The methodology used to research, inventory, and analyze the property follows the Secretary of
the Interiors Guidelines for Historical Documentation (26 CFR 800.4) and the Standards and
Guidelines for Historical and Architectural Investigations in Maryland (MHT, 2000). Research
methods and the results of analysis have been incorporated into new or revised MIHP inventory
forms.
SEI and URS conducted original, primary, and secondary-source research at key historical
repositories in Cecil County, Baltimore, Annapolis, and other locations in Maryland and in
17-JUL-14\\
2-1
Methodology
Washington, D.C. Table 2 provides an overview of recommended research materials with the
names of repositories and brief descriptions of the relevant source material.
Table 2: Repositories and Research
Location
Repository
Resources Located
Baltimore, MD
Enoch Pratt Library
Cecil County vertical files and county histories including

300th Anniversary Commemorative Booklet (1974),
Blumgarts At the Head of the Bay (1996), Cecil County
Reference Book (1956), Johnsons History of Cecil County
(1981), and the 1858 Martenet map (Martinet, 1858) and
1877 Lake, Griffing & Stephenson Illustrated Cecil County
Atlas
Maryland Historical
Society
Same county histories as at Enoch Pratt Library
Historical Society of
Cecil County
Vertical files on agriculture; 1880 Agricultural Census;

postcard and photo files; and additional histories as relevant
Cecil County Public

Library, Elkton Central
Branch
Available local histories or genealogies
Crownsville, MD
Maryland Historical
Trust Library
Archaeological files; 1850 to 1880 Agricultural Census for

relevant district, Cecil County
Washington, D.C.
Library of Congress
Maps including 1799 Hauducoeur map of the head of the

Chesapeake [Bay] and Susquehanna River, 1858 Martenets
Map of Cecil County, 1877 Lake, Griffing & Stephensons
Illustrated Cecil County Atlas, 1900 and 1902 maps of Cecil
County showing agricultural soils, 1908 Post Office
Department Rural Delivery Map, 1950 topographic map
showing election districts
Elkton, MD
All appropriate available published resources were reviewed. Based on desktop research and a
brief field reconnaissance, the following architectural resources in Perryville, Maryland, were
identified and MHT DOE and MIHP long forms were completed due to anticipated direct and
indirect effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project:
x
x
x
x
x
x
The Anchorage (MIHP, CE-1230), 50 Mill Creek Road

Lindenwood (MIHP, CE-700), 1287 Principio Furnace Road
Crothers House (MIHP CE-1566), 79 Chesapeake View Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (MIHP CE-1568), 1906 Principio Furnace
Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (MIHP CE-1567), 1050 Principio Furnace
Road
Woodlands Farm Historic District (MIHP CE-145), current MIHP CE-145, dated 1977,
proposed for expansion to Historic District with 21 contributing resources and 3 noncontributing resources, encompassing approximately 348 acres
17-JUL-14\\
2-2
Methodology
x
x
x
2.2
Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34 (MIHP CE-1563),

Woodlands Farm Lane South over railroad tracks
Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View
Road (MIHP CE-1565), Chesapeake View Road over railroad tracks
Pennsylvania, Washington & Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85 (MIHP CE-1562), 1350
Principio Furnace Road
FIELDWORK
On October 22-24, 2013 and November 12-13, 2013, URS conducted fieldwork consisting of
onsite pedestrian and windshield reconnaissance survey of the above-ground resources, within a
0.25-mile radius of the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE to meet the following objectives:
x
x
x
Observe, identify, and selectively document the characteristics/character-defining

features of properties that appear 50 years or older located within the Above-Ground
Historic Properties APE
Observe, identify, and selectively document properties that are listed or appear to be
eligible for listing in the NRHP, including their existing condition and identifying
thresholds for NRHP integrity
Determine potential boundaries of NRHP-listed or eligible properties in the AboveGround Historic Properties APE
Identify contributing and non-contributing properties for NRHP listed or eligible
properties as needed
Property access was granted to URS by property owners for only a few properties, limiting the
amount of information that could be gathered. URS surveyors took photographs from the public
rights-of-way and used online visual information to complete the survey forms. MTA discussed
with the MHT the inability of URS to gather complete survey information, per MHT survey
guidelines, and the MHT concurred with this alternate approach.
URS prepared written notes, digital photographs, and global positioning system (GPS)
coordinates sufficient to meet MHTs requirements for MIHP form documentation. Photographs
from the NRHP-listed or eligible properties within the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE
were taken toward the project site and from the project site towards the historic properties.
Because of the lack of approval received by URS from property owners to access their
properties, written descriptions of architectural resources cover only exteriors of all buildings
and structures surveyed. URS has produced one set of archival, black and white prints from
digital images, consistent with MHTs Standards for Submission of Digital Images to the
Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MHT, 2008).
URS used information from the 1977 MIHP form for Woodlands (CE-145), additional materials
provided by MTA, and other existing information, including previously conducted research and
surveys to develop a historical context to better understand and evaluate the potential historical
17-JUL-14\\
2-3
Methodology
significance of surveyed resources. The historical context allowed URS to identify and
investigate important themes and overarching economic and social systems that coherently unite
the area. For each surveyed property, work resulted in the following:
x
x
x
A summary Statement of Significance

A determination of period(s) of significance
A recommendation of the NRHP eligibility of each surveyed historic property under
applicable criteria and aspects of integrity
This study was undertaken to determine the NRHP eligibility of buildings and structures
included within the boundaries of the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE. All work
complies with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Identification of Historic
Properties, MHT Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Historical Investigation in
Maryland (MHT, 2000), and General Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of
Eligibility (MHT, 2009) for documentation as noted above.
2.3
EVALUATION OF NRHP ELIGIBILITY
With the information gathered from background research and site visits, URS evaluated the
historic properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE for their NRHP eligibility.
The National Register Criteria for significance define the scope of the NRHP; they identify the
range of resources and kinds of significance that will qualify properties for listing in the National
Register and are written broadly to recognize the wide variety of historic properties associated
with history and prehistory (National Park Service, 2002:1).
Properties can be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A if they are associated with an event or
a series of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Properties may be eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion B if they are associated with the
lives of persons significant in our past. Properties may be NRHP eligible under Criterion C if
they embody the distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction;
represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values; or represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Properties may be
eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is most often applied to
archaeological districts and sites, although it can apply to buildings or structures that contain
important information.
Carrying equal weight with the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation is the propertys historic integrity,
which is defined as the ability of a property to convey its historic significance. The National
Register recognizes the following seven aspects of historic integrity: integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Eligibility for listing in the NRHP
requires that a property retain most if not all of the aspects of integrity, depending on the
application of the criteria.
17-JUL-14\\
2-4
Historic Context
SECTION THREE: HISTORIC CONTEXT
3.1
EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION
In 1608, when Captain John Smith explored the upper Chesapeake Bay for the Virginia
Company of London, the area that is now Cecil County was under the dominion of the
Susquahannocks, a subset of the Algonquians. Captain John Smith wrote that the warriors wore
wolf skins and lived in palisaded villages (Carter, 2006). Other sources commented on their large
size and reputation as capable hunters and fierce warriors (Figure 4).
Approximate location of the

Upper Chesapeake Bay,
Susquehanna River, and other
northern tributaries
Source: National Park Service (http://www.smithtrail.net/captain-john-smith/smiths-maps/)

Figure 3: Captain John Smiths Map of Chesapeake Bay Perryville Area Segment with Susquehanna Figure
1612 (north is right side of image)
In 1632, King Charles I of England presented Cecil Calvert with a charter and ownership of
more than approximately seven million acres of land in the Maryland colony (Weissman, 1986).
In 1633, William Clayborn established the first European settlement in Cecil County at the
17-JUL-14\\
3-1
Historic Context
mouth of the Susquehanna River near Perryville (Johnston, 1881). The next year, the Calvert
family began promoting settlement of the area through the headright system. This system granted
small tracts of water accessible land to colonists who paid for their own passage across the
Atlantic Ocean. The amount of land was typically 50 acres a head (Hunter, 1979).
The Susquehannocks were at their zenith in the 1640s when their population is estimated to have
exceeded 6,000 (Carter, 2006). European explorers, including Captain John Smith, described
them as capable of quickly amassing a large group of warriors. The Susquehannocks were almost
constantly in conflict during most of the 16th century. The Iroquois were often raiding their
settlements, and Susquehannocks fought with the Swedes in Delaware, often armed by the Dutch
in New York (Youssi, 2006).
After a number of skirmishes with settlers in Maryland, war between the English settlers and
Susquehannocks ensued, ending with a treaty in 1652. The treaty provided the Susquehannocks
ammunition, cannon, and men in exchange for their lands west and north of the Chesapeake Bay
including lands eastward from the Choptank to the Elk Rivers (Johnston, 1881). By 1675, the
tribe was decimated by disease, particularly smallpox, and fighting with the Iroquois. The
Iroquois captured and assimilated the last of the Susquehannocks by the end of the century
(Youssi, 2006).
By the 1670s, other Europeans began settling in Cecil County, including Dutch, Finnish, and
Swedish immigrants. Under the leadership of Governor Stuyvesant of New Amsterdam, the
Dutch disputed the boundary between Maryland and Delaware. Augustine Herman was
instrumental in resolving this dispute by producing a detailed map of the region in 1673
(Johnston, 1881). The map drawn by Herman (Figure 5) contains the following description of the
area where the Susquehanna River enters into the Chesapeake Bay:
The great Sufsquahana [sic] River runs up Northerly to the Sinnicus [Senacas]
above 200 miles with diverse Rivers and Branches on both sides to the East and
Welt [sic] full of falls and Mes [sic] until about 10 or 12 miles above the
Susquahanna fort and it runs cleare [sic] but Down wards not Navigable but with
great dangers with Indian Canoos [sic] by Indian Pilots (Herman, 1673).
In return for his mapping services, Herman received 4,000 acres along the eastern shore of the
Chesapeake. These tracts of were called Bohemia and Little Bohemia (Johnston, 1881).
Herman ultimately possessed title to approximately 30,000 acres, primarily in the southern part
of the county. Throughout the 17th century, the region became increasingly settled. In 1674,
Cecil County was created out of Baltimore County.
17-JUL-14\\
3-2
Historic Context
Approximate location
of Susquehanna
River
Source: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division

Figure 4: Virginia and Maryland as it is planted and inhabited this present year 1670 by Augustine Herman,
Published by Augustine Herrman and Thomas Withinbrook, 1673
In 1680, George Talbot, cousin of the second Lord Baltimore, was granted 32,000 acres in
northern Cecil County and parts of Chester County in Pennsylvania in exchange for securing the
border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (Johnston, 1881). His land was known as
Susquehanna Manor. A condition of Talbots land grant required him to import 640 people over
12 years. Most of these people were of Scots-Irish descent and were recruited from northern
Irelands Ulster Plantation.
The Calvert family was Roman Catholic, and the official church of the Maryland Colony was
Anglican. Other forms of Christianity also existed in the county because of settlement patterns
and land ownership disputes. The Jesuits established themselves at Hermans Bohemia Manor in
1704. In 1745, these Jesuit missionaries established a secondary school that is thought to be the
predecessor of Georgetown University (Johnston, 1881). By 1720, Talbot had attracted enough
Scot-Irish settlers that a Presbyterian Church was established in Little Elk Valley.
In 1723, an Anglican missionary complained that the area was filled with a greater number of
dissenters than ever, by reason of these fresh recruits sent up of late from the North of Ireland
(Johnston, 1881:435). A 1737, the Anglican clergy of Maryland presented a petition to the King
of England stating that Marylands Quakers were not satisfied with the established church, and
17-JUL-14\\
3-3
Historic Context
that they had induced some of the inhabitants of Maryland to transfer the acknowledgement of
the right of their lands from Maryland to Pennsylvania (Johnson, 1881:435). The Anglicans in
Maryland were asking for clergy to reside on the border to prevent a recurrence of this trouble
(Johnson, 1881:435). Although the Christian population of the county had become somewhat
diverse, Anglicans retained the social and economic power in the county, including control of the
county courts, prior to the Revolutionary War (Blumgart, 2010).
Source: Penn State University (http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/Claimed%20land.png)

