APPENDIX D 

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL 

 
APPENDIX D-1 

HISTORIC AND CULTURAL REPORT 

 
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey

Long Ridge Energy Terminal 

Transloading Facility and 

Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline

Salem and Ohio Townships

Monroe County, Ohio

Prepared for: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

Washington, DC 20590 

Prepared by: 

Tetra Tech, Inc.

661 Anderson Drive, Suite 200 

Pittsburgh, PA 15220 

(412) 921-7090

Fax (412) 921-6550

Submitted to: 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office 

800 E. 17th Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43211-2474 

March 2020 
Phase I Cultural Resources Survey

Long Ridge Energy Terminal 

Transloading Facility and

Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Prepared for:

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

1200 New Jersey Avenue

Washington, DC 20590

Prepared by:

Tetra Tech, Inc.

661 Andersen Drive Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15220

Submitted to:

Ohio Historic Preservation Office

800 E. 17th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43211-2474

Authors:

Matthew M. Lackett

William P. Barse, Ph. D.

Hannah Dye, MA

James T. Marine, MS/RPA

Principal Investigator

March 2020 
i

ABSTRACT

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has selected Monroe County to receive grant funding for the construction 

of a transportation and loading facility (Transloading Facility) at the Long Ridge Energy Terminal in Monroe County, 

Ohio. Construction of a pipeline from the Blue Racer processing facility in Natrium, West Virginia to the Long Ridge 

Energy Terminal is also a part of this undertaking, but only the Transloading Facility is federally funded. The FRA, in 

coordination with Monroe County and Ohio River Partners LLC., is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

the undertaking in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is coordinating the NEPA 

process with consultation pursuant to Section 106.

For the construction of the Transloading Facility, the Project applied for funding through the United States Department 

of Transportation 2018 Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program. The proposed 

Transloading Facility has a footprint of roughly 20 acres entirely within the existing Long Ridge Energy Terminal.

The proposed pipeline originates at the Blue Racer processing facility in Natrium, West Virginia, crosses under the 

Ohio River via conventional bore, emerging from a bore-pit in Monroe County, Ohio, on a bluff overlooking the Ohio 

River. The natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline extends a total of 5.9 miles of which, 5.4 miles are located in Ohio.

The APE for the Project is defined as the limits of disturbance (LOD) where actual ground disturbance will occur during 

construction of the pipeline and Transloading Facility, and any permanent visual effect that would occur. It is anticipated 

that the construction of the pipeline will require an LOD with a width of 100 feet (ft) extending 50 ft on either side of the

centerline. The length of the direct APE on the Ohio side of the river from the bore pit exit to the LRET is approximately 

28,387 feet. Thus, ground disturbing activities would be confined to a linear corridor measuring 28,387 feet by 100 feet 

(65.17 acres) for the construction of the pipeline, plus approximately 20 acres entirely within the existing LRET where 

the Transloading Facility would be constructed. Since the pipeline will be buried and the surface restored to 

preconstruction contours, the potential visual effects for the Project are limited to views of those portions of the pipeline 

LOD where tree clearing will occur and extend across areas measuring approximately 75 acres. Summing the 

individual disturbances associated with the Project gives a total APE of 160.17 acres.

In the fall of 2019, in support of the EA, Tetra Tech Inc., (Tetra Tech) conducted a Phase I archaeological survey and 

a reconnaissance level history/architectural survey for aboveground resources in the Project’s APE. The Phase I 

archaeological survey identified one historic archaeological resource, 33MO211. This site consists of the disarticulated 

structural remains of an early to mid-twentieth century farmstead and a surface scatter of modern and early to midtwentieth century artifacts. Site 33MO211 is recommended as not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). 

The reconnaissance level history/architectural survey identified five historic aboveground resources within the APE that 

meet the 50-year minimum age requirement for NHRP-listing. Two of these resources, the Lucas Farmstead 

(MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) are recommended as potentially eligible for NRHP-listing. The 

Lucas Farmstead is recommended as potentially eligible for NRHP-listing under Criteria A and C; it serves as a relatively 

well-preserved collective representation of a mid-twentieth century farmstead in Monroe County. Likewise, the Rufener 

Farmstead (MOE005408) is recommended potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criteria A and C for its wellpreserved collection of early twentieth-century domestic and agricultural buildings. 

The Lucas Farmstead (MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) are located primarily in open agricultural 

land that would be restored to preconstruction conditions and the view of the permanent pipeline corridor would be 

minimal. Further, routing of the Project through mostly open agricultural land minimizes direct effects to historic 

agricultural landscape features such as treelines, wind breaks, and woodlots. As a result, the Project’s potential direct 

and indirect effects would not occur to an extent that would diminish the historic integrity of the Lucas Farmstead 

(MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408). Tetra Tech recommends that no adverse effect would occur to 

these potentially eligible resources as the result of Project activities.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS........................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................5

1.1 Area of Potential Effects................................................................................................................5

1.2 Brief Summary of Results .............................................................................................................7

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...........................................................................................................9

2.1 Physiography and Geology ...........................................................................................................9

2.2 Soils...............................................................................................................................................9

2.3 Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoenvironment ............................................................................10

3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................13

3.1 Prehistoric Context......................................................................................................................13

3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (11,500 - 10,000 BP) ..............................................................................13

3.1.2 Early Archaic Period (10,000 - 8,000 BP) ...............................................................................15

3.1.3 Middle Archaic Period (8,000 - 5,500 BP)...............................................................................17

3.1.4 Late Archaic Period (3,500 - 1,000 BP) ..................................................................................17

3.1.5 Transitional Period (3,000 - 2,000 BP)....................................................................................18

3.1.6 Early Woodland Period (2,600 – 2,100 BP)............................................................................18

3.1.7 Middle Woodland Period (2,100 – 1,500 BP)..........................................................................18

3.1.8 Late Woodland Period (1,500 – 800 BP) ................................................................................19

3.1.9 Late Prehistoric Period (800 BP– 350 BP)..............................................................................20

3.2 Historic Context...........................................................................................................................20

3.2.1 Frontier (ca. 1775–1795).........................................................................................................20

