APPENDIX 1
PJM Generation Interconnection
Combined Feasibility and System
Impact Study Report
Generation Interconnection
Combined Feasibility and System Impact
Study Report
For
PJM Generation Interconnection Request
Queue Position Y1-080
Dorchester 12kV
August 2012
Preface
The intent of the Feasibility Study is to determine a plan, with approximate cost and construction
time estimates, to connect the subject generation interconnection project to the PJM network at a
location specified by the Interconnection Customer. As a requirement for interconnection, the
Interconnection Customer may be responsible for the cost of constructing: Network Upgrades, which
are facility additions, or upgrades to existing facilities, that are needed to maintain the reliability of
the PJM system. All facilities required for interconnection of a generation interconnection project
must be designed to meet the technical specifications (on PJM web site) for the appropriate
transmission owner.
In some instances an Interconnection Customer may not be responsible for 100% of the identified
network upgrade cost because other transmission network uses, e.g. another generation
interconnection or merchant transmission upgrade, may also contribute to the need for the same
network reinforcement. The possibility of sharing the reinforcement costs with other projects may be
identified in the Feasibility Study, but the actual allocation will be deferred until the System Impact
Study is performed.
Study estimates do not include the feasibility, cost, or time required to obtain property rights and
permits for construction of the required facilities. The project developer may be responsible for the
right of way, real estate, and construction permit issues. For properties currently owned by
Transmission Owners, the costs may be included in the study.
General
OneEnergy Cambridge, LLC, the Interconnection Customer (IC), has proposed a 3.38 MWE (1.28
MWC; 3.38 MW MFO) solar powered generating facility to be located near Cambridge, Dorchester
County, Maryland. PJM evaluated the Y1-080 project’s impact on the transmission system by
studying it as a 3.38 MW injection into the Delmarva Power and Light (DPL) system at the Airey
69kV substation. The project was evaluated for compliance with reliability criteria for summer peak
conditions in 2015. The planned in-service date, as stated in the Attachment N, is November 1, 2013.
Attachment Facilities and local upgrades (if required) along with cost, schedule, and terms and
conditions to interconnect Y1-080 will be specified in a separate two party interconnection agreement
between the Choptank Electric Cooperative (CEC) and the Interconnection Customer.
Point of Interconnection
Y1-080 will interconnect with the DPL transmission system at the Airey 69/12 kV substation which
is adjacent to DPL’s West Cambridge-Vienna 69kV circuit. The Airey substation is owned by the
Choptank Electric Cooperative (CEC). The physical interconnection for the Y1-080 project is at the
CEC 12kV distribution system at the Airey substation (see Attachment 1).
Direct Connection Requirements
Transmission Owner Scope of Work
There is no direct connection scope of work for Delmarva Power and Light Company.
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
2
PJMDOCS-#709717-v1
Y1-080 Dorchester 12kV
Interconnection Customer Scope of Work
The Interconnection Customer assumes full responsibility for design and construction of all facilities
associated with the Y1-080 generating station and the direct connection line on the IC side of the
Point of Interconnection.
The IC will be required to install metering and telemetry equipment to provide revenue metering and
real-time telemetry data to PJM. The requirements for this equipment are listed in Appendix 2,
Section 8 of Attachment O to the PJM Tariff, as well as PJM Manuals 01 and 14D. Protective
relaying and metering design and installation must comply with PHI.
Transmission Network Impacts
Potential transmission network impacts are as follows:
Generator Deliverability
(Single or N-1 contingencies for the Capacity portion only of the interconnection)
None
Multiple Facility Contingency
(Double Circuit Tower Line, Line with Failed Breaker and, Bus Fault contingencies for the Full
energy output.
None
Contribution to Previously Identified Overloads
(This project contributes to the following contingency overloads, i.e. “Network Impacts”, identified for earlier generation or transmission interconnection projects in the PJM Queue)
None
Short Circuit
No issues identified.
Stability Analysis
Not required due to project size.
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
3
PJMDOCS-#709717-v1
Y1-080 Dorchester 12kV
New System Reinforcements
(Upgrades required to mitigate reliability criteria violations, i.e. “Network Impacts,” initially caused by the addition of this project’s generation)
None
Contribution to Previously Identified System Reinforcements
(Overloads initially caused by prior Queue positions with additional contribution to overloading by
this project. The costs identified below represent the total to complete the reinforcement, not
necessarily this project’s cost. Actual cost allocations will be deferred until the System Impact Study
is performed.
None
Potential Congestion due to Local Energy Deliverability
(PJM also studied the delivery of the energy portion of the surrounding generation. Any potential
problems identified below are likely to result in operational restrictions to the project under
study. The developer can proceed with Network Upgrades to eliminate the operational restriction at
their discretion by submitting a Transmission Interconnection Request. Note: Only the most severely
overloaded conditions are listed below. There is no guarantee of full deliverability for this project by
fixing only the conditions listed in this section. With a Transmission Interconnection Request, a
subsequent analysis will be performed which analyzes all overload conditions associated with the
identified overloaded element(s). As a result of the aggregate energy resources in the area, the
following violations were identified:
These are not required reliability upgrades.
None
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
4
PJMDOCS-#709717-v1
Y1-080 Dorchester 12kV
Attachment 1
West Cambridge 69kV
Vienna 69kV
Delmarva Power and Light
Choptank Electric Cooperative
M
Airey 69/12kV
Substation
69kV
12kV
Choptank Electric Cooperative
Wholesale Market Participant
To PJM,
DPL, DEC
M
Point of Interconnection for purpose of effectuating sales
of Capacity or energy into PJM’s wholesale markets Point of common coupling with local distribution
system
G
Y1-080
© PJM Interconnection 2012. All rights reserved.
5
PJMDOCS-#709717-v1
Y1-080 Dorchester 12kV
APPENDIX 2
Dorchester County Code and
Permitted Uses
COPY
APPENDIX 3
Dorchester County
Board of Approval
APPENDIX 4
Geotechnical Investigation
[Preliminary]
January 29, 2013
Mr. Mark S. Crissman, PE, PLS
Daft McCune Walker, Inc.
200 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Towson, Maryland 21286
ECS Project No. 02-6558
Reference:
Preliminary Geotechnical Asessment for Solar Panel Field, Bucktown Road,
Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland
Dear Mr. Crissman:
As requested, ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS) has completed our preliminary geotechnical
assessment for the planned solar panel field for the above-referenced site. This work was
performed in accordance with ECS proposal No. 02-13478-P, dated January 10, 2013. This
letter contains our preliminary assessment regarding the suitability of the above-referenced site
to support the proposed development of a solar farm, which is based on our experience with the
site geology and geotechnical studies that we performed at other sites in the vicinity of the
project site.
Project Information
Our understanding of the planned development is based on the information provided to us,
which included the plat survey for the property, as prepared by Tim Marshall & Associates, Inc.
and dated December 17, 2012, as well as several aerial photographs of the site provided by
Daft McCune Walker, Inc. (DMW). Additionally, we have reviewed an aerial photo of the site as
obtained by Google Earth.
The project site is located along the east side of Bucktown Road, to the north of its intersection
with Indian Bone Road, in the Cambridge area of Dorchester County, Maryland. It is our
understanding that the project consists of the construction of a solar panel field. No site plans
or concept plans were available to us at the time this letter was prepared; however, we
understand that the project area covers approximately 25 acres.
Regional Geology
The project site is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, which is
characterized by river and marine sediments deposited during successive periods of fluctuating
river and sea levels and moving shorelines. Generally, deposited sediments thicken from west
to east, toward the Atlantic Ocean. The uppermost sediments are often comprised of
interbedded gravels, sands, silts, and clays.
Solar Panel Field Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment
ECS Project No. 02-6558
January 29, 2013
Page 2
Based on our review of the Geologic Map of Maryland, dated 1968, the natural soils at the
project site are comprised of Lowland Deposits (Qdu) and are described as undifferentiated
gray to buff sand and gravel, gray to brown lignitic silt and clay, occasional boulders and rare
shell beds.
Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment
Based on the provided information, we understand that the project consists of the construction
of a solar panel field; however, no site plans or concept plans were available to us at the time
this letter was prepared. We understand that the site is generally undeveloped and appears to
have been used for agricultural purposes.
Based on our review of the published geologic information of the project site and our experience
with the site geology, it is ECS’ opinion that the site appears to be suitable for the construction
of a solar panel field. ECS did not identify geologic or subsurface soil conditions in the
published information for the project site that would prohibit the development of the site as a
solar panel field. We anticipate that the solar panels will be supported on conventional footings,
shallow piers or a helical pier foundation system.
Closing
This letter has been prepared to provide the Owner and the Design Team with general geologic
information about the project site and preliminary assessment regarding the suitability of the
above-referenced site to support the proposed development of a solar farm. The findings
presented in this report are, of necessity, based on the information made available to us at the time
of the actual writing of the report and the published geologic and soil mapping information for the
project site.
If you have any questions with regard to the information contained in the enclosed letter, or if
you need additional information, please feel free to contact us.
Respectfully,
ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC
Dawn M. Appelbaum, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Hasan M. Aboumatar, Ph.D.; P.E.
Principal Engineer
Professional Certification I hereby certify that these
documents were prepared or approved by me, and
that I am a duly licensed professional engineer
under the laws of the State of Maryland.
License No 29553. Expiration Date: 12/31/2013
APPENDIX 5
FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map
APPENDIX 6
Maryland Department of Environment
Nontidal Wetlands Review
APPENDIX 7
Maryland Historical Trust
Correspondence
Cambridge Solar Project: Phase I Archaeological
Investigation of the Adams Farm at 4919 Bucktown
Road, Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland
Prepared for:
OneEnergy Cambridge Solar, LLC
Prepared by:
Mechelle Kerns, PhD, RPA
Kerns CRM Consultants, LLC
680 Americana Drive, Unit 15
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
September 2013
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Research Design.............................................................................................................................. 9
Results of Archival and Background Research .............................................................................. 9
Past and Present Natural Environments ...................................................................................... 9
Cultural Setting: Prehistoric and Historic Contexts .................................................................. 10
Prehistoric ............................................................................................................................. 10
Historic Context .................................................................................................................... 12
The Choptank Indians of Dorchester County, Maryland ...................................................... 12
Prior Investigations ................................................................................................................... 15
Results of Field Investigations ...................................................................................................... 16
Methods..................................................................................................................................... 16
Soils........................................................................................................................................... 16
South Field Testing Area ...................................................................................................... 19
North Field Controlled Surface Collection ........................................................................... 20
North Field Shoveling Testing .............................................................................................. 24
Summary and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 26
References Cited ........................................................................................................................... 27
Qualifications ................................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix: Scope Of Work............................................................................................................ 31
1
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
List of Figures
Figure 1: Maryland Archeological Research Unit 3 ....................................................................... 4
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map Cambridge, MD (2011) .......................................................... 6
Figure 3: Project Area Setting: Dorchester County, MD ................................................................ 7
Figure 4: Adams Farm Property Tax Map Information .................................................................. 7
Figure 5: Adams Farm Testing Areas, 60 +/- Acres ....................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Plan View of STP .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: USDA Soil Map of Adams Farm Project Area ............................................................. 17
Figure 8: Soil Types for Adams Farm Project Area ..................................................................... 18
Figure 9: Representative Soil Profile from STPs .......................................................................... 18
Figure 10: South Field STPs ......................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11: North Field Controlled Surface Collection Transects ................................................. 20
Figure 12: North Field Testing Area, Facing North ..................................................................... 21
Figure 13: North Field Testing Area, Facing South ..................................................................... 21
Figure 14: North Field Testing Area, Facing East ........................................................................ 22
Figure 15: North Field Testing Area, Facing West....................................................................... 22
Figure 16: Project Area Drainage System .................................................................................... 23
Figure 17: Exposed Soils .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 18: North Field STP Layout .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 19: North Field, Facing North ........................................................................................... 25
Figure 20: North Field, Facing South ........................................................................................... 25
Figure 21: North Field, Facing East .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 22: North Field, Facing West ............................................................................................ 25
2
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Abstract
At the request of Ms. Gia Clark of OneEnergy Cambridge Solar, LLC (hereafter Client), Kerns
CRM Consultants completed a Phase I Archaeological Investigation at the property located at
4919 Bucktown Road, Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland. The proposed testing area is
located approximately 5 miles southeast of the center of Cambridge, Maryland in Maryland
Archeological Research Unit 3-Nanticoke-Wicomico-Manokin-Big Annemessex Drainages. The
property is known as the Adams Farm and contains approximately 365.53 acres of agricultural
land currently under cultivation. The testing area consisted for four individual fields making up
approximately 60 acres. However, the location of the proposed undertaking (within the 60 acres)
has been revised twice and three separate testing events are presented herein. Archaeological
survey consisted of a systematic pedestrian survey, a controlled surface collection on plowed
fields with 100% exposed soils, and traditional shovel testing in areas without exposed soils.
The testing did not identify an archaeological site. No stratigraphic profile presented evidence of
cultural features. Therefore, no future study of this property is warranted, as the planned
undertaking poses no adverse effect to cultural resources.
3
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Introduction
This Phase I archaeological investigation was employed to study the property associated with the
address 4919 Bucktown Road, Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland: the property is known
as the Adams Farm and contains approximately 365.53 acres of land. The proposed testing area
is located approximately 5 miles southeast of the center of Cambridge, Maryland in Unit 3Nanticoke-Wicomico-Manokin-Big Annemessex Drainages (Figure 1). The immediate area in
consists of largely undeveloped land in agricultural use or is wooded with infrequent houses and
farming related structures (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The nearest area of development is a small
municipal airport approximately 1.7 miles to the northwest of the project area. The nearest body
of water is the farthest reaches of an unnamed tributary of the Transquaking River, which
empties into the Fishing Bay and the Chesapeake Bay. A system of drainage ditches divide the
property, which in turn drain into the tributary that runs though the property.
Figure 1: Maryland Archeological Research Unit 3
The goal of this archaeological investigation was to determine the presence or absence of
archaeologically sensitive areas within the proposed project APE (area of proposed effect). The
4
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
objective of this testing was to satisfy the requirements of the Maryland Historical Trust/SHPO
regarding the potential effect on historical properties per Section 106 of the NHPA and the MHT
Act §§ 5A-325 and 5A-326.
The area tested consisted of approximately 60 acres of agricultural fields that are divided by
drainage ditches and buffered by areas of rough vegetation: four fields were tested (see Figure 5).
No archaeological sites were identified.
The Phase I testing and reporting was conducted by Kerns CRM Consultants of Annapolis,
Maryland under the direction of Mechelle Kerns, PhD, RPA (archeologist). John Dysart and
Holly Baldwin of Kerns CRM contributed to this report. Sherri Marsh Johns, MA (architectural
historian), undertook the architectural investigation of the house associated with the property in
March 2013. Qualifications follow at the end of this report.
The report is organized per the suggestions found in the MHT guidelines and contains the
following sections; abstract, introduction, research design, and background research, field
survey, recommendations and qualifications of staff. As no sites were discovered, this report
does not include artifact analysis or a catalog.
5
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS:
4919 Bucktown Road Cambridge, MD 21613
COORDINATES:
Latitude (North): 38.5127000 - 38° 30’ 45.72’’
Longitude (West): 76.0181000 - 76° 1’ 5.16’’
ELEVATION:
9 ft. above sea level
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map Cambridge, MD (2011)
6
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 3: Project Area Setting: Dorchester County, MD
Figure 4: Adams Farm Property Tax Map Information
7
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 5: Adams Farm Testing Areas, 60 +/- Acres
8
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Research Design
Please see the Scope of Work (SOW) in the Appendix for details on the research design.
Results of Archival and Background Research
Past and Present Natural Environments
Maryland and the surrounding states of Delaware and Virginia combine to form what is known
as the Tidewater region because of their many rivers and streams that drain into the Chesapeake
Bay, which is the world’s largest tidal estuary system (Maryland Geological Survey 1936).