Figure 5: Disputed Areas on Maryland Pennsylvania Border, c. 1673
The struggle to define the northern border of Maryland with Pennsylvania continued into the
18th century (Figure 6). William Penn had received the charter for Pennsylvania in 1681 and the
charter for Delaware in 1682. The Calverts had claimed Delaware for themselves prior to Penns
claim (Johnston, 1881). Penn began issuing patents for land to loyal Pennsylvania settlers and
encouraged them to settle in Talbots land. Both sides continued to attempt to undermine the
other in this manner until the King and the Chancellery Court ultimately became involved. In
1760, an agreement was reached by commissioning Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon to
survey the line. They finished their work in 1766 and established the Mason-Dixon Line, which
remains the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania (Johnston, 1881).
3.2
FARMING AND INDUSTRY
Cecil County attracted farming during the early Colonial era with its fertile soil, well-drained
pastureland, and access to markets due to water transport (Lutz, 1975). Early Cecil County
17-JUL-14\\
3-4
Historic Context
residents, like many Eastern Shore settlers, cultivated tobacco, hoping to realize substantial
profits from the volatile European markets. In 1679, Jasper Danckaerts, a traveler through the
upper part of the Eastern Shore peninsula noted that the principal crop was tobacco (Blumgart,
2010). Sixty-five years later, Dr. Alexander Hamilton found that British grain, as wheat, barley
and oats characterized the farming operation in the area (Lutz) La Rochefoucauld observed By
1760 the northern winter wheat had become famous. This they sent to the Brandywine Mills in
Philadelphia and to Baltimore (Lutz, 8-1).
The English colonized the Eastern Shore and Southern areas of Maryland and grew tobacco.
Germans from Pennsylvania and New York settled in the Piedmont Plateau. While the English
established manors and plantations, the Germans were known for keeping livestock and building
barns to store feed (Trimmer, 1944:7). Records of the Cecil County Orphans Court contain
descriptions of late 18th century farms and plantations. A c. 1790 description of the estate of
Benjamin Walmsley included the following improvements: one log kitchen, one quarter, one
corn house, one old tobacco house, one granary, and one hen house. The old tobacco house is
described as with weather boarding off and part on the granary roof in bad repair, the corn
crib in tolerable repair and the hen house in good repair (Blumgart, 2010:249-50).
Descriptions of these estates written between 1785 and 1800 make clear that by the number of
granaries and corn houses, compared to the number of tobacco houses, that agriculture in Cecil
County was predominately grain, rather than tobacco based (Blumgart).
Cecil County also developed an industrial economy with the 1724 start of production at the
Principio Furnace, the first iron furnace in Maryland and one of the first in the country. The
Principio Furnace produced an estimated 25,000 tons of pig iron exported to England between
1718 and 1755 (Parish, 1971: 8-1). By 1726, the Principio Company expanded its operations to
Virginia through an agreement with Augustine Washington (President Washingtons father)
regarding the supply and shipment of ore from his Virginia Plantation near Accokeek. The
company also built the Kingsbury Furnace in Baltimore and the Lancashire Furnace on the
Patapsco. A description of the 1751 holdings of the company included slaves and livestock [sic]
in abundance; their tracts of land, chiefly woodland, for coaling, were of vast extent, amounting
in the aggregate to nearly 30,000 acres in Maryland (Parish, 8-3).
Another early industry associated with Cecil County was milling. The flow and drop of water in
streams was the principal source of mechanical power in industry until about 1870, when steam
engines began replacing the water wheel. Water milling was typically a rural enterprise that
linked two vital components: a productive agricultural or woodlot area and watercourses for
transporting processed goods to larger population centers for consumption or further processing.
Cecil County straddles the fall line between the coastal plain and the piedmont, and its northsouth waterways are fast-running and suited to producing power for milling (Blumgart, 2010).
Eighteenth century Cecil county residents who took advantage of the emerging grain markets
and the locally abundant supply of water found milling to be a profitable venture. Grist and
merchant mills were constructed throughout the county especially in the southern section
(Parish).
17-JUL-14\\
3-5
Historic Context
Grain was a high-value product that was easier to transport then lumber. The value of grain
increased with high-quality milling, so farmers preferred to take grain to a well-equipped mill
run by a competent miller (Gordon and Malone, 1994: 75). A Cecil County history, published in
1807 and credited to Joseph Scott, stated that Cecil County had 50 saw mills, along with 53 grist,
4 fulling, 2 oil mills, 4 forges, and several rolling and slitting mills. Big Elk and Little Elk Creeks
provided some of the best waterpower in the country, and the area was noted for its numerous
mills (Ewing, 1974).
Merchant John Bateman first patented the land that contains and surrounds the current Coudon
family farm, Woodlands (CE-145). In 1659, Woodlands was part of a 2,200-acre tract. The tract
included Perry Point (where the Perry Point Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center
campus is presently located) and Perry Neck, the historical name of the peninsula of land that is
east of Perry Point between Mill and Principio Creeks (Miller, 1949).
The tract changed hands numerous times during the 18th century, with little indication when
improvements occurred that are apparent in the 1799 Hauducoeur map (Figure 7). In 1710,
Captain Richard Perry of London purchased the tract, and in 1728, ownership transferred to John
Perry, George Perry, Ann Templer, and Dorothy Barren (nephews and nieces of Richard Perry).
In 1729, the land transferred to Phillip Thomas, in 1763 to Phillips son Samuel, and in 1784 to
Richard Thomas (Miller, 1949; Archives of Maryland, 2005). At the time of the first federal
census in 1790, Richard Thomas is listed as a resident of North Susquehanna (Hundred) in Cecil
County. It is unknown whether he resided at Perry Point or elsewhere on his property, but the
census records note that his household includes 9 free white persons and 51 slaves. Phillip
Thomas constructed the mansion known as Perry Point in 1750. The mansion still stands on
the VA campus (Miller, 1949).
The 1799 Map of the Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River is the earliest map of southern
Cecil County that provides information on land ownership and land use. Along Perry Point and
Perry Neck, the Hauducoeur map indicates that R. Thomas is the owner of land. The 1799 map
indicates the location of Post Road as well as New Road, which forms a shorter, northern cut off
Post Road. This map indicates that the area was farmed, with cultivated fields located south of
the Post Road and three structures located in the general vicinity of the present Coudon family
farm complex. In 1800, John Stump purchased Perry Point and Perry Neck from George Gale
(Land Records of Cecil County, 1821-1822).
17-JUL-14\\
3-6
Historic Context
Approximate Area
of Perry Neck
Source: C. P. Hauducoeur (John Carter Brown Library, Brown University

(http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCBMAPS~1~1~2851~101317)
Figure 6: 1799 Hauducoeur Map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay
3.3
REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND RELIGION
Cecil County participated in the Revolutionary War by forming the Bohemia, Susquehanna, and
Elk Battalions (Cecil County History, n.d.). Because of the countys location at the head of the
bay, it was strategically important. General Washington passed through Cecil County on August
25, 1777, to observe the situation in the area, knowing that the English were sailing up the bay.
In 1777, 300 English ships, carrying 15,000 soldiers commanded by General Howe, landed at
Elk River. They made camp at Elkton and outnumbered all of Cecil Countys citizens. People
hid their horses, cattle, and valuables in the woods. After a few days of stocking up on
provisions, the British marched northward to Brandywine and Philadelphia.
Colonel Henry Hollingsworth, in the prime of his life during the Revolutionary War, arranged
for munitions to be manufactured in Cecil County to supply the Continental Army (Johnston,
1881). The Head of the Elk was regarded as a midpoint between the northern and southern
colonies, and Hollingsworth performed the function of commissary when the troops marched
through the village (Johnston). Congress authorized Hollingsworth to manufacture gun barrels
and bayonets and advanced him 500 pounds. Johnson credits Hollingsworth with being the first
17-JUL-14\\
3-7
Historic Context
person that engaged in the manufacture of warlike munitions in this State for the use of its
soldiers (Johnston, 323). Edward Parker, another resident of the county, was commissioned to
supply the army with linen and woolen goods and had 5 looms constantly employed in
manufacture (Johnston, 323).
During the Revolutionary War, the Quakers, being pacifist, did not fight, although this made
some doubt their patriotism. Presbyterians, however, were known for being on the side of the
colonists against the mother country. Johnstons 1881 county history states that:
Their form of church government was eminently democratic, and most, if not all
of them, were the descendants of those who, in some form, had suffered for
conscience sake on the other side of the Atlantic. Hence, it was not strange that
they joined the crusade for liberty, and denounced the encroachments of the
British Parliament with an eloquence and vehemence that would have done credit
to their founder (Johnston, 1881: 438).
Soon after the Revolutionary War, the Coudon family name begins to appear in local histories.
In 1781, Joseph Coudon was appointed lay reader of the North Elk vestry and was chosen curate
of the North Elk Parish in 1785. At that time, Reverend Coudon resided at the plantation near
Elkton (Johnston, 362). The town of Elkton lacked a church, the old chapel being in disrepair,
and the previous cleric preached in a tent erected next to the old chapel. Reverend Coudons
written plea for funds to build a church provides the following description of the town of Elkton.
It has been too long remarked by the numerous travelers that pass through our
village, as well as regretted by the friends of it, that notwithstanding the rapidly
growing importance of the placethe various scenes of industry and exertions it
is noted foramidst the many building that are daily saluting our eyes, and rising
and about to rise to viewthere is no appearance of even an humble building
dedicated to worship and service of the supreme ruler of the universe on whom
we depend for all we have or can hope to enjoy (Johnston).
Coudon was suggesting residents and friends purchase 3-pound subscriptions to fund the church.
The decision of what society of professing Christians it shall principally be appropriate (what
would be the Christian denomination of the church) determined by a vote of subscribers
(Johnston, 364). Johnston writes that Coudons enterprise was a failure owing to the
unpopularity of most of the clergy of the Episcopal church, and the fact that Methodism
prevailed to some extent in the surrounding country (Johnston). The same year an Anglican
churchman published a pamphlet stating, Churchmen not only exclaim against the impositions
of the late establishment, whereby parsons were erected into little popes about the country, but
they still see nothing sacred in the clerical character (Johnston, 437).
Reverand Coudon was ordained in 1787 and installed as rector of the parish. In 1788 he labored
part of the time in St. Augustine parish and in Appoquinimink, Delaware. He had charge of St.
17-JUL-14\\
3-8
Historic Context
Augustine Church in North Elk and St. Anns near Middleton from 1789 to 1792, when he died
(Johnston).
3.4
WAR OF 1812
Similar to many Maryland counties and towns on the Chesapeake Bay, Cecil County was
invaded by the British as part of their Chesapeake Bay campaign. England declared the bays of
the Cheseapeake and Delaware under blockade in December 1812 (Johnston). Admiral Cockburn
commenced with pillaging and plundering the towns along the coasts of the Chesapeake Bay.
Although most of the men in the county had been called up for service in Baltimore, the
remaining men in Cecil County tried to mount defenses, including an observation camp at the top
of Bulls Mountain with a line of military posts that extended to Elkton (Johnston).
In 1813, Admiral Cockburns squadron succeeded in invading and burning Frenchtown,
followed by the destruction of Fredericktown and Georgetown. The British attack on Havre de
Grace across the water resulted in the burning of two-thirds of the towns buildings and rampant
plunder. Fearing the arrival of the French in the upper bay, the British made their way to the
southern areas of the Chesapeake Bay, but people in the northern areas continued to fear
attackes. When news of the Treaty of Ghent reached the area, many of the countys citizens
celebrated (Johnston, 422).
3.5
AGRARIAN REFORM
By the early 19th century, the land in Cecil County was losing nutrients. Destructive farming
methods and slopes of three to nine feet induced erosion and the occasional formation of gullies.
Maryland Governor Thomas Johnson, writing to George Washington in 1791, described the
ravages that common farming methods brought to once-fertile lands:
It has been generally tended that the first two years in tobacco, the third Indian
corn, and sown down in wheat. After this destructive course the land is often
again planted the next year with Indian corn, and sown down again with wheat or
rye, without any assistance. The crops accordingly lessen, till the land becomes so
exhausted that its produce sparely pays for the ploughing [sic] (Blumgart, 2010:
249).
One contemporary commentator blamed grain as much as tobacco for the condition of the soil,
referring to the great Exhausters Maize and Wheat followed by a barely momentary cessation
rom [sic] uninterrupted courses of exhausting corn corps (Blumgart).
By the early 19th century, experimental or scientific farming had become popular in England.
Wealthy gentlemen farmers had the time and money to experiment with new crops, livestock,
and cultivation methods. Farm periodicals, agricultural societies, and exhibitions became popular
ways to highlight new practices and share new methods. In America, not only wealthy farmers
but all classes of farmers developed keen interest in more cost-effective and productive
agricultural practices.
17-JUL-14\\
3-9
Historic Context
A popular and useful new method to improve soil conditions was the addition of a mix of
manure and plaster, which increased yield and quality for both wheat and corn production. This
information spread through newspapers and periodicals, such as the Elkton Press, a generalcirculation newspaper published from 1823 to 1832, which featured the column Farmers
Register, and The American Farmer, a magazine published in Baltimore starting in 1819.
Agricultural experiments that were successful led to new methods, and farming was eventually
revitalized. The use of plaster stiffened the soil, which created a need for more efficient plows
and more manure to lighten the soil. Crop rotation and new fertilizers increased yields. New
harvest machines developed, such as the mechanical reaper (Blumgart). Figure 8 shows
examples of suggested methods for creating and planting on embankments to prevent crop loss
due to flooding.
Source: Farmers Register (1838)