3.2.2 Settlement (1796–1819)..........................................................................................................21

3.2.3 Immigration..............................................................................................................................21

3.2.4 The Industrial Period (ca. 1850–1930)....................................................................................22

3.2.5 Twentieth Century ...................................................................................................................22

4.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................24

4.1 Background Research Methods..................................................................................................24

4.2 Field Methods..............................................................................................................................24

4.3 Architectural Survey Methods .....................................................................................................24

5.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................................................26

5.1 Results of Background Research................................................................................................26
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

iii

5.2 Results Architectural Reconnaissance Survey ...........................................................................30

5.3 Results of Phase I Archaeological Survey ..................................................................................34

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................49

7.0 REFERENCES CITED....................................................................................................................50

APPENDICES

Appendix A Section 106 Documentation Table

Appendix B Architectural Survey Resource Photos

Appendix C Draft Ohio Historic Inventory Forms

Appendix D Archaeological Survey Photos

Appendix E Draft Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form

Appendix F Resume of Principal Investigator
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 USGS Project Location Map. ................................................................................................6

Figure 1.1-1 Above Ground Resources with a View of Tree Clearing.......................................................8

Figure 5.1-1 Previously Recorded Resources and Surveys within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the Project. ...........28

Figure 5.2-1 Historic Architectural Resources Identified in the Reconnaissance Survey. ......................31

Figure 5.3-1 Testing Location Mapbook (Pages 1-6). .............................................................................35

Figure 5.3-2 Representative Soil Profiles . ..............................................................................................37

Figure 5.3-3 Scaled Field Drawing of Site 33MO211 within the LOD. ....................................................43

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 5.3-1 Residual Soil Profile, STP A9..............................................................................................38

Photo 5.3-2 Residual Soil Profile, STP B11............................................................................................38

Photo 5.3-3 Disturbed Soil Profile, Opossum Creek Floodplain, STP B2. .............................................39

Photo 5.3-4 (Location 9211) Rock Overhangs, Facing East. .................................................................39

Photo 5.3-5 (Location 9230) Rock Overhang, Facing West ...................................................................40

Photo 5.3-6 Rock Overhang Soil Profile, STP RO4. ..............................................................................40

Photo 5.3-7 Rock Overhang Soil Profile, STP A3. .................................................................................41

Photo 5.3-8 (Location 8991) North Half of Foundation, Facing West.....................................................44

Photo 5.3-9 (Location 315) South Half of Foundation, Facing Southwest . ...........................................44

Photo 5.3-10 (Location 313) Well 1 West of House Foundation. .........................................................45

Photo 5.3-11 (Location 316) Well 2 with Metal Pipes Extending into Well Wall...................................45

Photo 5.3-12 (Location 308) Bottle Dump Northeast of House Foundation. ........................................46

Photo 5.3-13 (Location 9009) Bank Barn Wall Outside Direct APE, Facing West. ..............................46

Photo 5.3-14 Brick with “ALAMO” Makers Mark. ..................................................................................47

Photo 5.3-15 (Location 8987) Representative Bottles from Bottle Dump.............................................47

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2-1 Previously Recorded Soils Located within the APE (NRCS 2017). ......................................9

Table 5.1-1 Previous Archaeological Surveys within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the Project. ...............................27

Table 5.1-2 Previously Recorded Historic Structures within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the Project. ....................29

Table 5.2-1 Recommendations for Resources Identified in the Reconnaissance Survey. ....................32
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has selected Monroe County to receive grant funding for the 

construction of a transportation and loading facility (Transloading Facility at) the Long Ridge Energy 

Terminal (LRET) in Monroe County, Ohio (Figure 1-1). Construction of a natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline 

from the Blue Racer processing facility in Natrium, West Virginia to the Long Ridge Energy Terminal is also 

a part of this undertaking, but only the Transloading Facility is federally funded. The FRA, in coordination 

with Monroe County and Ohio River Partners LLC., is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

undertaking in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is coordinating the NEPA 

process with consultation pursuant to Section 106.

For the construction of the Transloading Facility, the Project applied for funding through the United States 

Department of Transportation 2018 Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) 

program. The proposed Transloading Facility has a footprint of roughly 20 acres entirely within the existing 

LRET. Ohio River Partners LLC., owns and operates LRET, a storage and break-bulk facility that supports 

regional oil and gas drilling, and is positioned to support the storage and transport of NGL’s. The LRET has 

48 existing barge storage slips, several acres of surface storage, truck loadout facilities, and rail spurs 

connected to the Norfolk Southern rail system (Figure 1-1). 

The proposed 10-inch NGL pipeline originates at a valve-connected pumping station at the existing Blue 

Racer facility. The pipeline then goes underground via a bore pit excavated inside the Blue Racer facility, 

crosses under the Ohio River via conventional bore, and surfaces at a valve site in Monroe County, Ohio

on a bluff overlooking the Ohio River. The NGL pipeline has a total of 5.9 miles, of which,5.4 miles are 

located in Ohio (Figure 1-1). From the bore pit exit , the terrain encountered across the proposed pipeline 

route consists of east to west trending ridgelines separated by steep, narrow stream valleys. The pipeline 

component of the Project will utilize the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit 

12 for utility lines crossing of jurisdictional Waters of the United States. A large part of the southern section 

of the route is collocated in an existing and previously disturbed pipeline right-of-way (ROW). 

In support of the EA, Tetra Tech Inc., (Tetra Tech) conducted a cultural resources survey comprised of a 

Phase I archaeological survey and a reconnaissance level history/architectural survey for aboveground 

resources in the Project’s area of potential effects (APE). This report details the methods and results of the 

surveys.

The archaeological survey was conducted according to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office’s (OHPO’s) 

Archaeological Guidelines (1994) and history/architectural survey under the Guidelines for Conducting 

History/Architecture Surveys in Ohio (2014) by personnel that meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Professional Qualification Standards. The Principal Investigator was Mr. James T. Marine, MS/RPA. Ms. 

Hannah Dye, MA served as the architectural historian.

1.1 Area of Potential Effects

As defined in National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) § 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effects (APE) 

means “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alteration 

in the character of use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The area of potential effects is 

influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects 

caused by the undertaking.”