Much of Maryland’s topography is conducive to farming except the western-most part of the
state, which is mountainous. The project area is located in northern Dorchester County, 5 miles
south of the city of Cambridge on the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland within the Atlantic
Coastal Plain Province. Dorchester County is situated east of the Chesapeake Bay and west of
the Choptank River basin. The lower Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay is characterized as a
low-lying coastal plain due to its nearly flat terrain with very little topographic relief. “The
coastal plain region comprises one of the largest expanses of coastal wetlands along the MidAtlantic coast with very fine or unconsolidated sands, silts, and clays, or lighter organic material
(marshes), is particularly susceptible to sea level rise-induced erosion” (Johnson 2008, 17). This
region consists of “estuaries and embayments resulting from post-glacial sea-level rise that
drowned the ancestral Susquehanna River and Potomac River downstream of the Fall Zone,
thereby creating the modern Chesapeake Bay, and an emergent Continental Shelf, creating the
barrier islands and coastal bays along the Atlantic shoreline” (Cleaves and Reger 2008, 6). The
physiographic setting is a lowland plain of very low relief (0 to 5 feet) little altered by erosion
classified as the Princess Anne Lowland District by the Maryland Geological Survey (Maryland
Geological Survey 2011).
The natural environment has changed dramatically since occupation by Anglo settlers in the
early 17th century. The area of the Choptank River basin has seen dramatic changes in land use
and cover since the 18th century. Benitez and Fisher found that after 1720, cropland expanded
rapidly due to the use of wheat as a cash crop. Moreover, “…from 1720 to 1775, primary and secondary forest rapidly disappeared, increasing agricultural land to 60% of the region. By
1800, approximately 80% was estimated to be converted to agriculture, and little primary forest
remained… [In] less than 150 years of European colonization resulted in virtually complete
agriculturalization of a primarily forested landscape” (Benitez and Fisher 2004, 219). The
project area has long been in agricultural use. Comparison of the USDA soil survey of the area
and an examination of soils suggest the soils have been truncated by prolonged agricultural
activity, as the first two feet (+/-) of soils should consist of a silt loam but only presented
approximately one foot across the testing area.
9
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Cultural Setting: Prehistoric and Historic Contexts
Prehistoric
The following summaries of regional prehistory of the Potomac River Valley and the MidAtlantic Region have been taken from the works of LeeDecker, Martin, and Friedlander (1988)
and Weinberg, Lawrence and Schopp (2007). The prehistory of the Potomac River Valley and
Mid-Atlantic region has been traditionally divided into three major periods, the Paleo-Indian,
Archaic, and Woodland. A fourth time period, the Contact Period, marks the final phase of
occupation by Native American groups in the Mid-Atlantic region.
Paleo-Indian Period (circa 11,000 to 8,000 B.C.) is characterized by a hunting and gathering
subsistence pattern, followed by small kin-base bands who hunted cold-adapted animals such as
caribou, mastodon, and woodland bison (Weinberg, Lawrence and Schopp 2007). Fish and
foraging for plant resources were also presumably important in their diet. Paleo-Indian finds in
Maryland are poorly represented, with only a few intact sites including the Higgins Site and over
a hundred isolated stone tools found (Dent 1995 and Ebright 1992).
The dependency on area game and plant resources for sustenance required Paleo-Indian peoples
to migrate with the changing seasons, as well with the depletion of area resources. An example
of a Paleo-Indian base camp is the Thunderbird site in Virginia. Smaller, specialized sites, such
as quarries and reduction sites, were used for brief periods by smaller groups than those at base
camps (Dent 1995). The Higgins site Paleo-Indian occupation in Maryland represents a small,
short-term campsite occupied by a highly mobile small band (Ebright 1992).
Archaic Period (circa 8,000 to 1000 B.C.) lifeways are characterized by hunting and gathering of
a variety of food resources within a relatively well-defined territorial area, while continuing the
traditions from the Paleo-Indian Period. Settlements expanded into more diverse environments,
gathering a wide variety of shellfish, fish, game and plant food resources such as nuts, berries,
and roots (Dent 1995). The appearance of the Corner-Notched Tradition (7,500-6000) and the
Bifurcate Tradition (6,800 to 6,000) represent tool style changes characteristic of the Early
Archaic Period.
While the Middle Archaic tool kits continued to resemble those of previous periods, several
types of ground-stone tools were added for processing an expanded resource base. A variety of
grinding tools, such as mortars and pestles, indicate the increased reliance on plants in their diet.
The Late Archaic Period (circa 4,000 to 1000 B.C.) is marked by a greater emphasis on local
resource exploitation. Settlement patterns are found more along interior drainages, with larger
social groupings and increased sedentism (Mouer 1991 and Steponaistis 1980). Regionally,
evidence for permanent housing began to appear at this time (Griffin 1978). The establishment
of extensive trade networks and the introduction of complex mortuary practices are characteristic
10
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
of this period (Thomas 1973). Carved, lug-handled steatite bowls are one of the most noted
types of artifacts to be introduced to the Chesapeake Bay Region, indicating a more sedentary
pattern of existence (Dent 1995 and Tuck 1978).
Woodland Period (circa 1,000 B.C. to A.D. 1600) is better known than the Paleo-Indian and
Archaic Periods. The Early Woodland Period (1,000 - 300 B.C.) represents an increased
sedentary lifestyle for the native population, with larger, long-term sites being serviced by
outlying extraction sites (Mouer 1991). Domesticated cultigens, such as corn, beans, and squash,
together with wild glasses, such as amaranth and chenopodium, where gradually incorporated
into the daily diet. The flaked tool industry reflects Late Archaic technology with small bifaces,
drills, scrapers, and utilized flakes. Antler and bone tools have been recovered as well (Dent
1995). A rapid rise in ceramic technology flourished during the Early Woodland Period. The
earliest ceramics, Marcey Creek wares, were tempered with crushed steatite and formed in a
similar fashion as steatite bowls of the previous period (Mouer 1991). Other types of ceramics,
including Selden Island, Bushnell, and Croaker Landing wares, are possibly distinctive forms for
the Chesapeake Bay area (Custer 1989). Accokeek wares, featuring sand and quartz temper and
coil construction, eventually replaced Marcey Creek ceramics (Steponaitis 1980 and Wright
1973).
The Middle Woodland Period (300 B.C. to A.D. 900) witnessed the continued elaboration of
mortuary practices, including burial mounds and elaborate, exotic ceremonial grave goods
related to the Adena culture (Griffin 1967). These grave practices and goods indicate a shift
from a band level of social organization to complex rank societies, along with the emergence of
extensive trade associations beyond the immediate interior of Maryland. Pottery styles
continued to shift. Popes Creek, a thick-walled, and sand-tempered, net-impressed ware, and
Mockley, a shell-tempered cord-and net-impressed ware, are two dominant styles (Custer 1989,
Dent 1995, Steponaitis 1980 and Wright 1973).
In the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 900 to 1607), settlement patterns begin to reflect permanent
towns with a subsistence base focused on cultivated foodstuffs, such as corn, beans, and squash.
Floodplain locales are the favored locations for villages, based on the availability of fertile
bottomland soils for agricultural practices. Smaller base camps and procurement sites tend to
serve as specialized function sites with periods of multiple re-use. Ceramic diversity continues,
with a variety of motifs likely associated with the borrowing of designs from other societies
through established trade networks. Food sources were diverse and plentiful, including shellfish
and anadromous fish, nuts, starchy tubers, amaranth and goosefoot (Dent 1995).
The Contact Period (A.D. 1607 to A.D. 1750) saw the arrival of the first substantial number of
Europeans marking the beginning of the Contact Period. Shortly after the settlement of the
Jamestown Colony in 1607, explorers and traders established regular contacts with the native
11
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
inhabitants in the Chesapeake Tidewater when several trade centers were established. The
Contact Period ended with the near extinction of Native American lifeways in the Middle
Atlantic region with the exception of a few remnant groups.