Figure 7: Embankments: High and other land, to prevent them from being
inundated by land-floods, or tide (Farmers Register, 1838:429)
Reverend Joseph Coudons descendants were part of the agricultural and economic prosperity of
the first half of the 19th century in Cecil County. Caroline Whitaker, daughter of Principio
Furnace Companys George Whitaker, married Joseph Coudon II in 1820. Two years later,
Joseph Coudon II purchased a 149-acre parcel north of the Post Road containing Woodlands
from Robert Archer and the portion of Perry Neck south of the Post Road from John Stump
(Land Records of Cecil County, 1832).
The U.S. Non-population Census, Productions of Agriculture in 1860 provides insight into
Coudons farming operations. See Table 3.
17-JUL-14\\
3-10
Historic Context
Table 3: U.S. Non-population Census, Products of Agriculture:
Selected Totals, Average, and Coudon Farms, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District, 1860
District 7
(128 Farms)
Average
Farm
Joseph Coudon
Henry S. Coudon
Improved acreage
8,235 acres
64 acres
100 acres
225 acres
Unimproved acreage
11,591 acres
91 acres
50 acres
87 acres
Cash value of farm
$584,455
$4,566
$7,000
$12,000
Value of slaughtered livestock
$16,919
$132
$120
$250
Value of farming implements

and machinery
$24,876
$194
$500
$500
Value of livestock
$59,875
$468
$700
$1,800
Wheat
25,555 bushels
200 bushels
300 bushels
500 bushels
Indian corn
56,504 bushels
441 bushels
600 bushels
600 bushels
Category
Source: U.S. Census (1860a)
The Coudons were clearly one of the more prosperous farmers in the 7th District of Cecil County
in 1860. They had a higher percentage of improved-to-unimproved land, (Figure 9) their cash
value was nearly double or triple that of the average farm, and the value of their livestock and
production of bushels was appreciably higher than the average farm. Based on the cash value of
the farm, Henry S. Coudons farm was in the top 10 percent of the 128 farms in the district, and
the combined value of the Coudon brothers farms made them the second most valuable farm in
the district. The most valuable farm was John Stumps farm at Perry Point, valued at $20,000 in
1860 (The U.S. Non-population Census, Productions of Agriculture, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th
District, 1860).
Source: W. Coudon Collection

Figure 8: Woodlands Farm, haying
17-JUL-14\\
3-11
Historic Context
3.6
INDUSTRIAL PROSPERITY AND TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION
Cecil Countys economy in the first half of the nineteenth century was an active and prosperous
collaboration of industry, transportation, and agriculture. The opening of the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal in 1829 connected the Chesapeake Bay and the port of Baltimore to the
Delaware River and Wilmington, and the county had a larger market for its goods. An
agricultural building boom followed with new barns, granaries, silos, and dairy houses being
constructed to accommodate the dairy herds and grain harvests, replacing the tobacco houses of
the previous century (Blumgart, 2010). In addition, developing industries took advantage of the
areas abundant natural resources and access to effective transportation systems.
Rock quarrying became a leading Cecil County industry in the area of Port Deposit, farther north
along the Susquehanna River. In the 1830s, Ebenezer McClenahan started a quarry near Fort
Deposit, and his quarry annually increased its output tonnage of cut granite (Blumgart). In 1837,
his business shipped 371,250 metric tons of granite from Port Deposit. The light-draft vessels
that lined the towns wharfs provided inexpensive transport and sent Port Deposit granite as far
south as Richmond, Virginia (Blumgart). Quarried granite was also shipped by rail to markets in
Baltimore and later to Philadelphia and Washington D.C. Although other smaller quarries
opened, none could compete with McClenahans quarry.
Cecil County already had paper milling, initially started to meet the demand for domestic paper
during Colonial times and the English boycott of goods. After iron, the manufacture of paper was
regarded as the most important industry in Cecil County. The first paper-makers in the county
were brothers Samuel and William Meeter, who were the owners of the Providence Paper Mill
on the Little Elk Creek in the early part of the 19th century.
Robert Carters Cecil Paper Mill started in 1816. By mid-century, his son owned the mill, and it
became the first mill in the county to make paper by machine (Ewing). The mill provided all of
the paper to the Baltimore Sun by the last half of the 19th century and was one of several to
establish a mill town in the county. George Childs, editor and proprietor of the Philadelphia
Public Ledger, a daily newspaper that operated from 1836 to 1942, acquired a mill in Cecil
County and greatly increased production, offering a tonnage incentive to workers (Carnegie,
1981.)
The Principio Furnace, owned by George Whitaker, is listed in the 1860 U.S. Non-population
Census, Schedule 5, Products of Industry as having a value of $50,000, which is a little over 10
percent of the $464,985 total value for industry in the 7th District of Cecil County. Newland C.
Comps Door and Sash Manufacturing Company was valued at $80,000, making the Principio
Furnace the second most valuable industry in the district at that time.
The furnace is listed as water-powered and employing 90 men. The average monthly cost of
labor was $1,913. The following material costs are listed for the year: 1,500 tons of limestone,
$2,260; 5,000 tons of ore, $16,450, 160,000 tons of bituminous coal, $9,600, and 2,500 tons of
anthracite coal, $7,750. These numbers do not add up to a profitable year. Multiplying the
17-JUL-14\\
3-12
Historic Context
average monthly cost of labor by 12 months and adding this to yearly costs for raw materials, the
total figure comes to $59,016. With the total value of its annual product at only $50,000, the
industrial operation clearly lost money.
The county had a robust ferry business, and several small rail lines were chartered in the 1830s,
including the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad Company, which was chartered by the
Maryland General Assembly in 1832 (Johnston, 1881). The Delaware and Maryland Railroad
Company was also chartered that year to build a railroad from some point on the Delaware Line
to Port Deposit or some other location on the Susquehanna (Johnston). Work started on this road
in 1836, and the company soon united with the Wilmington and Susquehanna Railroad
Company, chartered by the State of Delaware for making a connection from Pennsylvania
through Wilmington to the Susquehanna River and Maryland. Because the Baltimore and Port
Deposit line actually terminated in Havre de Grace, the Wilmington and Susquehanna terminated
in Perryville. The 1831-chartered Philadelphia and Delaware County Railroad Company
increased its capital and surveyed a line to the Maryland border in 1836 (Johnston).
In 1838, all three companies consolidated under the name of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and
Baltimore Railroad Company. In 1848, the railroad was built through the Perryville area of Cecil
County (Ewing, 1975). The 1858 Martinet Map of Cecil County clearly shows the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company running from Port Deposit, down to Perryville
across Mill Creek and east to Principio Furnace, and running through Joseph Coudons property
(Martinet, 1858).
3.7
POST-CIVIL WAR CECIL COUNTY
During the Civil War, Cecil County played role similar to its role in the Revolutionary War.
Because of its location, the county served as a strategic staging area for Union soldiers and
supplies (Cecil County History, n.d.). At the start of the war, Confederate sympathizers in
Baltimore destroyed the rail lines, making Perryville the farthest south Union soldiers could
travel by train. Ferries lined the shores of the Susquehanna River to serve as transport, and John
Stumps Perry Point became a Union Army base. As in most of Maryland, Cecil County
exhibited divided loyalties, and the Civil War left many scars.
Rail lines from north, south, and west were converging on the area, an important connecting
point to large urban markets such as Philadelphia and Baltimore. In 1866, the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company constructed a single-track wooden bridge over
the Susquehanna River from Perrys Point to Havre de Grace, providing an alternative to the
nearly 30-year-old train ferry service. Reinforcements and additional abutments were added to
the bridge for the next 12 years.
With the Civil War came a huge demand for current news, delivered in newspapers. Even before
the war, public interest in the increasingly heated debate over slavery and the admission of new
states to the Union resulted in a dramatic increase in newsprint prices around 1854. This injected
significant amounts of new capital into the paper industry, resulting in the construction of new
17-JUL-14\\
3-13
Historic Context
mills and the enlargement of old ones (Kravitz, 1979). Prior to the Civil War, Maryland had only
15 paper mills. By 1873, the number increased to 28 mills, which remained the same for the next
20 years. Rags were replaced with chemically treated wood and ground wood, creating new
types of pulp. Today, the paper industry is dominated by pulp as a raw resource (Kravitz).
Unlike most industries, the paper and pulp wood industry did not overwhelmingly convert to
steam power until after the Civil War. In 1870, the paper and wood pulp industry obtained 72
percent of its power from waterwheels, and as late as 1909 still employed 60 percent
waterpower. As in the Colonial era, paper mills still needed large amounts of both power and
water in production, especially with wood pulp grinding and waste disposal (Hunter, 1979).
The 1880 U.S. Census Products of Industry in the 3rd and 4th Election Districts of Cecil County
listed three paper mills: Cecil Paper Mills, Harlan & Bros., and the Public Ledger Company. The
Public Ledger Company mill had a reported capital investment of $100,000, substantially more
than the Cecil Paper Mills ($55,000) and the Harlan Bros. Mill ($10,000). The Public Ledger
reported 70 employees, including five children, and the Harlan Bros. had only 10 employees.
None of the three machines apparently used rags, suggesting their paper was made from wood
pulp. All three were water-powered, as opposed to steam powered.
The U.S. Census of 1880 indicates that the amount of capital invested in iron manufactories in
Cecil County ($550,000) included the blast furnace of George P. Whitaker on the Principio
Creek and the four rolling mills and forges of the McCullough Iron Company in Rowlandville
North East and Westamerell (Johnston, 1881). The former Principio Iron Company became the
Whitaker Iron Company. The companys last furnace opened in 1890 and ceased production
after World War I (Parish, 1971).
3.8
TWENTIETH CENTURY CECIL COUNTY
In the early 1900s, the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company merged with
the Pennsylvania Railroad (Figure 10). The 1903 Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington
Railroad Company First Annual Report, for the Year 1903 (Office of the Secretary, 1903), lists
statistics from 1882 to 1903 indicating the growing profitability of the line. The net earnings
were listed in 1882 as $1,420,180.90 and $2,959,078.66 in 1903. In 1882, the average
expenditure per mile was 1.8 cents, and the average profit per mile was 0.63 cents. By 1903,
both costs and profits were down. The average expenditure per mile was 0.79 cents, and the
profit per mile was only 0.22 cents. The cost per passenger per mile also reflects this trend; in
1882, it was 1.6 cents, of which 0.64 cents was profit. By 1903, the cost per passenger, per mile
remained 1.6 cents, with a 0.43-cent profit per passenger per mile.
In 1903, the railroads profit was almost split between freight and passenger. Revenue from
freight in that year was 47.81 percent of earnings, and passenger travel accounted for 43.69
percent of earnings. Although fruits and vegetables and grain represented sizeable portions of the
total tonnage carried by the line in 1903 (591,070 and 266,892, respectively) the majority of
tonnage was attributable to anthracite coal (1,999,091), bituminous coal (1,156,040), and lumber
17-JUL-14\\
3-14
Historic Context
(1,867,658) (Office of the Secretary, 1903:35-39). In 1905, the Pennsylvania Railroad built a
new station in Perryville. This Colonial Revival station is consistent with a larger pattern of
system upgrades during the railroads golden age (Ewing, 1974).
Source: 1903 Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company First Annual Report, for the
Year 1903, Office of the Secretary
Figure 9: Philadelphia and Baltimore and Washington Railroad Systems and Connections,
January 1, 1904 (northern half of map)
By the close of the 19th century, the family farms and industries that characterized Cecil County
were becoming obsolete. The staggering wheat yields of Midwestern farms, with their large
combines and flat lands, greatly out-produced farms in areas such as Little Elk Creek. The huge
farms of the Midwest were using steam-powered machines that could cut, thresh, and bag wheat
and ship it out by railroad from Chicago or Moline all in one day (Blumgart, 2010). By the turn
of the 19th century, Cecil County farms were still rooted in the tradition of horse-drawn reapers
and binders.
Agricultural production in the 20th century supplied local produce markets in Baltimore and
Philadelphia. Milk, eggs, and other fresh food items were the typical emphasis on farms located
outside large and growing urban areas. In Cecil County, a small canning industry developed
based on local tomato and corn production. Horse -drawn wagons carried the produce to markets
17-JUL-14\\
3-15
Historic Context
or the local cannerysmall facilities that were close to each other and that operated only a few
months each year (Blumgart.).
Joseph Coudon IV purchased The Anchorage and Lindenwold farms in 1919 for sons Joseph V
or George Price Whitaker Coudon, Joseph Coudon Vs grandson, Wilson L. Coudon. There was
a long-standing connection between the Whitaker family and the Coudons as evidenced by the
sons of Joseph Coudon IV, Joseph V and George Price Whitaker Coudon. Against their fathers
wishes, they left the area and farming in the early 20th century to work for the Whitaker Iron
Company, later the Wheeling Steel Corporation, an offshoot of the Principio Furnace Company,
founded by their great-grandmothers father (Coudon, 2013). As referenced above, the Whitaker
Iron Companys production was declining in Cecil County after the 1890s (Parish, 1971). Ore
deposits in the mid-Atlantic area were depleted, and the furnaces of Birmingham, Alabama, the
Great Lakes, and the Ohio Valley region were rapidly beginning to control the metal production
industry. These furnaces could produce huge amounts of iron at a relatively low cost, and the
price of pig iron fell to the point that it was no longer profitable to make (Blumgart, 2010).
When Joseph Coudon IV died in 1940, his heirs had the property appraised. As Figure 11 shows,
the estate was quite large, with a total of 60 buildings. The Anchorage (CE-1230) and the
Lindenwood (Bldg. 14) are identified as Mansions. The Greek Revival-style Coudon family
house (CE-145) in the upper left quadrant is also identified as Mansion (Bldg. No. 1). None of
the buildings south of the Pennsylvania Railroad line in the lower left quadrant are extant.
Attachment 4 contains a copy of the complete appraisal report.
Source: William Coudon Personal Collection