The APE for the Project is defined as the limits of disturbance (LOD) where actual ground disturbance will 

occur during construction of the pipeline and Transloading Facility, and any permanent visual effect that 

might occur. 
")

")

")

")

")

!

TT-001

LUCAS FARMSTEAD

(2425747,642715.6)

TT-002

DEITRICH BARN

(2425276,642009.7)

TT-003

RUFENER FARMSTEAD

(2425659,641040.6)

TT-004

HASLAM FARMSTEAD

(2425675,640434.4)

TT-005

BLATTLER RESIDENCE AND BARN

(2426296,637994.9)

Bore Pit-Exit

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 1,250 2,500 5,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure1_1_1_LREG_Project_APE.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 1.1-1

Project APE

Legend

! Bore Pit-Exit

") Aboveground Historic Resource

Extent of Tree Clearing in Pipeline LOD

Pipeline LOD (65.17 acres)

Potential Visual Effects (75 acres)

Transloading Facility LOD (20 acres)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Total APE = 160.17 acres

D 

, ___ _JC] 

D 

Twp 

OhloTwp j 

• z 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

7

It is anticipated that the construction of the pipeline will require an LOD with a width of 100 feet (ft) extending 

50 ft on either side of the centerline. The length of the LOD on the Ohio side of the river from the bore pit 

exit to the LRET is approximately 28,387 ft. Thus, ground disturbing activities would be confined to a 

linear corridor measuring 28,387 ft by 100 ft (65.17 acres) for the construction of the pipeline, plus 

approximately 20 acres entirely within the existing LRET where the Transloading Facility would be 

constructed. 

Since the pipeline will be buried and the surface restored to preconstruction contours, the potential visual 

effects for the Project are limited to views of those portions of the pipeline LOD where tree clearing will 

occur, approximately 75 acres. Summing these components gives a total APE of 160.17 acres. 

It should be noted that the Project design has not been finalized. Any changes in APE including minor 

route shifts, the addition of access roads, temporary workspaces, and staging areas will be addressed in 

an Addendum Report. 

As stated above, the potential visual effects of the Project are limited to views of those portions of the LOD 

where tree clearing will occur, approximately 75 acres. Figure 1.1-1 depicts these areas in relation to 

historic aboveground resources with potential views of tree clearing. The potential visual effects for the 

Project considered current land uses and topography around the pipeline. For example, tree clearing will 

not occur in portions of the LOD running through open fields. There are no potential views of tree clearing 

in these areas, so the potential visual effects are limited to the LOD in these instances. Likewise, 

intervening landforms that preclude views of the LOD were considered. 

Since the Transloading Facility would be a sub-facility entirely contained in the existing footprint of the 

LRET, and the height of any new construction would not exceed the height of the existing facility, no new 

potential effects would occur. Therefore, the construction of the Transloading Facility does not have the 

potential to directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties. 

1.2 Brief Summary of Results 

The reconnaissance level history/architectural survey identified five historic aboveground resources within 

the APE that meet the 50-year minimum age requirement for NHRP listing. Two of these resources, the 

Lucas Farmstead (MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) are recommended as potentially 

eligible for NRHP-listing. The Lucas Farmstead is recommended as potentially eligible for NRHP-listing 

under Criteria A and C; it serves as a relatively well-preserved collective representation of a mid-twentieth 

century farmstead in Monroe County. Likewise, the Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) is recommended 

potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criteria A and C for its well-preserved collection of early 

twentieth-century domestic and agricultural buildings. The Draft Ohio Architectural Inventory Forms are 

included in Appendix C. 

The Lucas Farmstead (MOE005308) and Rufener Farmsteads (MOE005408) are located primarily in open 

agricultural fields that would be restored to preconstruction conditions. The view of the permanent pipeline 

corridor would be minimal. Routing of the Project through open agricultural land minimizes visual effects to 

agricultural landscape features such as treelines, wind breaks, and woodlots. As a result, visual effects 

would not occur to an extent that would diminish the historic integrity of the Lucas Farmstead 

(MOE005308) or Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408). Tetra Tech recommends that no adverse effect would 

occur to these potentially eligible resources as the result of Project activities. 

The entirety of the direct APE was subject to either pedestrian survey or subsurface investigation through 

the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs). A total of 76 STPs were excavated with no cultural material 

recovered. Pedestrian reconnaissance identified one historic archaeological resource, 33MO211. This 

site consists of the disarticulated structural remains of an early to mid-twentieth century farmstead and a 

surface scatter of modern and early to mid-twentieth century artifacts. Site 33MO211 is recommended 

as not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An Ohio Archeological 

Inventory Form is provided in Appendix E. 
")

")

")

")

")

!

TT-001

LUCAS FARMSTEAD

(2425747,642715.6)

TT-002

DEITRICH BARN

(2425276,642009.7)

TT-003

RUFENER FARMSTEAD

(2425659,641040.6)

TT-004

HASLAM FARMSTEAD

(2425675,640434.4)

TT-005

BLATTLER RESIDENCE AND BARN

(2426296,637994.9)

Bore Pit-Exit

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 1,250 2,500 5,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure1_1_1_LREG_Project_APE.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 1.1-1

Project APE

Legend

! Bore Pit-Exit

") Aboveground Historic Resource

Extent of Tree Clearing in Pipeline LOD

Pipeline LOD (65.17 acres)

Potential Visual Effects (75 acres)

Transloading Facility LOD (20 acres)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Total APE = 160.17 acres

D 

, ___ _JC] 

D 

Twp 

OhloTwp j 

• z 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

9

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Physiography and Geology

The APE is located on the Marietta Plateau of the Allegheny Plateaus Physiographic Province (ODNR 

1998). The two subdivisions of the Marietta Plateau, the Marietta Plateau proper to the west, and the Little 

Switzerland Plateau to the east, are separated by a geological feature referred to as the Flushing Divide. 