Historic Context
In March of 1634, settlers from England landed at an island inhabited by North American
Indians in what became the colony of Maryland. They had a charter for a new colony from the
King of England and their leader, Leonard Calvert made treaties with the Indians and built a fort
from which grew the settlement of St Mary’s City. As the number of inhabitants grew, settlers moved north into what would become Dorchester County by 1669 (Maryland State Archives
2013). The Nanticoke Indians lived in this region and that same year a “reservation” was established near Cambridge to foster a peaceable existence between the natives and the colonist.
The Choptank Indians of Dorchester County, Maryland
Records suggest that the subject area is in the vicinity of land once occupied by the Nanticoke
Indians, most specifically a subgroup known as the Choptank River Indians (appendix. In the
18th century, the Maryland Assembly established a reservation for the Choptank who elected to
remain in the area during a period of relocation away from the encroaching Anglo settlements.
The Choptank Indians were an Algonquian-speaking tribe of the Late Woodland Indians and
most likely associated with the Slaughter Creek complex who were identified as using Townsend
pottery (Shaffer 2005:150). The Choptank tribe dwelled on the south side of the Choptank River
in what is now known as Dorchester County, Maryland. The Choptank had close geographical
ties with the Nanticoke tribe who dwelled on the northern portion of the Choptank watershed.
Although they acted as a distinct people from the Nanticoke tribe, the language and customs
were very similar in both tribes. Tributary treaties were made between the Nanticoke and the
Choptank for protection from Indian tribes in outlying areas. Three sub-tribes of the Choptank
were identified in 1640: the Ababco, the Hatsawap, and the Tequassimo (Henry 1970: 171), and
their total population was estimated to be 200 to 300 people living among these three villages.
The incoming European settlers recognized the Choptank as an individual tribe in the eighteenth
century, and by the governing bodies in Maryland (Weslager, 1944: 399). A peaceful and
positive attitude was established early on between the Choptank and the colonists. Beginning in
1659, agreements were made between Lord Baltimore and some of the tribes of Dorchester
County for the permission of colonists to settle on lands occupied by the Transquakin, Locust
Neck, and Choptank tribes (Henry 1970:173).
The relationship between the Maryland authorities and the Nanticoke/Choptank evolved, but not
in the Indian’s favor and,
By 1668, the Nanticoke were under the complete control of the Maryland authorities. On
May 1, 1668, the tayac [chief] Unnacokasimmon signed the first of five separate treaties
12
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
attempting to secure peaceful relations between the province of Maryland and the
Nanticoke. This first treaty sought to establish ‘an Inviolable peace & Amity between the
Right Honorable the Lord Proprietor of this province, and the Emperor of the Nanticoke
to the World's End to Endure,’ and agreed that ‘all former Acts of Hostility & Damages
whatsoever by either Party sustained to be buried in perpetual Oblivion’ (Porter 1987).
A treaty created between Lord Baltimore and the Assateague in 1668 included protective rights
for the Choptank and promised the same bodily and legal protection for the Indians as the white
settler's received (Henry 1970:173). By 1669, colonists had so infiltrated the Choptank land that
the chief's addressed the General Assembly of Maryland to request land be set aside for them
where colonist settlement would not be allowed (Henry 1970:173). As documented in the
records of the Maryland General Assembly, Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679
land was set aside for the Choptank Indians:
The Assembly in 1669 had passed an Act to set aside for the use of certain friendly
Indians a tract of considerable extent lying on the south side of the Choptank River in
Dorchester County, subject to an annual rent of six beaver skins... As certain portions of
this tract were then in possession of the whites, it became necessary to condemn them for
public uses. For this purpose a writ of ad quod damnum was issued out of Chancery, and
on March 7, 1671/2, an inquisition was taken upon three tracts containing in all four
hundred acres, lying within the bounds of the reservation as fixed by the Assembly, and
damages totaling 17,000 pounds of tobacco awarded to the several owners (Maryland
Court of Chancery 1934).
Enacted by Cecil Calvert, The Choptank Indian Preserve was established, however, this
agreement with the ruling body of Maryland did little to mitigate the continual influx of white
colonists seeking fertile land, lumber, and hunting ground in the reserved land of the Choptank’s.
Many instances of disputes brought by the Choptank chiefs against the encroaching whites are
recorded from the late seventeenth the mid eighteenth century (Henry 1970:176). These
complaints include colonists who were harvesting timber without permission, unpaid rent by
settlers, the accidental killing of Choptank by white hunters, and the purchase of land from the
Choptank while they were intoxicated (Henry 1970:176-178).
The reservation was (re)established in 1704 by the Maryland Assembly via An Act for
ascertaining the Bounds of a certain Tract of Land, to the Use of the Nanticoke Indians, so long
as they shall occupy and live upon the same. The boundaries was noted as,
That all the Land lying and being in Dorchester County, and on the North Side of
Nanticoke River, butted and bounded as followeth; (beginning at the Mouth of
Chickawan Creek, and running up the said Creek, bounded therewith to the Head of the
main Branch of the same, and from the Head of the said main Branch, with a Line drawn
to the Head of a Branch issuing out of the North West Fork of Nanticoke, known by the
13
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Name of Francis Anderton's Branch, and from the Head of the said Branch, down to the
said Anderton's Branch, bounded therewith, to the Mouth of the same where it falls into
the said North West Fork: And from thence down the aforesaid North West Fork,
bounded therewith, to the main River: And so down the main River to the Mouth of the
aforesaid Chickawan Creek)… (Archives of Maryland 2000, 163)
Another complaint recorded in the Maryland Archives states that in 1719, the English had taken
over so much of the preserved area that the Choptank’s had been driven to Locust Neck (Henry 1970:176). An additional act was passed in 1723 “…for quieting the possessions of the Indians on the Nanticoke and Choptank Rivers, lands were confirmed to them and their descendants as
long as they shall use and not totally desert it” (Maryland State Archives 1944, LXXIX). There
appears to have been many disputes over ownership and territory for decades.
In 1741, the Maryland General Assembly reaffirmed The Choptank Land Preserve (Henry
1970:178). The population of Maryland settlers increased and most of the local Indian tribes
began to move north and west and had mostly dispersed by the eighteenth century (Henry
1970:178). During this period there were only four Choptank Indians still living on the land that
bordered the Choptank River. They still controlled eighty acres of land that was half open field
and half woodland. By the 1800, these eighty acres were the last of the Choptank reservation
and were finally sold to the State of Maryland (Henry 1970:178). In the 1870s, the Maryland
General Assembly worked to sell the lands that once made up the Choptank reservation to raise
money for schools in Dorchester county (Maryland General Assembly 1870).
The 356 acres of land currently associated with the farm at 4919 Bucktown Road, Cambridge,
Maryland is made up of three separate parcels. Most, if not all of the farm’s 365 acres once belonged to Levin Mowbray, who acquired 368 acres in 1859. The tract names associated with
Mowbray’s property have remained constant through time, and continue to be identified in
present-day land records as Addition, Enall’s Forest of Friendship, and Meadow Branch. Since the time of Levin Mowbray, the land associated with the farmhouse has been repeatedly
subdivided, sold, and repurchased. The chain of title for the various parcels is complicated,
involving nearly a dozen transactions between 1902 and 1951, which is the year the Adams
Family (current owners) acquired the farm.
Based on the date inscribed on the stone marker, land records and limited architectural evidence,
it is most likely that the house was built for Jacob Kurt and his wife about 1903. Jacob and his
brother John Curt acquired 369 acres of land, identified in the sale as “Lot 2,” from John W.
Mowbray in 1902 for $5,000. Seven years later, the Jacobs defaulted on their mortgage and the
land was sold to Christian Jacobs for $7,500.
For much of its history this was not an owner-occupied farm. Land transactions from the 1940s
14
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
and 50s indicate occupation by at least two tenants; William Layton and Dorance Smith. Smith
was the tenant when Claude Adams acquired the farm in 1951. Since that time, the Adams have
cultivated the land, but rented the house to family members or tenants. It currently serves as a
tenant house for a family named Bennett. During their more than sixty years of ownership, the
Adams family has alternated between the production of corn, wheat, and soybeans. The Adams
home farm is located nearby at 4845 Bucktown Road. The fact that tenants occupy the house,
but do not farm the land, combined with this property’s proximity to the home farm, are likely reasons for the poor condition of the farm buildings and absence of a barn.