Figure 10: Woodlands Farm Property of Coudon Estate, June 1940
17-JUL-14\\
3-16
Historic Context
The 20th century landscape of Cecil County was greatly affected by World Wars I and II. The
area was developed for armament production and as military bases. Factors that changed the
county between the wars included technological advances that began to harness the countys
resources and the federal governments Depression-era National Recovery Act (NRA). As in
previous periods of armed conflict, the geographic location of the county had strategic
advantages for accommodating troops and providing armaments and provisions. Perry Point, the
Stump family home, was acquired by the federal government to construct the massive Atlas
Powder Company, which manufactured explosives (Blumgart, 2010). See Figure 12.
Source: Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum

Figure 11: Atlas Powder Company
In 1926, after protracted negotiations with the State of Maryland, the Philadelphia Electric
Company started construction on the Conowingo Dam across the Susquehanna River. The
Baltimore-based construction company, Arundel Corporation, was awarded the contract and
4,000 workers poured into Hartford and Cecil counties. Railroad lines were re-routed, and the
impounded lake held back by the dam stretched 14 miles and was approximately one mile wide
(Blumgart.).
With the Depression, many people abandoned the rural life of Cecil County and moved to
Baltimore or Philadelphia in the hope of finding employment. NRA construction projects helped
to create jobs in the county and resulted in the construction of a new Cecil County courthouse, a
new high school, a post office, and the construction of Route 40 and other infrastructure
(Blumgart) World War II brought the U.S. Army and Navy to Cecil County. During the war
years, the countys population tripled (Blumgart). Within one year of the closing of Port
Deposits 1894 Tome Boarding School for Boys, the U.S. Navy purchased the 11-building
17-JUL-14\\
3-17
Historic Context
campus and used it as a training ground for thousands of seamen. The former boarding school
was renamed the Bainbridge Naval Training Center after the commanding officer of the U.S.F.
Constitution. The training ground grew enormously, adding hundreds of barracks, classrooms,
gymnasiums, and mess halls and accommodating 35,000 recruits at its peak.
Triumph Industries, a small fireworks manufacturer in Elkton, began manufacturing explosives,
including land mines. Federal contracts poured in after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and the
former small fireworks manufacturer quickly became over-extended. The federal government
confiscated the company in 1942 and turned it over to a group of Pittsburgh businessmen who
invested $4 million and built approximately 1,000 small self-contained buildings for shell
packing operations (Blumgart). By May 1943, 11,500 workers had moved into Elkton, most of
them women, increasing the towns population threefold. With the lack of housing, insufficiently
stocked stores, and straining infrastructure, on more than one occasion, the Bainbridge Base
Military Police had to assist the Elkton Police Department with maintaining order (Blumgart).
The Elkton United Service Organization (USO) stepped in to administer and manage the town,
serving as a conduit for federal funds and supplies (Blumgart).
After World War II, the county returned to a sense of normalcy. The population declined and
farming returned, although the percentage of cultivated land declined. Light industries began
appearing on the landscape, and pleasure craft began appearing on the bay and the Susquehanna
River as leisure time increased (Blumgart, 159). In 1967, the John F. Kennedy Memorial
Highway (I-95) opened through Cecil County, adding to suburban development by providing
commuter access to Philadelphia and Baltimore.
17-JUL-14\\
3-18
Historic Context
SECTION FOUR: SURVEY RESULTS
4.1 DELINEATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC
PROPERTIES AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is the geographic area or
areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or
use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by
the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused
by the undertaking.
In the project Scope of Work, URS had determined that the effects of the project on aboveground historic properties would be within 0.25 mile of the proposed project, including an
anticipated construction zone and subsequent physical disturbance areas, as shown in Figure 13.
The 0.25-mile distance accounts for direct and indirect effects, including physical, visual, and
noise effects, on historic above-ground properties from the proposed undertaking. Fieldwork,
research, and documentation of viewsheds confirmed this 0.25 mile APE as being the area in
which the potential direct and indirect impacts of the undertaking on the historic above-ground
properties listed or recommended for listing in the NRHP would occur.
17-JUL-14\\
4-1
Source: ESRI World Imagery

Figure 12: Surveyed Properties in the Above-Ground APE
17-JUL-14\\
4-2
Historic Context
Historic Context
4.2 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PROPERTIES IN THE
ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC PROPERTIES APE
In October and November 2013, all properties 50 years old and older within the Above-Ground
Historic Properties APE were surveyed. Twelve properties were identified and photodocumented, and field survey forms were prepared. Research on these properties was conducted
at national and local repositories, including the National Archives and Records Administration,
Library of Congress, MHT, Maryland Hall of Records, Cecil County Historical Society, and
public libraries. In addition, information from a historical context was used to determine the
historical and architectural significance of the properties. MHT DOE forms and MIHP forms for
these properties are located in Attachment 5.
In applying the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, consideration was given to the properties
associative qualities along with individual properties historical integrity. Character-defining
features were determined, and all seven aspects of integrity were considered for each property,
with emphasis on the areas of integrity most relevant to the considered NRHP Criteria. For
properties with an association with significant historical events, trends, or persons, integrity of
association, feeling, location, and setting was important. Properties that evidenced important
examples of architectural or engineering methods, design, or types were evaluated for integrity
of materials, workmanship, and design.
4.2.1
Listing
Properties Not Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible for
Eight of the 12 properties inventoried and researched are not NRHP listed and are considered
ineligible for NRHP listing. These properties are as follows:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Baker House
Baker-Howe House
Bromwell House
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 57-85
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge 58-34
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View
Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55
The eight properties are described below. The four properties that were determined to be NRHP
listed or considered eligible for listing are described in Section 4.2.2.
Baker House (CE - 1561)

The Baker House is located at 1323 Principio Furnace Road, 1.4 miles northeast of Perryville,
Maryland (Figure 14). The property is a 2.5-acre site that has a house, two contemporary
17-JUL-14\\
4-3
Historic Context
outbuildings, and an in ground pool. The property had been part of Lindenwood (CE-700), a
220-acre farm that had belonged to the Coudon family since 1880.
Source: URS
Figure 13: Baker House, facing north
Farm fields and small amounts of low density, residential properties surround the southeastfacing house. The residence sits on a south-sloping ridge above the floodplain of the Chesapeake
Bay. This 1963 split-level house is 50 years old, but research on the property indicates no
historical association that would merit consideration under Criterion A or B. The ubiquitous
nature of the split-level house type and the use of replacement windows indicate the property is
not architecturally significant and is not eligible under Criterion C for architecture. The Baker
House is determined to be ineligible for the NRHP.
Baker-Howe House (CE - 1569)