All portions of the plateau to the west of the divide flow into Muskingum River, while those of the Little 

Switzerland Plateau, in which the APE is located, flow directly into the Ohio River (Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources [ODNR] 1999). Little Switzerland region is characterized by high relief, is highly 

dissected by high gradient streams, and is underlain primarily by fine-grained rocks, red shales, and red 

soils (Cross and Hedges 1959; Schiefer 2002). In contrast, the area to the west of Flushing Divide exhibits

wider ridges, less relief, and fewer small streams. 

The entire APE is underlain by Pennsylvanian-Period bedrock. Formations of the Dunkard Group (Pc) 

forms most of the APE, while those of the Monongahela Group (Pm) are located at the southern end of the 

APE. Both groups are composed primarily of mudstone, shale, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone. 

2.2 Soils

A review of United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

mapping indicates a total of 13 different soil series or soil complexes have been mapped within the APE. 

Soils developed within the APE are generally derived from the in situ weathering of the underlying bedrock 

with colluvial soil developing along hillsides and at the base of slopes. An overview of soils is provided in 

Table 2.2-1.

Table 2.2-1 Previously Recorded Soils Located within the APE (NRCS 2017).

Soil Series Mapping Units 

in APE Parent Material Typical Soil Profile

Made Land Ma N/A Variable

Guernsey-Westmore Silt 

Loams

GwD2, GwG2, 

GwE2

Colluvium over 

Residuum Ap/BE/Bt1/Bt2/Bt3/2C

Gilpin-Upshur Silt Loams GkD, GkG, GkE2 Residuum Ap/Bt1/Bt2/C

Wellston Silt Loam WhD2 Loess over Residuum A/E/BE/Bt1/Bt2/Bt3/2BC/2C

Gilpin-Westmoreland Silt 

Loams

GdC2, GoD2 Residuum Ap/Bt1/Bt2/C

Guernsey-Upshur 

Complex

GrC2, GrE2, 

GlG, GsG

Colluvium over 

Residuum Ap/BE/Bt1/Bt2/Bt3/2C

WestmorelandWoodsfield Silt Loam WmW1D2 Residuum A/E/BE/Bt1/Bt2/BC/C

Upshur Silt Loam UpC2 Residuum Ap/Bt1/Bt2/Bt3/C1/C2

Brooke Silty Clay Loam BwD2 Residuum Ap/A3/B2t

C

Chagrin Silt Loam Chg1AF Alluvium Ap/Bw/C
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

10

Soil Series Mapping Units 

in APE Parent Material Typical Soil Profile

Wolper Silt Loam WxB Colluvium Ap/Bt1/Bt2/Bt3/C

Sees-Wolper Silt Loam SsE Colluvium Ap/Bt1/Bt2/C

Hackers Silt Loam HcB Alluvium Ap/BA/Bt/BC/C

2.3 Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoenvironment

The APE lies within the Cumberland and Allegheny Plateaus Section of the Mixed Mesophytic Forest 

Region as defined by Braun (1985). Extant secondary forests are composed of mesophytic species such 

as beech, white and red oak, sugar maple, ash, and walnut. However, the prehistoric forest was not only 

different from the modern forest in many respects but was also in a state of gradual change for at least 

8,000 years following the retreat of glacial ice. 

The Pleistocene Epoch witnessed a series of cold periods and associated "ice ages," the most recent of 

which terminated approximately 14,000 to 12,000 years before present (BP). One of the most dramatic 

effects of these "ice ages" was the lowering of ocean levels worldwide as rain water was frozen and trapped 

in glaciers and continental ice sheets. Milliman and Emery (1968) argued on the basis of 80 radiocarbon 

samples taken along the Atlantic continental shelf that sea levels 30,000 to 35,000 years BP were close to 

those at present. Sea levels dropped subsequently as much as 130 meters during the final glaciation circa 

(c.) 16,000 years BP. Along the Atlantic coast, ocean beaches lay at the edge of the modern continental 

shelf, perhaps 100 km east of the current New Jersey coastline. Belknap and Kraft (1977) questioned the 

maximum depth of sea level drop but agreed with the overall temporal trends.

Climatic patterns have changed on regional and continental scales during the Holocene Epoch, which 

began at the end of the Pleistocene c.12,000 to 10,000 years BP. Sea levels continued to rise as a result 

of the release of water from melting ice sheets. As the sea level rose, it began to transgress, or cover, the 

land mass of the "Continental Shelf" (the modern submerged Atlantic continental shelf) to the west. The 

Late Pleistocene-Holocene marine transgression, or sea level rise, began c. 14,000 years BP and 

proceeded rapidly until c. 7,000 years BP (Milliman and Emery 1968; Kraft and Belknap 1983). Custer 

(1994) suggested the slowing of sea level rise did not occur until c. 5,000 years BP.

The implications of such dynamic changes for any paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the Middle Atlantic 

Region during the Paleoindian Period are profound. Climatic changes resulted in a succession of 

vegetation types moving northward, while the coastline and associated marine and eustatic environments 

were approaching from the east. Paleoenvironmental reconstruction must therefore consider both the 

generally northward-moving vegetation patterns arising from the regional climatic shifts and the westwardmoving coastal geomorphological changes associated with rising sea levels.

During the glacial maximum, the region was covered with conifer forests dominated by jack pine and spruce 

(Delcourt and Delcourt 1980; Wilkins et al. 1991). By 10,500 years BP, a mixed conifer-hardwood forest 

had been established on the Allegheny Plateau (Maxwell and Davis 1972; Watts 1979). In addition to 

conifers and oak, these forests included cold-adapted, mesic species such as birch, elm, ash, ironwood, 

maple, and beech. Oak pollen dominated at 10,000 years BP in a core from Browns Pond in the central 

Appalachians of Virginia (VA) (Kneller and Peteet 1999). The presence of carbonized grape, plum, and 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

11

hackberry in a Paleoindian hearth at the Shawnee Minisink site on the Delaware River indicates that 

understory vegetation common in the temperate forest was present in this early period (Dent and Kauffman 

1985). Thus, by 10,000 years BP, the forest canopy in the region likely contained a substantial component 

of temperate hardwoods. 