Roger Adams, the tenant farm’s current owner. He lives at the home farm at 4845 Bucktown
Road adjacent to the subject property. Unfortunately he knows very little about the history of the
tenant farm prior to his father’s acquisition in 1951. Currently, the property features buildings and structures constructed between c. 1903 to the mid1990s. The dwelling and frame corn crib date to the first years of the 1900s, while the Natco tile
silo is of a type generally constructed in the first quarter of the 20th century. The frame pump
house and storage building appear later, but display a definite pre-World War II character. The
multi-part cart shed and stable/poultry house probably date to mid-century, though may
incorporate earlier components. The land use is agricultural alternating between corn and
soybeans.
Prior Investigations
According to the archaeological site file collection that the Maryland Historical Trust (SHPO
Office) they are no documented site located within the APE. However, there are two recorded
sites in the area. Approximately 1.3 miles to the northeast is site 18DO34, New Landing. It was
recorded in 1965 and characterized as a Late Archaic base camp to Early and Late Woodland
short-term camp as cord marked and fabric pressed ceramic sherds and a steatite sherd were
recovered with chert and jasper flakes and points of jasper and quartz. However, no systematic
testing has occurred at this site and the materials were recovered by “pot hunters.” The
Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) last visited the site in 1970: no report on the site exists. Site
18DO96-Indian Bone Ossuary is located approximately 2 miles of the south of the current
project area. This site was discovered and collected by the property owner in 1965 during
trenching in an agricultural field in preparation for construction of a house. The site is
characterized as a Contact Period ossuary as the materials consisted of Anglo-Native American
trade items such as glass beads, copper jewelry like items, and a stone knife as well as human
remains. Information from the site file suggests it dates to the mid 17th century: it was recorded
in 1980 but no site report exists.
15
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Results of Field Investigations
Methods
Due to field conditions and land use, both pedestrian survey with controlled surface collection
and shovel testing were employed at the Adams Farm property. The STPs consisted of circular
holes dug to the width of a shovel blade (ca. 35 cm diameter) excavated to the depth of subsoil,
(soils devoid of cultural material). The soil from each STP was screened individually through
hardware cloth (1/4" mesh) to recover small archeological materials. The unit of measure of this
survey was feet in engineer’s tenths. All materials located at the surface or recovered during
shovel testing were placed in plastic bags noting horizontal and vertical provenance. However,
non-diagnostic artifacts such as mass-produced contemporaneous undecorated white ceramic
fragments and modern mass-produced beverage bottle glass fragments (IE “beer bottle” brown/amber and green) were discovered on the surface and within the first .20 feet of the
surface in the plow zone. These materials were not retained as they offer no interpretive data as
isolated finds. Moreover, the current property owners, the tenants living in the subject property
house, and the immediate neighbors all burn their garbage in steel drums: either they do not
participate in modern garbage collection practices or it is not available in this rural setting. Such
materials were recovered along with modern beverage cans in all the testing areas. Cans showed
signs of bullet holes and perhaps were utilized as practice targets.
Soils
The most prominent soil type
encountered was a silt loam and is
analogous to OtA—Othello silt
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, a silt
loam (USDA 2013). This was
encountered within the first
stratum consisting of plow zone
(10YR4/2, dark grayish brown)
from zero to .70 to .90 inches
below grade. Strata II consisted of
sterile subsoil at .70 to .90 inches
below grade and consisted of a
silty clay loam (10YR 6/8
brownish yellow). The parent
materials consist of silty eolian
deposits
over
fluviomarine
sediments fluviomarine deposits
(USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation Service 2012).
Figure 6: Plan View of STP
16
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 7: USDA Soil Map of Adams Farm Project Area
17
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 8: Soil Types for Adams Farm Project Area
Figure 9: Representative Soil Profile from STPs
18
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
South Field Testing Area
A pedestrian reconnaissance or walkover survey was completed for the proposed 15-acre project
site. No concentration of artifacts was visible at the surface. No points or prehistoric stone tools
were recovered. Ground visibility was very good with 100% of the ground surface visible due to
the state of the field, which had been most recently cultivated with soybeans, and the field was
not disked or plowed after harvest.
The subsurface survey took place in April 2012 and consisted of systematic shovel testing at a 90
feet (30 meters) interval within the 15-acre +/- section of the larger parcel: the area of proposed
subsurface disturbance was surveyed and marked by the Client. The agricultural field had no
ground cover or root mat and the soil profile consists of a silt loam plow zone (to a depth of 1.0
to 1.3 feet below grade) overlying subsoil. The soils were consistent across the testing area with
the predominate soil type classified as OtA—Othello silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes.
In total, 115 shovel test pits
(STPs) were excavated. No
concentration of artifacts was
identified. No stratigraphic
profile presented evidence of
cultural features.
Isolated
finds consisted two pieces of
modern undecorated ceramic
tableware (Ironstone) and
small fragments of industrial
terracotta pipe that was part of
a drainage ditch culvert,
pieces of which are located in
the farm equipment storage
area of the property. The
culvert pipe fragments were
located at the surface,
infrequently across the field:
they were not retained. The
two pieces of modern
Ironstone ceramic were also
Figure 10: South Field STPs
found at the surface. They were not associated with a feature or other sealed context. The field
is located between three domestic households (one to the north and two to the south, each
abutting the testing area) associated with the farmed tracks and the occupants burn their trash.
Redial STPs did not produce additional pieces of the modern ceramic.
19
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
North Field Controlled Surface Collection
Due to the historic land use of the property, that of agriculture production, the field survey
employed a systematic pedestrian survey with controlled surface collection (Figure 10). Three
sections of the northern part of the property were surveyed, as the Client was unsure of the
boundaries of the APE. A transect was walked every 15 paces, (approximately 45 feet) and
traveled the length of the fields. No concentrations of artifacts were visible at the surface.
Ground visibility was excellent with 100% of the surface soils exposed due as the fieldwork
occurred immediately after the fields had been disked (or plowed) with no re-growth: the testing
area was walked with 24 hours of heavy rain (Figures 11 through 16). No concentration of
artifacts was encountered. No archaeological sites were identified.
Figure 11: North Field Controlled Surface Collection Transects
20
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 12: North Field Testing Area, Facing North
Figure 13: North Field Testing Area, Facing South
21
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 14: North Field Testing Area, Facing East
Figure 15: North Field Testing Area, Facing West
22
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 16: Project Area Drainage System
Figure 17: Exposed Soils
23
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
North Field Shoveling Testing
After consultation with the Maryland Department of Planning - Maryland Historical Trust,
subsurface shovel testing was employed in the northwestern most section of the north field: a
revision to the engineer plans for the project indicates this is the APE or location for the
proposed undertaking. The subsurface testing occurred in August 2013 and consisted of
systematic shovel testing at a 20 meter (+/- 60 feet) interval in a crucifix pattern of two
intersecting transects within the APE (Figure 18). This resulted in the excavation of 25 shovel
test pits: no diagnostic artifacts were recovered. No stratigraphic profile presented evidence of
cultural features. The field was cultivated with corn set at rows every 30 inches, with each plant
6 inches apart running north and south: at the time of the field work in mid August the corn
plants were approximately 12 feet tall (Figures 19 to 22).
Figure 18: North Field STP Layout
24
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Figure 19: North Field, Facing North
Figure 21: North Field, Facing East
Figure 20: North Field, Facing South
Figure 22: North Field, Facing West
25
Summary and Recommendations
This Phase I investigation employing pedestrian survey with controlled surface collection and
subsurface testing via STPs did not identify an archaeological site at the property known as
Adams Farm located at 4919 Bucktown Road, Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland. No
cultural features were located in the soil stratigraphy. Neither prehistoric nor historic diagnostic
artifacts were encountered during the fieldwork. Therefore, no further study of this
approximately 60 acre section of the larger 365 acre farm is recommended and the proposed
undertaking by OneEnergy posses no adverse effect to historic or cultural resources.
26
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
References Cited
Benitez, Jorge A., and Thomas R. Fisher.