The Baker-Howe House, located at 2 Mill Creek Road, is a 1.48-acre property with a house, two
contemporary outbuildings, and one temporary carport (Figure 15). The house is a two-story,
wood-frame, split-level constructed in 1966. The house is surrounded by farm fields and some
residential development and is situated on a south-sloping ridge above the Chesapeake Bay
floodplain. The residence sits on a concrete slab foundation and features a medium-pitch, crossgable roof covered with asphalt shingles. The house is clad with stretcher bond brick. The roof
gables are horizontal vinyl siding and contain attic vents. The house has double-hung and
horizontal sliding, vinyl-frame window sashes with brick sills.
17-JUL-14\\
4-4
Historic Context
Source: URS
Figure 14: Baker-Howe House, facing north
This 1966 split-level house is less than 50 years old. Research on the property indicates that it
has no historical association that would merit consideration under Criterion A or B or Criteria
Consideration G, properties that have achieved significance within the last 50 years. The
ubiquitous nature of the split-level house type and the replacement fenestration suggest that the
property is not architecturally significant and does not qualify under Criterion C. The house is
not eligible for NRHP consideration because of its age and lack of architectural significance and
significant historical association.
Bromwell House (CE-1564)

The Bromwell House at 80 Chesapeake View Road and is located on a small knoll with two
other modern residences clustered on the west side of what was once a farm lane (Figure 16).
On the west side of the lane is a barn that is separated visually by a tree line.
The house and two outbuildings are currently at the heart of the Furnace Bay Golf Course,
constructed in 2000. The house has fairways crossing just in front. The house lot contains a
large, wood-frame garage appended to a small brick and stone outbuilding. Dr. R.E. Bromwell
constructed the Bromwell house on a 224-acre farm. After Bromwell died, the farm became the
Friendship Dairy Farm and was owned and run by the Rowland family.
The property no longer represents an agricultural property from the 19th or 20th century.
Additionally, the vinyl siding and vinyl cladding under the eaves and the replacement vinyl
windows compromise the integrity of the design, materials, and workmanship of the house.
Research in Johnstons History of Cecil County (Johnston, 1967) and Blumgarts At the Head of
the Bay (Blumgart, 2010) indicate no association between the residence and persons of historic
significance.
17-JUL-14\\
4-5
Historic Context
Source: URS
Figure 15: Bromwell House, looking west
Although the Friendship Dairy Farm likely sold its products to nearby urban markets and is
perhaps associated with the early 20th century market farming period of Cecil County
agriculture, the current house, barn, and shed on the property have little resemblance to an early
20th century dairy farm. The property is adjacent to low-density suburban development and a
golf course. The Bromwell house is not eligible for NRHP consideration under Criterion A or B
because of the propertys lack of integrity of setting, feeling, and association. The house is not
eligible under Criterion C for architecture because of the vinyl siding and windows that
compromise the houses integrity of design, materials, and workmanship.
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Bridge 57-85 (CE 1652)

Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore (PW&B) Railroad Bridge 57-85, also known as the
1905 Woodlands Farm East Bridge, is an approximately 240 foot-long abandoned farm bridge
that crosses Amtraks Northeast Corridor mainline tracks (Figure 17). Both ends of the bridge
are located in thick woods. The bridge is an extant example of a Warren pony truss span bridge
popular during late 19th and early 20th centuries. Constructed in 1905, the bridge comprises
three, 60 foot-long Warren pony trusses and a 60 foot-long plate girder span, all constructed of
riveted iron. The bridge rests on cut stone block abutments, and metal piers rest on cut stone
foundations. Associated with the working operation of the Woodlands Farm owned by the
Coudon family from 1822 and farmed until 1970, PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85 represents a
17-JUL-14\\
4-6
Historic Context
known historic bridge type and is one of several in the immediate area that spans the tracks and
dates to the first decade of the 20th century.
Source: URS
Figure 16: PW&B Railroad Bridge 57-85, looking southwest
The bridge no longer has integrity of setting, feeling, and association with an agricultural
landscape needed to convey agricultural association under Criterion A, and it is not associated
with persons of historical significance. The bridge is a minor example of a ubiquitous bridge type
common throughout the United States in the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th
century. Its integrity of design, materials, and workmanship has been compromised by the
replacement of the wire mesh on the railings with corrugated metal. The structure does not
possess engineering or design significance and is not eligible under Criterion C for engineering
significance.
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Bridge 58-34 (CE 1563)

PW&B Bridge 58-34, also known as the 1905 Woodlands Farm South Bridge, is an
approximately 300 foot-long abandoned farm bridge that crosses Amtraks Northeast Corridor
mainline tracks (Figure 18). The bridge currently extends from a former access road for
Woodlands Farm Lane South, which is now heavily overgrown with trees, and ends at an IKEA
warehouse distribution center.
17-JUL-14\\
4-7
Historic Context
Source: URS
Figure 17: PW&B Railroad Bridge 58-34, looking southeast
The bridge is an extant example of a Warren pony truss span bridge popular during late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Constructed by the Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad in
1905, the bridge consists of three Warren pony trusses and a girder span, all constructed of
riveted iron. The bridge rests on cut stone block abutments, and the bridges metal piers rests on
cut stone foundations. The bridge is associated with the working operation of the Woodlands
Farm owned by the Coudon family and farmed until 1970. PW&B Bridge 58-34 is an example of
a historic bridge type and is one of several in the immediate area that spans the tracks and dates
to the first decade of the 20th century.
The bridge no longer has the setting and feeling of being part of an agricultural landscape. The
bridge is a minor example of a ubiquitous bridge type common throughout the United States in
from the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. Its integrity of design,
materials, and workmanship has been affected by the replacement of the wire mesh on the
railings with corrugated metal. The bridge lacks sufficient historical integrity to be eligible for
NRHP consideration.
17-JUL-14\\
4-8
Historic Context
Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake View
Road (CE 1565)
The PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying
Chesapeake View Road is an
approximately 120 foot-long Warren pony
truss former farm bridge that crosses
Amtraks Northeast Corridor mainline
tracks (Figure 19). It is located in the
middle of a golf course and now conveys
golfers and their carts from one section of
the course to the other. The bridge is an
extant example of a Warren pony truss
span bridge popular during late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Constructed in 1905,
the bridge comprises two 120 foot-long
trusses constructed of riveted iron and rests
on cut stone block abutments. The bridge
was built as part of a farm lane that
provided access between the farmyard and
the fields to the south. The bridge
represents a known historic bridge type and
is historically associated with the
Bromwell Farm (CE-1564).
Source: URS
Figure 18:PW&B Railroad Bridge Carrying Chesapeake
View Road, looking northwest
The bridge no longer has integrity of

setting, feeling, or association with an
agricultural landscape, and it is not associated with events or persons of historical significance.
The bridge is a minor example of a ubiquitous bridge type common throughout the United States
from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century. Its integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship have been compromised by the replacement of the wire mesh on the railings with
corrugated metal and the installation of metal grating applied to the bridge deck. The bridge is
not considered eligible for the NRHP.
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58 (CE 1567)

The Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, is a T-shaped two-story wood-frame
farmhouse with a full-length hipped roof porch (Figure 20). The residence has a 20-foot setback
from the right-of-way, and the 2.205-acre parcel contains a modern concrete-block garage and a
wood-frame shed. Early 20th century row low-density modern housing is located east of the
house and modern commercial properties are located west and south of the property. The
building was constructed in 1910 as a tenant farmhouse as part of the Woodlands estate. The
house and a 3.2-acre parcel were sold in 1955. The land was subdivided in 1986, reducing the
parcel to 2.205 acres. A meat house was torn down in 1986.
17-JUL-14\\
4-9
Historic Context
Source: URS
Figure 19: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, looking east
Although the Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #58, is associated with the historic
Woodlands Farm (CE-145), it has undergone changes that have sacrificed its historic integrity.
Due to the subdivision and the demolition of the meat house, the property lacks integrity of
setting and feeling. The alterations to the house, including the installation of aluminum siding
and vinyl windows, reconfiguring the chimneystacks and placement of rear additions have
resulted in a lack of integrity of design, workmanship and materials. Woodlands Farm Tenant
House, Building #58, is not considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.
Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55 (CE 1568)

Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, at 1096 Principio Furnace Road has a main house
and four outbuildings: a modern garage, privy, small equipment shed, and modern equipment
building. The house is a two-story, wood-frame American Foursquare constructed in 1900
(Figure 21). The property encompasses a 3.847-acre site and is surrounded by farm fields and
some residential development and is situated on a south-sloping ridge above the floodplain of the
Chesapeake Bay. The house rests on a fieldstone foundation and basement and is clad with
horizontal vinyl siding, one-over-one, double-hung, vinyl-frame windows and a medium-pitch,
pyramid hip roof covered by asphalt shingles.
17-JUL-14\\
4-10
Historic Context
Source: URS
Figure 20: Woodlands Farm Tenant House, Building #55, looking south
This American Foursquare house was constructed as a tenant farmhouse in support of operations
of the Woodlands Farm. Only the house and one of the four outbuildings appear to be historic.
The outbuildings are covered with vinyl siding and the original windows appear to have been
replaced with vinyl sash windows throughout. The property now functions as a veterinary office.
The additional outbuildings and the subdivision of the lot compromise the propertys association
with its historic agricultural function. The use of vinyl in the building modifications has also
compromised the propertys historic integrity. The house and property are not eligible for listing
in the NRHP because of the lack of integrity of setting, association, feeling, design, materials,
and workmanship.
4.2.2
Properties Listed in the NRHP or Considered Eligible for Listing
Three of the properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE are listed in the NRHP. An
additional fourth property -- an expansion of an individual NRHP listed property -- is considered
eligible for NRHP listing. The four properties are as follows:
x
x
x
x
The Anchorage (CE-1230)

Crothers House (CE-1566)
Lindenwood (CE-700)
Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145)
17-JUL-14\\
4-11
Historic Context
URS architectural historians and historians recommend the three previously documented MIHP
and the NRHP properties (The Anchorage [CE-1230], Lindenwood [CE-700], and Woodlands
Farm [CE-145]), continue to be listed in the MIHP and the NRHP.
Three of the four NRHP-eligible properties have associated acreage that is considered a
significant character-defining feature of the historic setting. The Crothers House landscaping
adjacent to the drive and house is a character-defining feature that conveys the design intent of a
large country estate house. A golf course surrounds the Crothers House, and the landscaping is
limited to the 1-acre boundary of the inventoried property. The Woodlands Farm Historic
District and The Anchorage have farmland that is an important character-defining feature for the
properties.
The Anchorage has maintained its original 21-acre farm site that was purchased by Admiral and
Mrs. Lamdin in 1877. The retention of this acreage and its agricultural feeling convey the
historic association of the property with the Lamdin family.
The Woodlands Farm Historic District has extensive amounts of land associated with its historic
use in its past. Of the more than 900 acres identified in the 1940 appraisal, slightly over 400
acres remain. Although the current acreage is sufficient to convey its historic setting, feeling, and
association with the agricultural significance of the farm, further reduction of the acreage and
loss of buildings and structures historically associated with the farming operations will make the
extent and scale of the Coudon family farm and estate less apparent.
The four properties are discussed in more detail in Sections 5.2 through 5.4.
4.2.3
APE
Summary of Properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties
Figure 22 depicts the locations of the 12 properties surveyed and evaluated in the Above-Ground
Historic Properties APE. Properties are color-coded to indicate if they are considered NRHP
listed or eligible, or not, and the proposed boundary for the expanded Woodlands Farm Historic
district is delineated. Figure 21 also indicates the approximate locations of the MARC Northeast
Maintenance Facility. Table lists the 12 properties by name, address, NRHP Criteria considered,
areas of integrity present or absent, and NRHP eligibility recommendations.
17-JUL-14\\
4-12
17-JUL-14\\
4-13
Figure 21: Above-Ground historic properties APE showing NRHP listed or eligible buildings/structures and non-NRHP eligible buildings/structures
Source: ESRI World Imagery
Historic Context
2 Mill Creek Lane
97 Chesapeake View
Road
1287 Principio
Furnace Road
Approx. 1350
Principio Furnace
Road
Approx. 1200
Principio Furnace
Road
97 Chesapeake View
Road
1096 Principio
Furnace Road
1050 Principio
Furnace Road
North side of
Maryland Route 7
Bromwell House
Baker-Howe House
Crothers House
Lindenwood*
Philadelphia, Washington
and Baltimore Railroad
Bridge 57-85
Bridge 58-34
Bridge Carrying
Chesapeake View Road
Woodlands Farm Tenant
House, Building # 55
Woodlands Farm Tenant