Faunal data also support the presence of a forest with a strong component of temperate species. Guilday 

(1982) has identified a Holocene fauna including six species of large mammals (deer, elk, mountain lion, 

timber wolf, bear, and bison) and a variety of small mammals such as rabbits, squirrel, grouse, and 

passenger pigeon. These mammals included mast feeders and browsers, as well as animals that subsisted

on fruit or bark. Two sources of faunal data evaluated by Guilday are located in central Pennsylvania (PA)-

New Paris No. 4, a cave in Bedford County (Guilday et al. 1964), and Hosterman's Pit, located in Centre 

County (Guilday 1967). The faunal complex at New Paris No. 4 was radiocarbon dated to 9,300 BC and 

revealed a fauna in transition from predominantly boreal-adapted species to a greater admixture of 

temperate forest-adapted species. At Hosterman's Pit, dated to 7,290 BC, fauna include predominantly 

temperate forest-dwelling species such as squirrel, pine mouse, rabbit, and deer. In addition to these 

central PA sites, fauna associated with temperate conditions were present in levels dated c. 11,300 years 

BP at Meadowcroft Rockshelter in western PA (Adovasio et al. 1985). The animals include box turtle, 

turkey, eastern mole, and pine or woodland vole. 

Thus, the evidence suggests that faunal resources were diverse during the early Holocene, including both 

those adapted to boreal, and those adapted to deciduous, forests (Eisenberg 1978; Delcourt and Delcourt 

1986). Guilday et al. (1977) note that the distribution of fauna depended on biotic gradients related to 

variations in topographic and edaphic conditions. Eisenberg (1978) cites evidence of mammoth and whitetailed deer co-occurring in the Northeast. The temperate forest faunal remains and pollen dating to c. 

11,300 BP at Meadowcroft may have been the localized result of favorable temperature and moisture 

regimes within the Cross Creek drainage (Adovasio et al. 1985).

There is evidence to suggest that the period between 9,000 and 5,500 years BP was characterized by a 

climate warmer and drier than present. Evidence for this Hypsithermal Period is strong in the Midwest 

where pollen data shows an advance of the prairie eastward into Illinois, reaching its maximum extent at 

about 7,000 BP years (King 1980; Bartlein et al. 1984). In the eastern United States, evidence for a warmer, 

drier period at this time includes a peak in grasses at Bear Meadows in Centre County, PA (Kovar 1965), 

and xeric vegetation on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee (Delcourt 1979). Davis et al. (1980) point 

to an increase in the altitudinal range of hemlock and white pine as evidence of a warmer, drier period 

between 9,000 and 5,000 years BP in New England. Watts (1979) in his examination of pollen diagrams 

in the Middle Atlantic region supports the hypothesis of a warmer, drier climate between 8,500 and 5,500 

years BP.

Effects of the warmer, drier climate included a decrease in the number of low-order streams, lower water 

volume in streams generally, a decrease in biomass on ridges, and a lowering of the water table (Graetzer 

1986; Watts 1979). Evidence provided by correlations of pollen core data with pollen from surface samples 

from known vegetation types suggests that the overall composition of the vegetation did not change 

radically in the eastern United States (Bradstreet and Davis 1975). However, changes in hydrology and 

decreases in productivity would likely have had some effect on the distribution of prehistoric populations. 

Specifically, upland areas would have become relatively less attractive, whereas major riverine areas such 

as floodplains and terraces would have been relatively more attractive.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

12

By 5,000 years BP, a relatively stable primary forest was established in the project area. There undoubtedly 

were fluctuations in temperature and moisture after 5,000 years BP, but evidence suggests that these were 

of low amplitude and short duration. Floodplain and terrace soils supported forests of white oak and beech 

along with other mesophytic species such as tulip tree, ash, and sugar maple (Braun 1985). Valley floor 

forests were predominantly beech, white oak and maple with black oak, sycamore, yellow poplar, and many 

other species as minor components. Edible tubers, berries, and fruits were abundant in the understory. 

Hill slopes supported forest communities dominated by white oak, black oak, and hickory with small 

proportions of beech and pine. Hill top forests were largely chestnut oak, with black and white oaks, pine, 

and hickory. Although generally less productive than that of the valley floor, the slope and ridge top forests 

also contained a number of edible plant species. Hickory, which has a relatively high caloric return for time 

and energy spent in gathering and processing, is better represented on the drier ridge tops and southfacing slopes than it is in ravines and north-facing slopes. Although similar in composition, the primary, or 

climax, forest found prior to agricultural clearing differed from the modern secondary forest in that the former 

was characterized by canopy gaps, resulting from falls of senescent trees that provided micro-environments 

favorable to a number of edible resources.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

13

3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT

3.1 Prehistoric Context

3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period (11,500 - 10,000 BP) 

The Paleoindian period is the earliest documented occupation in the Ohio region and the Eastern United 

States. This period is defined by distinctive cultural adaptations focused on the environmental milieu that 

characterized the late Pleistocene and early Holocene climatic periods. The key artifact type that identifies 

this period is the fluted projectile point, usually manufactured from a high quality crypto-crystalline lithic 

material, e.g. jasper, chert, or chalcedony. Although the Paleoindian stage is of short duration, three distinct 

Paleoindian sub-phases or periods have been proposed by Gardner for this period in the Middle Atlantic 

region, based on excavations at the Thunderbird site complex in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia 

(Gardner 1974), a periodization that is relevant to the Ohio region as well. Gardner's three-part subdivision 

of the Paleoindian stage was, in part, based on stratigraphic excavations at the Thunderbird site in the 

Shenandoah Valley of Virginia (Gardner 1974) though it had precedent in earlier work conducted in Nova 

Scotia. Gardner noted that MacDonald had subdivided the Paleoindian stage into three separate phases 

based on his work with the Debert site materials in Nova Scotia (Gardner 1974:36, citing MacDonald 1968). 

MacDonald’s Early Phase included only the Clovis points in his sequence. The second phase was defined 

by Folsom points and their cognate variants while the Dalton-Hardaway sub-phase is the final chronological 

period of the Paleoindian stage, characterized by the minimally fluted Dalton and Hardaway projectile 

points. Many other tool categories are usually associated with these projectile points that usually cannot 

be taken by themselves as diagnostic Paleoindian indicators. It is notable that Tankersley (1996; see also 

Jeffries 2008), has also outlined a three sub-period sequence for the Lower Ohio River Valley, one that 

follows Gardner's chronological subdivisions of the Paleoindian stage and the sub-phases that he identified 

within it. (Tankersley 1996; Jeffries 2008:69-87). 