2004 "Historical Land-cover Conversation (1655-1820) in the Choptank Watershed, Eastern
United States.” Ecosystems 7, no. 3 (2004): 219-232.
Cleaves, James P., and Emery T. Reger.
2008 Explanatory Text for the Physiographic Map of Maryland. Open File Report, Baltimore,
MD: Maryland Geological Survey
Dent, Richard J.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions, Plenum Press, New York.
Ebright, Carol A.
1992 Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archaeological
Investigations at the Higgins site. Vols 1 – 3, Baltimore, Maryland State Highway
Administration and Department of Natural Resources.
Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American archaeology: A summary. Science 156:175-191.
1978 Eastern United States. In: Chronologies in New World Archaeology, edited by R. E.
Taylor and C. W. Meighan, pp 51-70, Academic Press, New York.
Henry, Jane.
1970 “The Choptank Indians of Maryland Under the Proprietary Government.” Maryland
Historical Magazine, Vol. 65:171-184.
Johnson, Zoë Pfahl.
2008 A Sea Level Rise Response Strategy for the State of Maryland. Planning document.
Coastal Zone Management Division, Annapolis, MD.: Maryland Department of Natural
Resources.
Jones, Elias.
1902 History of Dorchester County, Maryland. Baltimore: N.P.
Lanier, Gabrielle and Bernard L. Herman.
1977 Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
LeeDecker, Charles H., John W. Martin and Amy Friedlander
1988 Archaeological Evaluation of the Greenbelt Storage Yard, WMATA Construction
Segment E-11. Prince Georges County, Maryland.
Maryland Court of Chancery.
1934 Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, February 16, 1668/69 to October 16, 1679. Edited
by J. Hall Pleasants. Vol. 51. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Archives.
Maryland General Assembly.
1870 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland. Vol. 188. Annapolis, MD:
Maryland State Archives.
Maryland Geological Survey.
2011 Physiographic Map of Maryland. Aug 25, 2011.
http://www.mgs.md.gov/coastal/maps/physio.html (accessed Aug 15, 2013).
Maryland State Archives.
2013 Maryland at a Glance Historical Chronology. Feb 20, 2013.
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/chron/html/chron16.html (accessed
Aug 15, 2013).
27
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
—.
1944 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1766-1768. Vol. 61. Baltimore, MD:
Maryland Historical Society.
—.
2000 Bacon's Laws of Maryland (1765). Archives of Maryland. Vol. 75. Annapolis, MD:
Maryland State Archives.
McMurry, Sally.
1995 Transforming Rural Life: Dairying Families and Agricultural Change. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Porter, Frank W.
1987 Nanticoke, Indians of North America. Edited by Facts on File. New York, NY: Chelsea
House.
Shaffer, Gary D.
2005 “Nanticoke Indian Burial Practices: Challenges for Archaeological Interpretation.” Archaeology of Eastern North America, Vol 33:141-162.
Thomas, Ronald A.
1973 Prehistoric Mortuary Complexes of the Delmarva Peninsula. Proceedings of the Fourth
Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference. Pennsbury, N.J., May.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2012 "Web Soil Survey.” Dorchester County, MD.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed Aug 15, 2013).
Weeks, Christopher.
1984 Between the Nanticocke and the Choptank: An Architectural History of Dorchester
County, Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Weslager, C. A.
1944 “Wynicaco-A Choptank Indian Chief.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society, Vol. 87, No. 5: 398-402
28
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Qualifications
MECHELLE KERNS, PHD, RPA
Principle Archaeologist
Kerns CRM Consultants, LLC
680 Americana Drive
APT 15
Annapolis, MD 21403
MKerns@KernsCRMConsultants.com
410-409-5187
EDUCATION
REGISTRATIONS/CERTS/TRAINING
Doctor of Philosophy
Maritime History & Archaeology University
of St Andrews, Scotland, UK, 2003
Master of Arts
Historical Studies & Public History
University of Maryland Baltimore County,
1999
Secretary of Interior 36 CFR 61
Register of Professional Archaeologist
Dive Master (IANTD), 2010
Nitrox Diver (IANTD), 2010
Rescue Diver (PDIC), 2009
40-Hour Certified OSHA HAZWOPER, 2008
Scientific Diver (University of West Florida), 2002
Advanced Open Water Diver, (PDIC, PADI), 1996
Bachelor of Arts
Ancient Studies
University of Maryland Baltimore County,
1996
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
2010-Present Principle Archeologist, Kerns CRM Consultants, LLC, Arnold, MD
2011-Present Adjunct Assistant Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
2004-Present Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Maryland Univ. College, Adelphi, MD
2007-2010
Senior Archaeologist, URS Corp, Gaithersburg, MD
2005-2007
Senior Archaeologist, Aarcher Inc. (CRM Group), Annapolis, MD
1997-2005
Staff Archaeologist and Historian, Anne Arundel County Government, Office of Cultural
and Environmental Resources, Annapolis, MD
EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS:
Dr. Kerns Galway has fourteen years of experience with historical research, archeology, maritime history,
and cultural resource management in 11 states throughout the United States. She exceeds the Secretary of
the Interior’s standards for Archeology and History and is certified by the Register of Professional
Archaeologists (RPA). She has extensive experience with all phases of archaeological field work
(terrestrial and underwater) as well as research design development, data analysis, report writing, public
outreach and education programs and has directed reconnaissance, intensive surveys, and data recovery
investigations on both historic and prehistoric sites. Clients have included the Federal government
(FEMA, USACE, US BOP, and VAMC), state and local infrastructure authorities; state governments;
non-profit organizations; and the private sector. Representative projects include:


2011 Survey Report: Staff Housing at the United State Penitentiary, Atlantic, Georgia. Federal
Bureau of Prisons.
2011 Cultural/Historical Research for Environmental Assessments (EA) for Five New England
Veteran Administration Medical Centers, US Veterans Administration.
29
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
















2010 Architectural and Historical Investigation of the Engineering and Research Corporation
(ERCO) Building. Prepared for University of Maryland Office of Administrative Affairs,
College Park, Maryland.
2009 Hudson River Sediment Remediation Phase I Project Archeological Resources Assessment
Underwater Resource U-2. U.S. EPA, New York Department of Environmental Quality, and
General Electric.
2009 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Flight Facility Shore Line
Restoration Environmental Impact Statement. NASA, Wallops Flight Facility.
2009 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 47BA199 (Forest Service Site 09-02-05-009)
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Bayfield County, Wisconsin. DuPont Corporate
Remediation.
2009 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Locations 21 and 31, Dover Air Force Base, Dover DE.
DOD, US Air Force.
2009 Phase I Archaeological Survey of The Beauvoir Property (22HR1012) Harrison County,
Mississippi. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
2008 Iron Forge (18AN1386) Discovery Cultural Resources Documentation for the Maryland
Aviation Administration, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
2008 Report of Investigations: Archival Research Concerning Center Hill Lake, Tennessee.
Department of the Army Nashville District, US Army Corps of Engineers.
2008 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Black and White Inn (18MO669) Montgomery
County, Maryland. Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation.
2008 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Area I & Area J Trails at the Lorton Prison Facility.
Fairfax County Park Authority, Cultural Resource Management and Protection Section, Fairfax,
VA.
2007 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Area G & Area H Trails at the Lorton Prison Facility.
Fairfax County Park Authority, Cultural Resource Management and Protection Section, Fairfax,
VA.
2007 Phase II Archaeological Survey of the Homeland Property (18PR867 and 18PR868). Prince
George’s County, MD. Pulte Homes Corporation, 2007. 2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey Demiray Property (18FR857) 104-106 North Market Street
Frederick, Maryland. David Demiray, on file at the City of Frederick Office of Planning and the
MHT.
2006 Fountain Rock Park Phase II Archaeological Survey (18FR835 & 18FR836). Public Works
Division Frederick County Office of Project Management Frederick, MD.
2002 The Santa Rosa Island Shipwreck (Phase III) Project (8ES1905). Archaeology Institute,
The University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL.
1995-2005 Phase III Excavations at London Town (18AN48), Edgewater, Maryland. Anne
Arundel County’s Office of Environmental and Cultural Resources, Annapolis, MD.
