Phase IB Cultural Resource Survey of the Clermont Avenue Interchange, City of Alexandria and ...

103 Pages·2010·32.84 MB·English

r
PHASE IB CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
OF THE CLERMONT AVENUE INTERCHANGE
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND
FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA
100 Halsted Street
East Orange, New Jersey 07019
I
I
I
I
II
I
PHASE IB CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
OF THE CLERMONT AVENUE INTERCHANGE
CITY OF ALEXANDRIA AND
I
FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA
I
I
I
Prepared For:
I
Environmental Quality Division
Virginia Department of Transportation
Richmond, Virginia
I
I
Prepared By:
The cultural Resource Group
I
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
East Orange, New Jersey
I
I
January 1991
ABSTRACT
I
The cultural Resource Group of Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
I
(LBA), has completed a Phase IS cultural resource survey for the
proposed Clermont Avenue Interchange project, located in the city
of Alexandria and Fairfax County, Virginia. The purpose of this
I work is to provide an evaluation of the cultural resource
sensitivity of the five alternative alignments presently under
consideration by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
I The proposed proj ect would be builtin two phases. Phase 1
incl udes the interchange at the intersection of clermont Avenue and
t he Capital Beltway (Interstate 95) and the expansion of Clermont
AVenue north to Eisenhower Avenue. For all five alternative
I
alignments, the engineering design for Phase 1 is essentially
identical. Phase 2 includes construction of a connector road from
Eisenhower Avenue to Duke street, accordi ng to one of the various
I alternative alignments.
This study was preceded by a Phase IA cultural resource
II investigation of th~ Eisenhower Avenue/Cameron Run Valley that
involved three principal components: archaeology, history and
histori c architecture. The Phase IA study was i nitiated prior to
the i dentification of candidate build alignments, and it
I
encompassed a large area (approximately three square miles) within
which potential alignments might be defined. The present study
builds directly upon the preceding work, and much of the Phase IA
I report has been incorporated into this document. Investigations
carried out for this study focused on assessment of the degree of
preservation of land surfaces that might potentially contain
prehistoric or early historic archaeological remains. The field
I
methods included a walkover examination and limited subsurface
testing in accessible areas. The locations of potential ly
significant architectural resources were also verified wit h regard
I
to the ali gnment locations.
There are no known archaeological sites or documented site
I locations within any of the five alternative alignments. However,
each of the connector road alignments crosses a stream margin that
should be considered sensitive for prehistoric resources; in some
cases, historic archaeological features may be present as well.
I
Because of the presence of massive fill deposits, machine
excavation would be necessary to determine whether well preserved
archaeological deposits are present in buried contexts along the
I
preferred alignment. With the exception of Cameron Station, none
of the potentially significant architectural properties identified
during the Phase IA study lie within the impact area of any of the
I five alternative alignments.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
CHAPTER
I
ABSTRACT ..•••...•..•........ ••••••.....•••• i
I Table of contents ......................... . ii
List of Figures ........................... . iv
List of Tables ............................ . v
I
I INTRODUCTION .......•.......••••...••.•••..• I-1
I II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...•....•.••••..•..••. II-l
A. Physiography and Topography ........... . II-l
I B. Geology and Soils ..................... . II-1
C. Climate ............................... . II-2
D. Flora and Fauna ....................... . II-2
E. Land U?e .............................. . II-3
I
F. Paleoenvironmental History ............ . II-4
III BACKGROUND RESEARCH ••......•••••••...•..••• III-1
I
A. Archival Research . .................... . III-1
1. Records Check ................... . III-1
I 2. Previous Archaeological Studies .. III-5
B. Prehistoric cultural Sequence ......... . III-9
c. Historic Overview ..................... . III-12
1. Settlement ...................... . III-12
I
2. The Colonial Period ............. . III-13
3. Early National and Antebellum