Paleoindian points almost always exhibit an advanced level of craftsmanship in their manufacture. Fluted 

points are highly diagnostic and appear in broad characteristics uniform in stylistic attributes across the 

continent. The classic lanceolate-shaped and fluted Clovis point marks the earliest phase of the Paleoindian 

stage. As a diagnostic type, the Clovis lanceolate point has a well-documented and widespread distribution 

across the continental United States (Gardner 1974, Anderson, O'Steen and Sassaman 1996). Anderson 

(1996) has modeled the distribution of this type across the Southeastern United States. Clovis points mark 

the key artifact type for inception of this stage (arguments for pre-Clovis aside); its distribution is continentwide, and it even extends south into lower Central America (Ranere and Cooke 1991, 1995). Attributes 

such as basal grinding, lateral thinning, and straight to slightly waisted lower blade margins were common 

on specimens from this stage. 

In Gardner’s chronological framework noted above has strong implications for the Appalachian Plateau and 

Ohio, Clovis points and closely related types identify the first of the three sub-periods (Gardner 1974; 

Gardner and Verrey 1979); it was considered to date between 11,500 to 11,000 BP. The Middle Paleoindian 

period was placed between 11,000 to 10,500 years BP; it generally is characterized by smaller fluted point 

types, e.g. Folsom and related variants. 

The final sub-period is identified by the characteristic Dalton or Dalton-Hardaway point types, is of interest 

since it serves as a transition to the sequent Early Archaic period of the Archaic stage. Dalton and cognate 

points are widespread throughout the Eastern United State. Goodyear, in his excellent paper on the Dalton 

horizon, reviewed the stratigraphic placement of Dalton points from a number of sites in this broad region. 

His review included the Hardaway Site in North Carolina, first tested by Coe (1964), the Stanfield-Worley 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

14

Bluff Shelter in Alabama (DeJarnette, Kurjack and Cambron 1962), the Modoc rockshelter in Illinois (Fowler 

1959), and Graham Cave in Missouri (Logan 1952). In terms of stratigraphic placement, Goodyear noted 

that Dalton and related points had been consistently recovered from basal levels of these sites but were 

not associated with the classic fluted points (e.g. Clovis and Folsom specimens), but with specimens such 

as Quad points and, importantly, the Early Archaic Palmer-Kirk corner notched types (Goodyear 1982:384). 

The latter associations could be nothing more than poor depositional separation between living floors that 

are frequently found in rockshelter and cave sites where depositional processes are quite variable. 

Goodyear concluded that Dalton points fell into a chronological span post-dating classic fluted points and 

“overlapped to some extent” (his words) with specimens belonging to the Early Archaic period. Sassaman 

et al. reviewed Goodyear’s (1982) data on Dalton points and suggested a chronological bracket from 10,500 

to about 9,000 years BP (uncorrected) for the final sub-phase of the Paleoindian period. The latter date 

would overlap with the Early Archaic Palmer/Kirk corner notched points.

Goodyear also observed that there were strong continuities of other artifact categories found in Dalton 

assemblages shared with earlier Paleoindian tool kits. His work was based on extensive research from 

Arkansas to South Carolina. He stated that “ the majority of non-projectile point stone tools found in Dalton 

tool kits can be matched in fluted point assemblages” (Goodyear 1982:384). A variety of unifacial flake tools 

and blades point to a high degree of technological continuity with earlier fluted point tool kits. Thus, Dalton 

represented a technological continuum with earlier Paleoindian phases (Goodyear 1982:384; (Goodyear, 

Michie and Charles 1989:39). In the latter paper, Goodyear et al. again mentioned that Dalton may straddle 

the Paleoindian to Archaic divide as noted above. They noted the frequent incidence of serrations of the 

blade element and the far greater number of sites as evidence reflecting the onset of the Early Archaic 

period which is discussed further below.

An analysis of fluted point distributions in Ohio suggests that Paleoindian site locations frequently are found 

in major stream valleys and at stream confluences close to quality flint resources. In Virginia, Gardner's 

(1974) quarry base camp model is applicable to a variety of geographic settings that includes Ohio, a model 

that Goodyear (1971) adopted for the Carolina region. As an example of this model, it common that many 

diagnostic Paleoindian points have been recovered far removed from the original lithic source from which 

they were made. One of the lamellar blades associated with the Clovis occupation at Big Bone Lick in 

northern Kentucky was, as noted by Tankersley, Waters and Stafford (2009:563) struck from a core of Fort 

Payne chert, a source that is nearly 420 km (261 mi) distant from the site from where it was recovered. 

Recovery of this lithic material far from its source reflects the high mobility of Early Paleoindian hunting 

groups. In addition, many points recovered distant from the quarry source exhibit curation or re-sharpening 

to preserve its useful life rather than selecting local lithic sources. Paleoindian sites are rarely documented 

in regions such as swampy lowlands or rugged highlands (Payne 1982) though the location of some upland 

Clovis point finds suggests that some use was made of these environmental settings. In particular, the 

Three Saylors site in Harlan County, Kentucky contained a moderate-sized Clovis component situated on 

a terrace along a small tributary of the Kentucky River (Tankersley 2008). 