30
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Appendix: SOW
SOW for Cultural Resource Identification (Phase I) and Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for
the OneEnergy site in Cambridge, Maryland.
Prepared by:
Kerns CRM Consultants
Annapolis, Maryland
www.KernsCRMConsultants.com
410-409-5187
SCOPE OF WORK
At the request of Ms. Gia Clark of OneEnergy Cambridge Solar, LLC (hereafter Client), per
email and telephone communications in January 2013, Kerns CRM Consultants submits this
scope of work and cost proposal for the completion of a Cultural Resource Assessment to
include a Phase I Archeological Investigation and Historic Architectural Review in the area of
proposed effect (APE) for a planned solar installation project located in Cambridge, Dorchester
County, Maryland along Bucktown Road. The anticipated area of ground disturbance at this
time is approximately 20 acres, placed within the larger 367 acre leased lands. OneEnergy
Cambridge Solar, LLC proposes to develop a 3 MW DC Solar Photovoltaic site on this property.
The proposed Phase I survey will include the completion of background research at the Maryland
Historical Trust—MD SHPO Office—to documented archeological sites and historic properties,
a pedestrian reconnaissance survey of the APE, development of a Phase I archaeological field
testing strategy, a field survey (at a 15 meter testing interval), and a report of the survey findings.
The goal of this survey is to identify and locate archeological sites and historic properties within
the area of potential effect.
In order to meet the requirements for data collection as outlined by the Maryland Historical Trust
(MHT) the Phase I Archeological Investigation will include:






delineation and inventorying of all archeological properties (that may be eligible for the
National Register or the Maryland Register) in the area of potential effects;
characterization and interpretation of all identified archeological properties with respect
to the cultural/temporal periods of the State Plan;
appraise the results of the investigations in light of existing models of settlement
patterning; if sufficient data are available, evaluation of National Register or Maryland
Register eligibility;
assessment of the undertaking’s impacts on the identified archeological properties;; and
determination of the need for additional archeological work.
The data from this Phase I study will be submitted in a report for the Client to use with
both state and federal oversight bodies.
31
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Archaeological and Architectural Survey
Archival and Background Research
Background research tasks will include documenting the environmental settings present in the
APE, consultation with individuals knowledgeable about the APE and vicinity, research on
recorded archaeological sites, the review of cultural resource management reports, and the
development of site-specific prehistoric and historic contexts to aid in the identification and
interpretation of archaeological sites. Detailed site-specific documentary research will aid in
determining the kinds of historic archaeological resources that could be identified within the
APE. The main goal of this work will be to provide solid background research on the APE that
will guide the development of a research design or field strategy for the Phase I archaeological
survey. This will include studies of the environmental setting, previous cultural resources
management investigations- to include both the prehistoric and historic context for the project
area.
Field Survey
The field survey will employ two methods of collecting data regarding the archaeological
sensitivity of the project area; a Pedestrian Survey and Subsurface Survey. All artifacts
recovered from the field survey will be processed for analysis.
Pedestrian Survey
Staff from Kerns CRM Consultants will perform a pedestrian reconnaissance or walkover after
background research is completed. The goal is to examine the property to determine the current
land use patterns in the APE identify and assess whether zones of archaeological potential are
present and have been impacted. Various topographic settings will be observed and their
presence noted. Further, areas showing structures on historic atlases and maps will be examined
to determine if the structure remains extant or whether foundations and structural remains or
depressions exist. Locations of registered archaeological sites in the APE, if any, will be visited
to record existing conditions at each site. Should any cultural diagnostics or tools be observed
(i.e. projectile points, scrapers, early ceramics), Kerns CRM Consultants will note their presence
on the project base map, map their approximate location and consult with MHT archaeologists
regarding their collection. If any concentrations of prehistoric or early historic artifacts are
observed on the ground surface, their approximate location will be noted on the project base
maps. Existing conditions will be recorded via field notes and digital photography.
Subsurface Survey
The subsurface survey will consist of systematic shovel testing at a 15 meter (50 feet) interval
over the APE, approximately 20-acre section of the larger parcel. The number of STPs will be
determined by the landform and field conditions and will consist of no more than 360 STPS.
The STPs will circular holes dug to the width of a shovel blade (ca. 35 cm diameter) and to the
depth of subsoil, which is devoid of cultural material. The soil from each STP will screened
32
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
individually through hardware cloth (1/4" mesh) to recover small archeological materials. All
recovered artifacts will be collected in bags with horizontal and vertical provenience, as well as
with other pertinent information to include data on the study area’s soils and stratigraphy, including depths of strata, content, soil textures, and soil colors.
Artifact Processing
All cultural materials recovered from the field survey will be processed using standard
procedures to include cleaning and labeling with their provenience. Data from the quantitative
study of the materials will be entered into a relational database to aid in analysis and to provide
an artifact catalog to be included with the site report.
Analysis
Analyses of archeological resources (artifacts and or features) identified through the Phase I
investigation will be both qualitative and quantitative providing descriptions for the
interpretation of the property in terms of cultural behavior, function or past use. This data will
inform the determination for the need of further field study (Phase II).
Reporting
Following the analysis of archeological resources, Kerns CRM Consultants will prepare a draft
and final report on all of the Phase I activities. The report format will follow those provided by
MHT in their standards and guidelines. Chapters to be prepared include an introduction,
environmental setting, background research, including site specific prehistoric and historic
contexts, the results of the field work, results if the artifact anylsis, and preparation of
management recommendations. The APE will be depicted on several historic atlases and maps.
In addition, photograph locations and angles will be plotted on project base maps. Appropriate
appendices will be included, as needed. The Draft report will provide sufficient information to
allow MD-SHPO and MHT to make an independent assessment of the utility of the proposed
Phase I field strategy.
Historic Architectural Resource Survey and DOE
This project will include an architectural resource survey. Upon clear identification of the of the
project area by the Client, a survey employing a 2-mile radius study area will take place. This
task will involve developing a historic context for the geographic area in question and
developing an inventory of documented historic properties in the vicinity. Data from recorded
historic properties will be augmented by addition historic research involving maps and other
readily available records. The report will include maps depicting locations of identified
resources, with MIHP numbers, along with boundaries of the APE. A Determination of
Eligibility (DOE) will be completed as part of this study and the required forms will be provided
with the report for submission to the MHT.
33
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
Assumptions




OneEnergy will provide Kerns CRM Consultants with detailed maps, site plans and any
other land bases data available to facilitate this undertaking.
The site will be accessible for people walking on foot and testing areas will cleared by
client (IE mowing).
No more than 500 artifacts will be recovered. If a number exceeding 500 is recovered,
the cost associated with this task will be revised.
The MHT, MD-SHPO will review the report of this survey within 30 days per their
guidelines and regulations.
34
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
SOW for the Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Adams Farm (North Testing Area)
Cambridge, Maryland.
Prepared for:
OneEnergy Cambridge Solar, LLC
Prepared by:
Kerns CRM Consultants
Annapolis, Maryland
www.KernsCRMConsultants.com
410-409-5187
July 2015
Introduction
OneEnergy Renewables has been in consultation with the MD SHPO/MHT since December
2013 in regards to a proposed solar energy development site in Cambridge, Dorchester County,
Maryland. In April 2013, a I Phase archaeological investigation was conducted on one section
(labeled South Testing Area, Figure 1) of the property located at 4919 Bucktown Road
Cambridge, MD 21613: no artifacts were recovered nor was a site identified (Figure 1). This
initial survey consisted of shovel testing at a 20-meter interval (resulting in 115 STPs) in a fallow
agricultural field . However, the proposed APE was moved to a different section of the property
(labeled North Testing Area) due to engineering and electrical infrastructure design constraints.