Periods ................. ........ . III-16
I a. Rural Development ........... . 1II-16
b. Urban Development ........... . 1II-22
4. civil War and Reconstruction .... . III-25
5. Late Nineteenth/Early Twentieth
I
Century ......................... . 1II-29
6. World War II to Present ......... . III-40
D. Assessment of Archaeological Potential. 1II-42
I
1. Prehistoric Resources ........... . 1II-42
2. Historic Resources .............. . III-50
I
I
I
ii
I
I
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
I
CHAPTER
I
IV FIELD SURVEY .............................. . IV-l
A. Methodology ... ....................... . IV-l
I
B. Archaeological survey ............... . IV-l
1. Clermont Avenue Interchange and
Extension to Eisenhower Avenue ... IV-l
I 2. Duke Street Connector,
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 ......... . IV-4
3. Duke street Connector,
I Alternative 4 .............. , .... . IV-lO
4. Duke street Connector,
Alternative 5 ................... . IV-l2
C. Archi tectural Resources .............. . IV-l2
I
D. Summary .............................. . IV-lS
V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... . V-l
I
VI BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES CITED ......... . VI-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I iii
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
I
FIGURE
I
1 study Window and Vicinity . ............. . ... . 1-2
I 2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites .... I11-4
3 Part of Land in Western Part of the study
Window, Contained in 4,639-Acre Grant to
I
west, Harrison, Pearson, and Harrison, 1706. II1-14
4 Cameron Mills, 1803 .•..................•••.. 111-17
I
5 Portion of study Window West of Hoaffs Run,
1845 .....•....•........••.......•.....• ••... I1I-24
II
6 study Window and Vicinity, 1861 ............. III-27
7 Eastern Portion of Study Window and
II
Vicinity, 1861. ......................... •... III-28
8 Northern Portion of Study Window, 1879 ...... III-31
I
9 Southern Portion of study Window, 1879 ..... . III-32
I 10 study window and Vicinity, 1885-1886 ........ 1I1-33
11 study Window and Vicinity, 1895-1897 ........ 1I1-35
I
12 Mahoneyville Distilling Company, 1902 ....... 111-36
13 Arlington Distilling company, 1912 .......... III-37
I
14 Arlington Distilling company, 1921 .......... 111-38
I 15 Duke street from Telegraph Road to Quaker
Lane, 1941 .................................. 11I-39
16 Study Window and Vicinity, 1941-1942 ........ I11-41
I
17 Study Window and Vicinity, 1949 ............. 111-43
I 18 Areas of Historic Archaeological Potential .. III-51
19 Plan of Proposed Clermont Avenue
Interchange ................................ . IV-3
I
I
iv
II
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
I
CHAPTER
I 20 Representative Shovel Test Profiles in
Proposed Clermont Avenue Interchange Area... IV-5
I 21 Alignments of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3
Through Southeast Area of Cameron station... IV-6
22 Cutbank No.1 Stratigraphic Profile......... IV-8
I
23 Plan of Alternative No.4 Alignment ....... . . IV-I1
I 24 Plan of Alternative No.5 Alignment ......... IV-13
25 Locations of Potentially Significant
Archi tectural Resources................. . ... IV-14
I
II
LIST OF TABLES
I
TABLE
I
1 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites in
the study Window and Immediate vicinity ..... 111-2
I
2 Archaeological sites Identified by the
Alexandria Regional Preservation Office
Survey of Cameron Run....................... 111-7
I
3 spatial Distribution of 30 Fairfax County
Coastal Plain Prehistoric sites ............. III-46
I
I
I
II
I
v
:1
1. INTROQUCTION
I
A Phase IB cultural resource survey of the Clermont Avenue
I
Interchange project, located in Fairfax County and the city of
Alexandria, Virginia, has been conducted by the cultural Resource
Group of Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. (LBA), on behalf of the
I Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The purpose of this
work is to provide a preliminary evaluation of the cultural
resource sensitivity of the five alternative alignments presently
under consideration by VDOT. This study has been undertaken in
I
compliance with 36 CFR 800, which implements Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, according
to regulations set forth by the Virginia Division of Historic
I Landmarks (VDHL) and the Virginia Research center for Archaeology
(VRCA). This work is also intended to fulfill applicable
requirements defined by the National Environmental Protection Act
I of 1969 and section 4 (f) of the National Transportation Act of
1973.