Paleoindian groups relied on late Pleistocene faunal and floral resources for subsistence. In terms of faunal 

remains, there are several sites that have good associations of extinct faunal specimens and Clovis tools 

in direct association in the region. This sample would include the well-known Big Bone Lick site in Boone 

County, Kentucky, where late Pleistocene fauna, including numerous mastodon remains, have been 

recovered since the beginning of the 19th Century (Tankersley 1985, 1987, 1998). Tankersley, Waters and 

Stafford (2009) reported on the association and dating of stratigraphic contexts at the site that contain 

Clovis points along with mastodon and other extinct mammalian species that were present during the late 

Pleistocene era. Although no direct evidence that the faunal remains reflect game that was actually 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

15

procured through hunting, the stratigraphic contexts of the site clearly illustrates the association of Clovis 

with mastodon remains. Excavations at Sheridan Cave site in NW Ohio revealed an association between 

a single Clovis point and extinct mammalian species. Radiocarbon dating of one of two bone points 

recovered from the same stratigraphic context as the Clovis point fragment produced a date of 10, 915 BP 

Calibrated, this date falls between 12, 925 and 13,000 BP (Waters, Stafford, Redmond and Tankersley 

2009:109), a date that is well within the range for Clovis and the Early Paleoindian sub-phase or period. Of 

interest was the presence of extinct peccary in the faunal remains from the site among other species 

(Ibid:107-108), though secure associations between the Clovis fragment is not clear. It is likely that such 

patterns of faunal exploitation continued into the later phases of the Paleoindian stage though sites with 

good contexts are rare to non-existent in the project area.

3.1.2 Early Archaic Period (10,000 - 8,000 BP)

The Early Archaic period was a technological and adaptive continuum from the Paleoindian period. It also 

marked the advent of a different “stage” of cultural development following the chronological scheme 

discussed above (Willey and Phillips 1958, Griffin 1967). Across the Eastern United States projectile point 

assemblages exhibited a distinctive innovation in lithic technology not found in the earlier Paleoindian 

periods, the notching of projectile points, a trait that Gardner (1974) argued reflected the use of the spearthrower used with lances bearing points fixed on detachable-shafts mounted on longer shafts or lances. 

Gardner argued that this may have been linked to the adoption of a throwing technique as opposed to a 

thrusting technique in hunting behavior, a change that may reflect an adaptation to the procurement of more 

solitary game species that were present in the changing environmental conditions that began towards the 

close of the Paleoindian period and accelerated during the onset of the Holocene climatic era and the Early 

Archaic period. A continuing climatic change post-dating the glacial recession led to the gradual reduction 

of the mixed open grassland biome and spruce forest characteristic of the Late Pleistocene. This change 

was coupled with the spread of a mixed deciduous forest biome (Carbone 1974) and in places, particularly 

in the Southeastern United States, to a more open grassland or savanna type environment. 

Such changes were likely present in the eastern Ohio region and to an extent, the western edge of the 

Allegheny Plateau region. Development of the deciduous forest probably led to the greater dispersal of 

game species that were hunted during the Early Archaic period. Following Gardner’s suggestion and based 

on their extensive work at the Haw River sites in North Carolina, Claggett and Cable (1982) argued that 

changes in biface technology from the earlier Paleoindian period reflected adaptations to a range of new 

environments that were the consequence of post-glacial warming trends (see discussion in Sassaman et 

al. 1990:9). Such changes are readily seen in the Early Archaic assemblages found in Ohio and the Plateau 

region in general.

Key projectile points that mark the onset of the Early Archaic period include the classic corner-notched 

Palmer and Kirk points and their cognate forms (Coe 1964; Gardner 1974; Chapman 1985). In his classic, 

well-known volume on the Carolina Piedmont, Coe suggested that the corner-notched Palmer point 

developed from the late Paleoindian Hardaway side notched types (Coe 1964). Palmer points frequently 

exhibit basal grinding, a trait found on many Paleoindian specimens. This may represent a carry-over in 

preparation techniques of the haft prior to mounting the point in a shaft along with other aspects of Early 

Archaic lithic technology. As noted below, basal grinding was a variable trait and not necessarily a good 

chronological indicator (see Kimball 1996). Many specimens from West Virginia exhibit heavily ground basal 

elements, likely tied to techniques of lashing a finished point to a haft.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

16

Kirk Corner-Notched points may have developed out of Palmer, though Chapman, based on his extensive 

work in the Little Tennessee River, suggested that both types were contemporaneous and reflected nothing 

more than size differences based on raw material (Chapman 1985:147). In light of his extensive 

excavations at the Icehouse Bottom and Bacon sites, Chapman argued that the Early Archaic period 

marked by the appearance of corner notched Palmer/Kirk specimens could be subdivided into two subperiods based on overall morphology, the earlier designated a "Lower Kirk" and the sequent one an "Upper 

Kirk" component (Chapman 1985:147). Additionally, Chapman suggested the use of the term Kirk Corner 

Notched “Cluster” for discussing the early corner notched Palmer and Kirk specimens and cognate cornernotched point forms. Distinguishing Palmer from Kirk specimens is based on the relative percentage of 

basal grinding, present more frequently on Palmer specimens and largely absent on the corner notched 

Kirk specimens. However, many corner-notched points from a range of sites exhibit variable to heavy basal 

grinding Coe did not report basal grinding on corner notched Kirk points from the Hardaway site (Coe 

1964:70), perhaps an oversight. 

At the outset of the Early Archaic period, lithic technology saw the continued the emphasis on the selection 

of high quality lithic raw materials employed during the Paleoindian period, especially during the Palmer 

sub-phase. Such a strong emphasis on the selection and use of cryptocrystalline lithic material for projectile 

point manufacture could suggest that a continuation of the quarry-base camp settlement model defined by 

Gardner (1974) and discussed further by Goodyear (1979) was still in use. Such a model may have been 

tied to mobility patterns related to the procurement of more solitary game species as well. A greater range 

of lithic raw materials appears to have been employed in the later Kirk phases and certainly by the onset of 

the Middle Archaic period. 

Early Archaic settlement was likely timed to the distribution of faunal and floral resources that were being 

procured, and thus was distributed across a wider range of environmental zones than had been exploited 

previously when climatic conditions were different. For instance, to the south in eastern Tennessee, the 

Early Archaic sites along the Little Tennessee River are diverse in terms of resources exploited and include 

manos and metates for processing plant subsistence items. Such sites are called by Chapman “residential 

base camps” and are thought to mark larger social groups than those represented by small lithic scatters 

found in upland settings. The greater distribution of Early Archaic sites compared to the known extent and 

number of Paleoindian sites may reflect an adaptive pattern tied to dispersed or solitary roaming game 

species that were adapted to the gradually spreading deciduous forest. The greater number of Early Archaic 

sites is also testament to an increase in population over the Paleoindian period, if overall site density is 

used as a gross measure of population density.