In May 2013, a second survey was conducted that consisted of a systematic pedestrian survey
with controlled surface collection in the North Testing Area. Ground visibility was excellent
with 100% of the surface soils exposed as the fieldwork occurred immediately after the fields
had been disked or plowed: the testing area was walked with 24 hours of heavy rain. A transect
was walked every 15 paces, (approximately 45 feet) and traveled the length of the fields. No
concentrations of artifacts were located. No archaeological sites were identified. This testing
strategy was chosen after interviews with the property owner regarding the history of land use,
that of agriculture production, and the lack of recovered prehistoric points or other archeological
materials. Moreover, the condition of the field, freshly plowed, allowed for study of the
plowzone over the entire field. This SOW of work addresses a request by the MD-SHPO /MHT
for subsurface testing over the revised APE consisting of 25 acres via shovel testing at a 2035
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
meter interval with two intersecting transects at the widest and longest extent of the APE. The
resulting report will include findings on both the North and South testing areas.
Scope Of Work
At the request of Ms. Gia Clark of OneEnergy Cambridge Solar, LLC (hereafter Client), per
email and telephone communications in July 2013, Kerns CRM Consultants submits this
scope of work and cost proposal for the completion of Phase I Archeological Investigation in the
area of proposed effect (APE) for a planned solar installation project located in Cambridge,
Dorchester County, Maryland along Bucktown Road. The anticipated area of ground
disturbance is approximately 25 acres, placed within the larger 367 acre leased lands.
OneEnergy Cambridge Solar, LLC proposes to develop a 3 MW DC Solar Photovoltaic site on
this property (Figure 1).
The proposed Phase I survey will include the completion of background research at the Maryland
Historical Trust—MD SHPO Office—to documented archeological sites and historic properties,
a pedestrian reconnaissance survey of the APE, development of a Phase I archaeological field
testing strategy, a field survey (at a 20-meter testing interval), and a report of the survey findings.
The goal of this survey is to identify and locate archeological sites and historic properties within
the area of potential effect.
In order to meet the requirements for data collection as outlined by the Maryland Historical Trust
(MHT) the Phase I Archeological Investigation will include:
36
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
delineation and inventorying of all archeological properties (that may be eligible for the National
Register or the Maryland Register) in the area of potential effects;
characterization and interpretation of all identified archeological properties with respect to the
cultural/temporal periods of the State Plan;
appraise the results of the investigations in light of existing models of settlement patterning; if
sufficient data are available, evaluation of National Register or Maryland Register eligibility;
assessment of the undertaking’s impacts on the identified archeological properties;; and determination of the need for additional archeological work.
The data from this Phase I study will be submitted in a report for the Client to use with both state
and federal oversight bodies.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS: 4919 Bucktown Road Cambridge, MD 21613
COORDINATES: Latitude (North): 38.5127000 - 38° 30’ 45.72’’ Longitude (West): 76.0181000 - 76° 1’ 5.16’’ ELEVATION: 9 ft. above sea level
37
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
1) Archival and Background Research
Background research tasks will include documenting the environmental settings present in the
APE, consultation with individuals knowledgeable about the APE and vicinity, research on
recorded archaeological sites, the review of cultural resource management reports, and the
development of relevant site-specific prehistoric and historic contexts to aid in the identification
and interpretation of archaeological sites. Detailed site-specific documentary research will aid in
determining the kinds of historic archaeological resources that could be identified within the
APE. The main goal of this work will be to provide solid background research on the APE that
will guide the development of a research design or field strategy for the Phase I archaeological
survey. This will include studies of the environmental setting, previous cultural resources
management investigations- to include both the prehistoric and historic context for the project
area.
2) Field Survey
The field survey will employ a subsurface survey consisting of systemic shovel testing in a
section of the APE. Any artifacts recovered from the field survey will be processed for analysis.
Subsurface Survey
The subsurface survey will consist of systematic shovel testing at a 20 meter (+/- 60 feet) interval
in a crucifix pattern of two intersecting transects within the APE (Figure 1).
The number of STPs will be determined by the landform and field conditions and will consist of
no more than 25 STPs. The STPs will consist of circular holes dug to the width of a shovel blade
(ca. 35 cm diameter) and to the depth of subsoil, which is devoid of cultural material. The soil
from each STP will screened individually through hardware cloth (1/4" mesh) to recover small
archeological materials. All recovered artifacts will be collected in bags with horizontal and
vertical provenience, as well as with other pertinent information to include data on the study
38
Cambridge Solar Project Phase I FINAL Report
area’s soils and stratigraphy, including depths of strata, content, soil textures, and soil colors. Artifact Processing
All cultural materials recovered from the field survey will be processed using standard
procedures to include cleaning and labeling with their provenience. Data from the quantitative
study of the materials will be entered into a relational database to aid in analysis and to provide
an artifact catalog to be included with the site report.
3) Analysis
Analyses of archeological resources (if artifacts and or features are discovered) identified
through the Phase I investigation will be both qualitative and quantitative providing descriptions
for the interpretation of the property in terms of cultural behavior, function or past use. This data
will inform the determination for the need of further field study (Phase II).
4) Reporting
Following the analysis of archeological resources, Kerns CRM Consultants will prepare a draft
and final report on all of the Phase I activities. The report format will follow those provided by
MHT in their standards and guidelines. Chapters to be prepared include an introduction,
environmental setting, background research, including site specific prehistoric and historic
contexts with relevant information to aid interpreting the site (if a site is located), the results of
the field work, results of the artifact analysis (if artifacts are recovered) and preparation of
management recommendations. The APE will be depicted on several historic atlases and maps.
In addition, photograph locations and angles will be plotted on project base maps. Appropriate
appendices will be included, as needed. The Draft report will provide sufficient information to
allow MD-SHPO and MHT to make an independent assessment of the utility of the proposed
Phase I field strategy.
39
APPENDIX 8
US Fish and Wildlife
Endangered or Threatened Species
Findings
^eNT op-
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
http://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay
January 3, 2012
OneEnergy Renewables
314 1st Ave. S
Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Bucktown Rd. Cambridge, MD
Dear Shane Sobotka:
This responds to your letter, received November 29, 2011, requesting information on the
presence of species which are federally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened
within the vicinity of the above reference project area. We have reviewed the information you
enclosed and are providing comments in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.).
Except for occasional transient individuals, no federally proposed or listed endangered or
threatened species are known to exist within the project impact area. Therefore, no Biological
Assessment or further section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required.
Should project plans change, or if additional information on the distribution of listed or proposed
species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered.
This response relates only to federally protected threatened or endangered species under our
jurisdiction. For information on the presence of other rare species, you should contact
Lori Byrne of the Maryland Wildlife and Heritage Division at (410) 260-8573.
Effective August 8, 2007, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) removed (delist) the bald eagle in the
lower 48 States of the United States from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. However, the bald eagle will still be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act, Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. As a result, starting on
August 8, 2007, if your project may cause "disturbance" to the bald eagle, please consult the
"National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines" dated May 2007.
Take Pride!
inamERIGA
If any planned or ongoing activities cannot be conducted in compliance with the National Bald
Eagle Management Guidelines (Eagle Management Guidelines), please contact the Chesapeake
Bay Ecological Services Field Office at 410-573-4573 for technical assistance. The Eagle
Management Guidelines can be found at:
http://wwvv.fws.g0v/migratorvbirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaIdEa2leManagementGuid
elines.pdf.
In the future, if your project can not avoid disturbance to the bald eagle by complying with the
Eagle Management Guidelines, you will be able to apply for a permit that authorizes the take of
bald and golden eagles under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, generally where the
take to be authorized is associated with otherwise lawful activities. This proposed permit
process will not be available until the Service issues a final rule for the issuance of these take
permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
An additional concern of the Service is wetlands protection. Federal and state partners of the
Chesapeake Bay Program have adopted an interim goal of no overall net loss of the Basin's
remaining wetlands, and the long term goal of increasing the quality and quantity of the Basin's
wetlands resource base. Because of this policy and the functions and values wetlands perform,
the Service recommends avoiding wetland impacts. All wetlands within the project area should
be identified, and if construction in wetlands is proposed, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, should be contacted for permit requirements. They can be reached at (410)
962-3670.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide information relative to fish and wildlife issues, and
thank you for your interests in these resources. If you have any questions or need further
assistance, please contact Devin Ray at (410) 573-4531.
Sincerely,
Leopoldo Miranda
Supervisor
APPENDIX 9
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered
Species Findings