House, Building # 58
Woodlands Farm Historic

District*
11
12
*Previously listed in MIHP and or NRHP
10
1323 Principio
Furnace Road
80 Chesapeake View
Road
Baker House
Address
50 Mill Creek Road
Name
The Anchorage*
No.
1
CE-1565
CE-145
CE-1567
A and C
A and C
A and C
CE-1563
CE-1568
A and C
A and C
Criterion
Considered
CE-1562
CE-700
CE-1566
CE-1569
CE-1564
CE-1561
CE-1230
MIHP
No.
Materials, Workmanship,
Design, Association,
Setting, Feeling, Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location,
Setting, Feeling, Location,

Association, Design,
Workmanship, Materials
Location, Design
Location
Location

Association, Design,
Workmanship
Integrity Present
Setting, Feeling
Setting, Feeling
None
Setting, Feeling
Setting, Feeling
Setting, Feeling
Setting
Design, Association
Setting, Feeling,
Association, Design
Setting, Feeling,
Association, Design
None
Materials
Integrity Absent
Table 4: NRHP Determinations for Historic Properties in the Above-Ground APE
17-JUL-14\\
4-14
Eligible, Criteria A
and C
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Eligible, Criterion C
Eligible, Criterion C
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Eligible, Criteria A
and C
NRHP
Historic Context
Determination of Effects
SECTION FIVE: DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
This report concludes that the proposed project will have effects on the NRHP-eligible properties
in the Above-Ground Historic Property APE. The determination of effects is the result of the
application of the criteria of adverse effect as described in 36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of
Adverse Effects. According to the statute, a proposed project has an adverse effect when [the]
undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that
qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of
the propertys location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.
Examples of adverse effects are physical damage or destruction to all or part of the property,
alteration to the property, and moving the property. Indirect effects can also be adverse, such as a
change in the character of the propertys use or elements of its setting, introduction of visual,
atmospheric or audible elements, neglect, change in use, and transfer lease or sale.
Direct effects were determined by overlaying Google Earth Pro satellite imagery, depicting the
locations of historic buildings, with the proposed site plan for the project. Indirect or visual
effects of the proposed undertaking were assessed using computer simulations of the proposed
facility. Building masses were based on footprint information in the site layout plans and threedimensional images in Sketch-Up provided by MTA. Terrain information, orthophotography, and
site photography information were combined to establish perspective views within the 3-D
model using ESRIs ArcScene extension software. Images showing the building masses were
then imported into Adobe Photoshop to blend them into site photographs that were taken from
the NRHP listed or eligible properties facing the proposed project location. An image of the
proposed facility was then inserted into the photograph of the undertaking site taken from the
four properties considered to be eligible for NRHP listing.
The NRHP listed or eligible properties within the Above-Ground Historic Property APE to be
affected by the proposed undertaking are shown in Table 5:
17-JUL-14\\
5-1
Table 5: NRHP Listed or Eligible Properties within the Above-Ground
Historic Property APE Evaluations for Criteria of Adverse Effect
Name
Address
MIHP
No.
Criterion(a)
Considered
Integrity
present
Integrity
absent
The Anchorage
50 Mill Creek
Road
CE1230
A and C
Setting, Feeling,
Location,
Association,
Design,
Workmanship
Material
Eligible,
Criteria A
and C
Crothers House
97
Chesapeake
View Road
CE1566
Setting, Feeling,
Location,
Association,
Design,
Workmanship,
Materials
None
Eligible,
Criterion
C
Lindenwood
1287
Principio
Furnace Road
CE700
Location,
Design
Setting
Eligible,
Criterion
C
Woodlands Farm
Historic District
North side of
Maryland
Route 7
CE145
A and C
Materials,
Workmanship,
Design,
Association,
Setting, Feeling,
Location
None
Eligible,
Criteria A
and C
NRHP
The undertakings direct and indirect effects on each property were evaluated as described in the
following sections.
5.1
THE ANCHORAGE (CE-1230)
The Anchorage is a 22-acre property with associated farm fields and an 1878 Victorian-era
farmhouse, with one historic outbuilding and one non-historic outbuilding (Figure 23). The
property is located on Mill Creek Road, approximately 2 miles north of the proposed
undertaking. The property is considered eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A for
agriculture and Criterion C for architecture. The property appears to have integrity of setting,
feeling, association, location, workmanship, and design. The vinyl windows and other smallscale alterations have detracted from the houses integrity of materials. The proposed
undertaking will have no direct impact on this historic property. No physical destruction or
alteration will directly affect the historic fabric of this property.
17-JUL-14\\
5-2
Source: URS
Figure 22: The Anchorage, main house faade, facing northeast
The proposed undertaking is clearly visible from The Anchorage, creating an indirect effect. The
following photographs were taken from the property looking southeast toward the project site.
Figures 24 and 25 contain a before view toward the project area, and the same view containing a
computer-generated light purple silhouette of the proposed project.
17-JUL-14\\
5-3
Source: URS
Figure 23: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area
Source: URS
Figure 24: From The Anchorage facing southeast toward the project area,
with computer-simulated building silhouette
17-JUL-14\\
5-4
The computer-simulated graphic size and scale is based on 3-D Sketch Up modeling data
supplied by MTA. The image shows that the northeast section of the facility will be visible from
this property. This is an adverse visual effect. The property is significant under Criterion A for
agriculture, and the visual presence of the industrial facility will diminish the existing setting of
the historic property, which is a character-defining feature of its NRHP eligibility.
5.2
CROTHERS HOUSE (CE-1566)
The Crothers House is a large-scale, random ashlar clad, high-style Colonial Revival house
constructed in 1936 (Figure 26). Curved stone sidewalls flank the curving entrance drive, which
is lined with low stone walls. The drive and landscaping choreograph the visitors first
impression of the house, providing a grand view of this country estates main house. The
symmetrically fenestrated core has an eave orientation, classical entry portico with Tuscan
columns, and multi-paned sash windows and five roof dormers. Symmetrically placed side
appendages are recessed with the east appendage consisting of sun porch with sleeping porch
above.
Omar and Margaret Crothers built the house and lived in it for four years. Both went on to serve
as Maryland State senators in the 1950s. The house is not associated with the couples roles as
elected state government officials, but the grand house is considered a significant local example
of high-style Colonial Revival architecture associated with rural estates of the wealthy in the
early 20th century. The property has integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location,
feeling, and association. The house currently functions as the club house for the golf course,
which was built in 2000 and surrounds the building. The property does not retain integrity of
setting.
Source: URS
Figure 25: Crothers House faade facing southeast
17-JUL-14\\
5-5
The proposed undertaking is visible from the Crothers House. Figure 27 and 28 were taken from
the property looking southeast toward the project site. Figure 27 contains a computer-generated
light purple silhouette of the proposed project.
Source: URS
Figure 26: View from Crothers House facing southwest toward the project area
Source: URS
Figure 27: View from Crothers House, facing southwest toward the project
area with computer-simulated building silhouette
17-JUL-14\\
5-6
Figure 28 indicates that a part of the northeast section of the proposed facility will be visible
from the property. Although this is an effect on the integrity of setting, it does not constitute an
adverse effect because of the Crothers Houses current lack of integrity of setting and because of
the houses central location on the golf course. In addition, the significance of the house is
architectural; the houses integrity of design, materials, and workmanship will not be affected by
the indirect effect on a partial and distant view of the proposed facility. The proposed
undertaking does not diminish the buildings integrity of feeling or association as a grand estate
house from the early 20th century. The proposed facility will have has no adverse effect on the
character-defining features of the Crothers House that make it eligible for NRHP listing under
Criterion C for architecture.
5.3
LINDENWOOD (CE-700)
Lindenwood is a c. 1845 Hall and Double Parlor house, a vernacular house type associated with
the Mid-Atlantic cultural region (Figure 29). Levi H. Evans owned the property and built the
house, having purchased the tract, known as Friendship, from Nathaniel Chew. In 1829, the
Maryland General Assembly appointed him as one of a group of commissioners tasked with
locating the country line between Cecil and Harford Counties. Mr. Evans also served as a judge
in the Cecil County Orphans Court in 1850 and 1860. Mr. Evans died in 1868, and the 397-acre
farm was divided between his son and daughter, with his son receiving the house and 220 acres.
Lindenwood is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C. Although Mr. Evans was
involved with local governance there is no indication that he played a significant or important
role in local governance. The house is a local example of a regionally significant early 19th
century house type: the Hall and Double Parlor. Although the house has been altered by the
removal of apparently Victorian-era decorative elements, it is the massing, scale, fenestration
pattern, and roof with double chimney elements that convey its association. These features are
intact, and the house displays integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The integrity of
location is intact, along with the buildings integrity of feeling and association with early 19th
century vernacular architecture. The house lacks integrity of setting, being flanked by modern
split-level houses and having the garage/house building located on the property. Mr. Evans
property is not listed in the U.S. non-population Census, Products for Agriculture in 1850 or
1860. Apparently, Mr. Evans was not a farmer, but the lack of an agricultural setting for the
property does not diminish his historical association with the house or the houses significance as
a vernacular building type reflective of the regions cultural heritage.
17-JUL-14\\
5-7
Source: URS
Figure 28: Lindenwood, facing northwest
The proposed undertaking is visible from Lindenwood. Figures 30 and 31 were taken from the
property looking southeast toward the project site. Figure 31 contains a computer-generated light
purple silhouette of the proposed facility.
17-JUL-14\\
5-8
Source: URS
Figure 29: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward project area
Source: URS
Figure 30: View from Lindenwood, facing south toward the project area
with computer simulated building silhouette
17-JUL-14\\
5-9
Figure 30 shows that almost the entire facility will be visible from the property and will have an
indirect effect on the integrity of setting. However, this is not considered an adverse visual effect
because of Lindenwoods current lack of integrity of setting, being located between two 1960s
spilt-level houses and the converted garage/residence structure on the property. In addition, the
significance of Lindenwood is based on its representation of a vernacular building type.
According to agricultural production records from the U.S. Census, Mr. Evans did not farm any
District 7 Cecil County property. The agricultural setting of the area is not considered a
character-defining feature of Lindenwood. In summary, the proposed facility will have no
adverse effect on the character-defining features of Lindenwood that make it eligible for NRHP
listing under Criterion C for architecture as an intact and important example of a vernacular
building type associated with the Mid-Atlantic cultural region.
5.4
THE WOODLANDS FARM HISTORIC DISTRICT (CE-145)
Woodlands Farm Historic District was listed in the NRHP in 1977, and the nomination included
the Greek Revival main house and the 11 outbuildings adjacent to the main house. The revised
MIHP form expands the nominated property to include 412.5 additional acres historically
associated with Coudon family farming operations and 13 additional buildings or structures.
When the property was appraised in 1940, it consisted of more than 900 acres (Appendix 4).
The Coudon family has owned this land and complex of farm buildings and structures since
1822. The family stopped farming the land in 1970. Woodlands has been associated with the
evolution of Cecil County agriculture throughout the early 19th century through the third quarter
of the 20th century, spanning years that included the early 19th century Agrarian Reform, the
mid-19th century period of prosperity and expansion, and the local market farming economy of
the twentieth century.
The Woodlands Farm Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for
agricultural significance, representing almost 150 years of continued agricultural use of a large
tract of land in the region. The non-population records, slave records, correspondence, and
property appraisals contain information highlighting major components of a local agricultural
history. The number and variety of buildings and structures that are intact represent the role of
tenant farmers and foremen in the transition to a post-bellum, large-scale agricultural operation.
Under Criterion C, the historic district is eligible for architectural significance and as an
important landscape whose individual elements collectively represent a historically significant
unit. The Main House is a locally significant example of Greek Revival style architecture.
Originally, a vernacular side-hall and double parlor house with a rear kitchen ell, the mid-century
prosperity of the farm resulted in a renovation and expansion reflecting the then-popular Greek
Revival style. Although restrained in terms of decorative elements, the stylistic influence is seen
in the attenuated first floor windows and more squat second-floor windows, creating a stately
weighted massiveness associated with a Greek Temple form. The imposing front portico with its
17-JUL-14\\
5-10
large paired Doric columns and full entablature and flat roof clearly associate the house with the
Greek Revival style.
Several outbuildings on the farm also have architectural significance. Bank barns on the farm
typically include vertical board siding, earthen banks and stone retaining walls, threshing floor
doors, and loafing sheds that enclose a feedlot. The variety of the buildings on the farm,
including a roof cellar, a chicken coop, corncribs, and various sheds and tenant houses present an
impressive array of building types.
Overall, the Woodlands Farm Historic District has a high degree of integrity. The individual
buildings, the functional groupings, and the associated farm fields have clear association with a
large family-owned 19th through early 20th century farm. The farms integrity of location,
setting, and feeling are well represented by patterns and process represented by the combined
elements of this cultural landscape. Although some of the buildings have vinyl siding or sections
of vinyl siding, the majority of the buildings, including the principal ones, such as the Main
House, barns and large corn crib, chicken house, and numerous sheds evidence their original
exterior vertical board siding and stone walls along with windows, doors, and roofing materials.
Although the tenant buildings have been vinyl-sided and do not have integrity of material and
workmanship, they are integral parts of the historic landscape of the farm and are considered
contributing resources of the historic district.
Figures 32 and 33 depict the majority of buildings and structures within the north and south
complexes of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, and identify which are considered as
contributing and non-contributing resources. (Attachment 2, Figure 1 within the Woodlands
Farm Historic District MIHP form, located in Appendix 5, shows the location of North
Complexs Tenant House, Tenant House Privy and Tenant House General Utility Shed.) Figure
34 identifies the fields that are being considered as contributing resources within the historic
district.
Archaeological site 18CE383, which is located within and is a contributing element of the
Woodlands Farm Historic District, has been determined eligible by MHT per correspondence
dated June 18, 2014. A full discussion of this site and other archaeological site investigations and
assessments within the district boundary can be found in the archaeological report for this project
and the MHT archaeological site form (Koziarski and Seibel 2014).
17-JUL-14\\
5-11
Source: Google Earth Professional