This study was pr,eceded by a Phase IA cultural resource
I
investigation of the Eisenhower Avenue/Cameron RUn Valley that
involved three principal components: archaeology, history, and
historic architecture (LBA 1989). The Phase IA study was initiated
I prior to the identification of alternative alignments, and it
encompassed a large area (approximately 2000 acres) within which
various alignments might be defined. The Phase IA study window
I (Figure 1) was bounded by the north side of the Capital Beltway
(Interstate 95), the east side of Holland Lane, the north side of
Duke street (Route 236), and the west side of Van Dorn street in
Alexandria. The Phase IA archaeological study involved a records
I
check, literature search, consultation with knowledgeable
individuals, and field verification of known sites within the study
window. The Phase IA historical research was oriented to provide
I an interpretive framework from which to understand historic period
cultural resources and to identify possible archaeological and
architectural properties from historic maps and local histories.
I No property-specific investigations using deed, tax, census, or
other manuscript materials were undertaken. In conSUltation with
representatives from VDOT, this level of effort was reserved for
later phases of work, if it should become necessary for the
I
evaluation of specific archaeological sites.
The present Phase IS study builds directly upon the preceding work,
I and much of the Phase IA report has been incorporated into this
document in order to provide a context for interpretation of the
present study methods and results. The purpose of the present
I study is to locate previously unrecorded archaeological sites where
possible and to further refine the potential locations of
archaeological sites based on additional background research, field
I
I-1
I
~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
~\'
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
-
- - - PROPOSED ALIGNMENT o I
1 KILOMETER
FIGURE 1. Study Window and Vicinity SOU RCE: U. S. G.S. Quadranslc, Alexandria, Annandale, VA-D.C.:M D Photorevised, 1983
NOTE: Approximate Boundaries
I
I
survey, and the locations of the candidate build alternatives. The
purpose of the Phase IB study also was to locate any potentially
I
significant historic structures not identified in the Phase IA
study, and to further refine the standing structure recommendations
in the Phase lA, based on the candidate alternatives.
I
The study window examined during the Phase IA investigation is
characterized by extensive urban development. Much of the area has
been filled, and it would be necessary to utilize machine
I
excavation techniques to determine whether or not archaeological
resources were present in specific areas. Because there are
several alignments under consideration at this juncture, and given
I
the density of urban land uses, the potential depth at which
archaeological resources might be located, and the extent to which
privately owned property is involved, intensive archaeological
field survey has been deferred until a preferred alignment is
selected. The investigations carried out for this study focused
on assessment of the degree of preservation of land surfaces that
might potentially contain prehistoric or early historic
archaeological remains. The field methods included a walkover
examination and limited subsurface testing in accessible areas.
The proposed Clermont Avenue Interchange project would be built in
two phases. Phase 1 includes construction of the interchange at
the intersection of Clermont Avenue and the Capital Beltway and the
I extension of Clermont Avenue north to Eisenhower Avenue
(approximately 0. 2 mile) . For all five alternative alignments,
the engineering design for Phase 1 is essentially identical. Phase
2 includes construction of a connector road from Duke street to
I
Eisenhower Avenue, according to one of the five alternative
alignments. The five alternative alignments (see Figure 1) are
known as CBAs (Candidate Build Alternatives) and are designated as
I follows:
CBA No. I--South Pickett street Connector
I CBA No. 2--Cameron station Connector
eBA No. 3--Holmes RUn Connector
eBA No. 4--Bluestone Road Connector
eBA No. 5--Eisenhower-Pickett Connector
I
The Phase 2 portion of the various alignments ranges from 0.6 to
1.2 miles in length, with a typical permanent right-of-way width
I of approximately 90 feet. In addition to the permanent right-of
way, temporary easements will be acquired to allow grading and
construction activities. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 extend directly
I from Clermont Avenue to Duke street through Cameron station, a
World War II-era Army Quartermaster Depot. Alternative No. 4
extends from Eisenhower Avenue along existing Bluestone Road north
to Duke Street at Wheeler Avenue, and it would require some
I
realignment of the existing Wheeler Avenue alignment. Alternative
No. 5 would provide a connector from Eisenhower Avenue to the
I
1-3
I