Figure 31: Woodlands Farm North Complex
Source: Google Earth Professional

Figure 32: Woodlands Farm South Complex
17-JUL-14\\
5-12
Source: URS and ESRI World Imagery

Figure 33: Farm Fields 1 and 2 (North Complex) and Farm Fields 3 and 4 (South Complex) within the
Woodlands Farm Historic District
17-JUL-14\\
5-13
The following table presents a summary of the resources and their status as contributing or noncontributing resources within the Woodlands Farm Historic District (CE-145).
Table 6: Contributing and non-contributing resources, north and south complex, Woodlands Farm
Historic District
North Complex
Contributing Resources
Non-Contributing Resources
Main House (building)
Pool House (building)
Carriage House/Garage (building)
Pool (structure)
Privy (building)
Tenant House General Utility Shed (building)
General Equipment Barn (building)
Managers House (building)
Corncrib (structure)
Ice House/Root Cellar (structure)
Bank Barn with Loafing Shed (building)
Tenant House (building)
Tenant House Privy (building)
Farm Fields 1 (site)
Farm Fields 2 (site)
South Complex
Contributing Resources
Tenant House (building)
Barn and Loafing Shed (building)
Foreman Houses Garage (building)
Bungalow (building)
Foremans House (building)
Meat House (structure)
Chicken House (structure)
Springhouse (structure)
Blacksmith Shop (building)
Bull pen (building)
Bank Barn with Loafing Sheds (building)
Farm Field 3 (site)
Farm Field 4 (site)
Non-Contributing Resources
Tenant Houses Garage (building)
Archaeological site 18 CE379 (site)


North Complex
x Contributing Resources 12
x Non-Contributing Resources 3
South Complex
x Non-Contributing Resources 5
17-JUL-14\\
5-14
Grand Total Entire Historic District
x Non-Contributing Resources - 8
Based on field work and literature analysis, the individual contributing elements in the South
Complex of Woodlands Farm Historic District are not individually eligible for listing in the
NRHP. These buildings, structures and sites do not represent significant or important examples
of their respective type, have not played a significant role in historic events, patterns of events or
have a direct association to a person(s) who made a significant contribution in local history or
recognized field of study or profession. The elements in the South Complex of Woodlands Farm
District contribute to the Woodlands Farm Historic District, but are not individually eligible for
listing in the NRHP.
Figures 35 through 39 are a representative sample of the type and variety of buildings and
structures on the north and south complexes of the Woodlands Farm Historic District. For a more
comprehensive listing of the farms contributing resources, see Attachment 4.
Source: URS
Figure 34: Woodlands Main House faade and east elevation, facing northeast
17-JUL-14\\
5-15
Source: URS
Figure 35: Woodlands Main House west elevation, facing east
Source: URS
Figure 36: Bank barn and loafing sheds, north complex south elevation, facing northeast
17-JUL-14\\
5-16
Source: URS
Figure 37: Implement shed and granary, south complex south and east elevations, facing northwest
Source: URS
Figure 38: Springhouse, south complex north and west elevations, facing southeast
The proposed undertaking is located on farm fields that are contributing resources within the
Woodlands Farm Historic District. The undertaking will have a direct adverse impact on this
17-JUL-14\\
5-17
historic district, resulting in the demolition of 11 contributing buildings or structures and one
contributing historic archaeological site (CE 18CE383) in the Woodlands Farm Historic
Districts South Complex, roughly one-half of the farms total number of contributing resources.
In addition, the projects direct adverse effects will change the character and use of additional
components of this historic district, particularly farm fields 3 and 4, which are historically
associated with the Woodlands Coudon family farm.
As purposefully manipulated contributing landscape elements, the farm fields currently have
integrity of workmanship, design, and materials evidenced by its planted rows, general shape,
buffering vegetation, and access roads. These areas of integrity will be directly compromised by
the proposed facility. The historic district as a whole will also be adversely affected by the
development of the proposed facility. The facility will adversely affect the spatial relationship
and viewsheds between the individual historic resources that contribute to the significance of the
farm. Figure 40 and Figure 41 (in detail from Figure 40) illustrate the locations of the project,
including buildings, structures and tracks, superimposed on a current aerial map of the boundary
and resources within the Woodlands Farm Historic District. Figure 42 clearly highlights the
buildings that will be demolished in the farms south complex as part of the project undertaking.
17-JUL-14\\
5-18
Source: ESRI, URS

Figure 39: Locations of elements of the project and of MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial map of
the Woodlands Farm Historic District
17-JUL-14\\
5-19
Source: ESRI, URS

Figure 40: Detail: locations of elements of the project of the MARC improvements superimposed, on aerial
map of the south complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District boundary
17-JUL-14\\
5-20
Source: ESRI, URS

Figure 41: Detail: locations of elements of the project of the MARC improvements, superimposed on aerial
map of the south complex of the Woodlands Farm Historic District, showing buildings to be demolished
highlighted
17-JUL-14\\
5-21
The proposed facility will also be visible from the main house of the Woodlands Farm Historic
District. Figures 42 and 43 were taken from the Main House looking southeast toward the project
site. Figure 43 contains a computer-generated light purple silhouette of the proposed facility
Source: URS
Figure 42: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District, next to Main House facing southeast toward the
project area
Source: URS
Figure 43: View from Woodlands Farm Historic District next to Main House facing
southeast, toward project area with computer-simulated building silhouette
The computer-simulated image indicates that a low profile and partial sections of the facility will
be visible from the yard through the tree line in front of the Main House of the Woodlands Farm
17-JUL-14\\
5-22
Historic District. It is probable that the MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility will be visible
from several other locations in the north complex of the historic district, including areas that do
not have the vegetation buffer depicted in the above photos. The proposed undertaking will have
both a direct adverse effect and an adverse indirect or visual effect on the character-defining
features of the Woodland Farm Historic District.
5.5
OTHER INDIRECT EFFECTS
As stated previously, adverse indirect effects can include the introduction of atmospheric or
audible elements, including noise, airborne particulate matter, and vibration. Although these
potential effects were not evaluated for this report, they are being evaluated in the EA that MTA
is preparing for the proposed undertaking. Construction at this scale includes short-term,
temporary negative impacts from additional noise, particulate matter, and vibration during the
construction period.
To determine operational noise impacts from the facility, the EA includes a screening and
general rail noise assessment of the proposed undertaking. Noise impacts were determined by the
duration and frequency of the sound, the distance between the sound and the receptor,
intervening natural or manmade barriers or structures and the ambient noise environment. The
noise screening area is defined as a 1,000 feet distance from the MARC Northeast Maintenance
Facility combined with distances of 600 feet from the lead tracks.
The EAs application of the FTAs Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects determined that
Severe Noise Impacts would occur to one property within the Above-ground Historic Property
APE, and Woodlands Farm Historic District. The Tenant House, (identified in the EA as
Farmhouse) located at 65 Woodland Farm Lane South, would experience severe noise impacts
with noise levels increasing from 10 dB(A) over current sound levels. According to the EA,
MTA has proposed to purchase the property and discontinue its use as a residence. The EA
contends that the purchase of this property and discontinuation of the propertys residential
function justifies a recommendation for no noise mitigation for this project.
MTA has not identified the tenant house at 65 Woodland Farm Lane south for demolition
(Figure 42). Although the future use has not been identified, it is clear that a residential use is
not an option. Changing the use of a building is automatically considered an adverse effect
under Section 106; however, the severe noise impacts created by the undertaking will result in an
indirect adverse effect to the Tenant House at 65 Woodland Farm Lane. The propertys integrity
of setting, feeling and association will be diminished. The buildings significance under Criterion
A for association with agriculture will be lost, due to the physical and associative relationship to
the agricultural land use and the historic district as a whole being significantly compromised.
Vibration impact analysis was also completed as a part of the project EA. Vibrations that will be
caused by the running of trains is based on velocity, displacement, track and wheel condition and
acceleration of ground movement. Analysis concluded two properties would experience groundborne noise at levels that are not acceptable, also referred to as noise levels that would exceed the
17-JUL-14\\
5-23
impact criterion. One of the properties is located outside the Above-ground Historic Property
APE and the other property is the Tenant House located in the South Complex of the Woodlands
Farm Historic District (65 Woodlands Farm South) that is slated for purchase by MTA at which
point the property will no longer be utilized as a residence.
The EAs analysis of the Visual Quality (Visual & Aesthetic Environment) noted that the
Amtrak MOW facility, which is located opposite the proposed MARC facility location across the
railroad tracks, produces a relatively high amount of light, which can be seen by residents from
a considerable distance. The proposed lighting for the project will meet MARC operational
needs while minimizing light spillover and glare. Lighting design or the proposed facility will
consider dark sky compliance, using low mast fixtures with shielding, targeted lighting at work
stations and possible landscaping to create screening.
5.6
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS ON ABOVE-GROUND HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Table 6 summarizes the recommended determination of effects for the NRHP listed or eligible
Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties.
Table 7: Recommended Determination of Effects for the MARC Northeast Maintenance
Facility on Above-Ground NRHP Historic Properties
No.
Name
Address
MIHP
No.
Criterion
Affected
Integrity
Compromised
Determination of
Effect
The
Anchorage
50 Mill Creek
Road
CE-1230
Setting, Feeling,
Association,
Indirect Adverse
Effect
Crothers
House
97 Chesapeake
View Road
CE-1566
Setting
No Adverse Effect
Lindenwood
1287 Principio
Furnace Road
CE-700
Setting
No Adverse Effect
17-JUL-14\\
5-24
No.
4
Name
Woodlands
Farm
Historic
District
Address
North side of
Maryland
Route 7
MIHP
No.
CE-145
Criterion
Affected
A and C
Integrity
Compromised
Materials,
Workmanship,
Design,
Association,
Setting, Feeling,
Location
Determination of
Effect
Direct Adverse
Effects: 12
contributing
resources in
Woodlands Farm
Historic District,
South Complex, 3
contributing sites
(fields 3 and 4, and 1
historic
archaeological site
18 CE383); and
overall character of
district; Indirect
Adverse Visual
Effects on remaining
contributing
resources and
districts overall
character; and severe
noise effects on the
South Complex
Tenant House.
Figure 44 illustrates the approximate boundaries of the NRHP listed or eligible properties in
relation to the project area and footprint of the proposed MARC facility.
17-JUL-14\\
5-25
Source: ESRI, URS

Figure 44: Location of NRHP listed and eligible approximate property boundaries and
footprint of MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility project elements (red)
17-JUL-14\\
5-26
Conclusions and Recommendations

SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on analysis of the proposed MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility in Cecil County,
Maryland, this report concludes that the proposed undertaking will result in adverse effects from
the demolition of approximately half the number of contributing resources within the Woodlands
Farm Historic District, and from adverse effects on character-defining features of NRHP listed or
eligible properties in the Above-Ground Historic Properties APE. Section 106 regulations in 36
CFR Part 800 states that adverse effects are to be resolved through continued consultation,
providing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with the opportunity to participate in
consultation. Consulting parties, including the public, will be notified and provided previous
Section 106 consultation information and the opportunity to express their views. If MTA, the
FTA, and the State Historic Preservation Office agree on how the adverse effects will be
resolved, they will execute a Memorandum of Agreement that will stipulate measures of
mitigation.
The direct adverse effect of the undertaking on historic properties results from the demolition of
12 contributing resources located in the Woodlands Farm Historic Districts South Complex, and
impacts on the agricultural fields that currently characterize the project location. Indirect effects
of the undertaking will also compromise the setting of NRHP listed and eligible properties. The
design of earthen berms is currently under evaluation by MTA, and will be carefully coordinated
with the FTA and MHT so as to not create additional indirect effects on the remaining
contributing resources of the Woodland Farm Historic District, and/or other NRHP-eligible
historic properties.
Acceptable measures of mitigation are those that avoid, reduce or offset the undertakings
adverse effect on historic properties. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be developed to
mitigate direct and indirect adverse effects on the NRHP properties as discussed in this analysis.
Mitigation of this effect could be accomplished through a variety of measures, potentially
including the completion of Historic American Building Survey (HABS), Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER), and/or Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS)
documentation of properties that will be demolished. Other educational products, such as
interpretive studies or educational panels, or the preparation of one or more studies focusing on
the countys agricultural and/or landscape history, could also be prepared.
With continued public input and input from the consulting parties and potential signatories of a
MOA, further consultation among the MTA, MHT, and the FTA will occur. Mitigation measures
will be proposed and considered. Agreement on these mitigation measures will lead to the
completion of the Section 106 consultation process for the MARC Northeast Maintenance
Facility.
17-JUL-14\\
6-1
Bibliography
SECTION SEVEN: BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blumgart, Pamela Jones (editor)
2010 At the Head of the Bay: A Cultural and Architectural History of Cecil County,
Maryland. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., Atglen, Pennsylvania.
Carnegie, Dianne
1981 Childs Maryland. Historical Society of Cecil County, unpublished Cecil County
History: An Introduction, Revolutionary War. Electronic document,
www.ccgov.org/tourism/history, accessed December 17, 2013.
Carter, John, Sunbury: A History, Bucknell Environmental Center, Bucknell University 2006.
Electronic document,
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/environmental_center/sunbury/website/
HistoryofSusquehannock Indians.shtml, accessed December 9, 2013.
Cecil County.
1821-1822 Land Records of Cecil County, JS Vol. 19 f. 384.
Cecil County.
1823 Land Records of Cecil County. JS Liber 20 f. 341.
Ewing. Edna
1974 Northeastern Cecil County. 300th Anniversary Commemorative Booklet, Historic
Sketches and Pictures of Cecil County, Maryland.
Ewing, Jean
1975 Perry Point Mansion and Mill. Maryland Inventory of Historical Properties Form CE146, 1975. Electronic document, http://mdihp.net/index.cfm, accessed January 22, 2014.
Farmers Register
1838 Electronic document, https://archive.org/details/farmersregister05ruff, accessed January
22, 2014.
Gordon, Robert B., and Patrick M. Malone
1994 The Texture of Industry: An Archaeological View of the Industrialization of North
America. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hauducoeur, C.P. Hauducoeur map of the head of the Chesapeake Bay, 1799, Available at John
Carter Brown Library, Brown University)
http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCBMAPS~1~1~2851~101317. Accessed
December 21, 2013
Herman, Augustus
1675, Virginia and Maryland, 1673. Published by the Authorities of His Majesties Royal
License and particular Privileges to Augustus Herman and Thomas Withinbrook.
17-JUL-14\\
7-1
Bibliography
Hunter, Louis C.
1979 The Headright System. A History of Industrial Power in the United States, 17801930. Volume I. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic document,
www.u-s-history.com, accessed December 17, 2013.
Johnston, George
1967 History of Cecil County, Maryland and the Early Settlements Around the Head of
Chesapeake Bay and on the Delaware River, with Sketches of some of the told Families of
Cecil County, Originally published in 1881, republished by Regional Publishing Company,
Baltimore.
Kravitz, Beth Donna 1979 The Mills of Providence, Maryland. Bachelor of Arts Thesis,
University of Delaware.
Lutz, George W. III
1975 Little Elk Creek Historic District. Maryland Inventory of Historical Properties Form,
CE-655. Electronic document, http://mdihp.net/index.cfm, accessed January 22, 2014.
Martenet, Simon J.
1858 1858 Martinets Map of Cecil County, Maryland.
Maryland Department of Transportation
2007 MARC Growth & Investment Plan. Electronic document,
http://mta.maryland.gov/sites/default/files/marcplanfull.pdf, accessed January 21, 2014.
Maryland Historical Trust.
2008 Standards for Submission of Digital Images to the Maryland Inventory of Historic
Properties.
2006, Standards and Guidelines for Historical and Architectural Investigations in Maryland
2009, General Guidelines for Compliance-Generated Determinations of Eligibility
National Park Service
2002 National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form,
Washington D.C.
Parish, Mrs. Preston
1971 Principio Furnace. Maryland Inventory of Historical Properties Form CE-112.
Electronic document, http://mdihp.net/index.cfm, accessed January 22, 2014.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington Railroad Company 1903 Philadelphia, Baltimore and
Washington Railroad Company First Annual Report, for the Year 1903, Office of the
Secretary. Philadelphia, Press of Allen Land and Scott.
17-JUL-14\\
7-2
Bibliography
Trimmer, John P.
1944 Agricultural Maryland: A Sketch of Free State Farming. The Maryland Department of
Information, Old Treasury Building, Annapolis, Maryland cooperating with the Maryland
Agricultural Extension Service, The University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
U.S. Census
1860a Products of Agriculture, Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District.
U.S. Census
1860b Products of Industry Cecil County, Maryland, 7th District.
Weissman, Peggy B.
1987 How to Use Historic Contexts in Maryland: A Guide for Survey, Registration,
Protection and Treatment Projects: Preservation Policy White Paper #9. Annapolis
Maryland, Maryland Historical Trust.
Youssi, Adam
2006 The Susquehannocks' Prosperity & Early European Contact, 2006. Electronic
document, www.hsobc.org/on-the-susquehannocks-natives-having-previously-used-what-isnow-baltimore-county-as-hunting-grounds, accessed December 9, 2013.
17-JUL-14\\
7-3

Appendix E - Standing Structures Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix E - Standing Structures Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Transit Administration Section 106 Initiation Letter

MARC Northeast Maintenance Facility Open House, October 2013,

Resumes of Key Personnel

Woodland Farm, 1940 Appraisal

Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Forms and

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Area of Potential Effects

Aberdeen Proving Grounds

Best Management Practices

Code of Federal Regulations

Critical Area of the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays

Enhanced Use Lease

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Forest Interior Dwelling Species

Federal Transit Administration

Maryland Area Regional Commuter

Maryland Historical Trust

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties

Maryland Transit Administration

National Environmental Policy Act

National Priorities List

National Recovery Act

National Register of Historic Places

Pennsylvania, Washington, and Baltimore Railroad

Straughan Environmental, Inc.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Need for additional MARC Penn Line train storage

Description of the Undertaking

Purpose of the Report

A site 60 acres or greater

Source:MARC Maintenace and Storage Facility Draft Environmental Assessment, 2014

Aberdeen Proving Ground

New Bengies (Site 1)

Carpenters Point (Site 5)

Build Alternative (Perryville A Site)

Enoch Pratt Library

Cecil County vertical files and county histories including

Same county histories as at Enoch Pratt Library

Vertical files on agriculture; 1880 Agricultural Census;

Cecil County Public

Available local histories or genealogies

Archaeological files; 1850 to 1880 Agricultural Census for

Maps including 1799 Hauducoeur map of the head of the

The Anchorage (MIHP, CE-1230), 50 Mill Creek Road

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

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

A summary Statement of Significance

EVALUATION OF NRHP ELIGIBILITY

EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION

Approximate location of the

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

Source: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division

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

FARMING AND INDUSTRY

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

REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND RELIGION

Source: Farmers Register (1838)

Cash value of farm

Value of slaughtered livestock

Value of farming implements

Source: U.S. Census (1860a)

Source: W. Coudon Collection

INDUSTRIAL PROSPERITY AND TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION

POST-CIVIL WAR CECIL COUNTY