A number of the Early Archaic components are present in multi-component sites in the Hocking River Valley 

(Shane and Murphy 1967). These sites, along with others identified in the Scioto River Valley (Prufer 

1967a), demonstrate a selection for broad floodplain areas for base-camp locations. In eastern Ohio, most 

Early Archaic components are either isolated upland hunting stations or small overnight camps and larger 

residential base camps located in floodplain localities along the larger streams and rivers. 

In many sites, the Early Archaic components found in the larger river drainages, such as those identified 

by Prufer (1967a) in the Scioto River Valley, were obscured by the intensive re-occupation by later Archaic 

and intense Woodland villages. Single-component residential base camps that yield better-defined Early 

Archaic diagnostic material have been located along the channels of smaller tributaries that were not used 

as frequently by later more sedentary Woodland components. The sites located along such smaller 

drainages have been interpreted as seasonal inland encampments (Pratt 1981). Evidence suggests that 

seasonal semi-sedentism began to develop around 7,000 B.C.; the subsistence and settlement systems 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

17

were characterized by scheduled exploitation of seasonally available resources and by a high degree of 

residential mobility within well-defined resource catchment areas (Muller 1986). This is a pattern that 

Gardner discussed as well for the Shenandoah region of Virginia and the greater Middle Atlantic area 

(Gardner 1974, 1980). 

3.1.3 Middle Archaic Period (8,000 - 5,500 BP) 

Characteristics that differentiate the Middle from the Early Archaic Period include a tool kit that includes 

groundstone grooved axes, bannerstones, bell-shaped pestles, and pendants; a decline in unifacially 

worked tools; and a shift in subsistence strategy to a heavier reliance on shellfish collecting along major 

drainages (Griffin 1967; Mayer-Oakes 1955). Numerous sites with Middle Archaic components also were 

identified during Prufer’s (1967a) survey of the Scioto and Hocking River valleys. Middle Archaic sites seem 

to be concentrated along the smaller tributaries throughout southern Ohio. 

The three general types of Middle Archaic sites suggested by DeRegnaucourt (1983) are small camps, 

large camps, and base camps. “Small camps” usually are less than 0.5 hectare (ha) (1.24 ac) in area, 

probably were occupied from one to a few days, and usually occur in upland areas away from streams on 

elevated ridges near springs. The category of "large camps" incorporates hunting camps, hunting and 

butchering camps, and chert quarrying and processing sites. These sites are consistent with encampments 

of one day to perhaps a week or slightly more; they typically occupy an area of between 0.5 ha and 2 ha 

(1.24 ac. – 4.94 ac). Base camps may be considered to represent the foci of a centrally based 

transhumance system, and probably were occupied seasonally. Base camps range from 0.5 ha (1.24 ac) 

to 8 ha (19.8 ac) in size and are located on prominent terraces, bluffs, or other elevations near the 

confluence of two small streams or a small stream and a larger river. The basic projectile point types for 

the Middle Archaic are the Lecroy Bifurcate (7,500 BP), the Eva basal notched (7,200 to 6,000 BP), and 

the Morrow Mountain (6,700 to 6,400 BP). 

3.1.4 Late Archaic Period (3,500 - 1,000 BP) 

The Late Archaic saw the advent of modern mixed deciduous forest communities throughout the 

northeastern United States. A hunting, fishing, and gathering economy developed around a seasonal 

schedule of resource procurement focused on white-tailed deer, nuts, waterfowl, fish, and mussels. Other 

economic functions and patterns also coincided with the scheduling of resources; bands or tribes settled 

either in seasonal base camps or in one semi-sedentary settlement with several satellite procurement 

stations distributed radially around them (Brose and Lee 1985; DeRegnaucourt 1986). 

In Ohio, six site types occur: villages, camp sites, lithic scatters, find spots, rockshelters, and mortuary sites. 

The preference for habitation in all categories was for upland localities, particularly at the confluences of 

drainages, regardless of type of landform (Brose and Lee 1985). The primary Late Archaic artifact types 

are the stemmed and notched projectile point forms such as Lamoka, Dustin, Brewerton side notched, 

Brewerton corner-notched, Newton Falls side notched, Susquehanna/Ashtabula, and Narrow stemmed 

types. Less frequently found are hafted scrapers, knives, drills and perforators, ground stone axes, celts, 

grooved hammerstones, adzes, and pestles. An extensive bone and antler industry is evidence by such 

forms as bone fish hooks, bone awls, bone bodkins, hairpins, atlatl handles, antler points, and flakes, 

although it is probable that similar industries existed earlier (DeRegnaucourt 1986; Brose and Lee 1985). 

Other characteristics of the Late Archaic included the first appearance of ceremonial paraphernalia, and 

the first real signs of collective cemeteries located away from settlement areas also were established 

(Penny 1985). 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

18

3.1.5 Transitional Period (3,000 - 2,000 BP) 

The Transitional Period can be viewed as a stage during which numerous small societies shared a 

fundamental cultural package and interacted with mutually influential, more complex neighboring societies 

(Mason 1981). By 2,600 BP, however, Early Woodland ceramic technology was firmly established 

throughout the region, ending the Transitional phase. In the Hocking River Valley, transitional sites that 

include habitation centers and ceremonial mounds are located in a wider variety of ecological settings, 

including upland terraces along smaller tributary streams (Abrams 1992). This pattern of site distribution 

seems to reflect a growing Adena influence that was grafted onto an Archaic-style framework of site location 

preferences. As mound-building became more prevalent, the variation in the ecological settings of sites 

narrowed, with nearly all sites located on the broad floodplains of major rivers (Abrams 1992). 

Several types of projectile points are associated with the Transitional Period time frame. Meadowood 

points, thin, triangular, well-made bifaces with small side notches, generally are crafted from Onondaga 

chert. Leimbach stemmed points are ovate based, tapered and straight stemmed bifaces. The other two 

types are the large Feeheley bifaces, and the various small, micro regional projectile point types of which 

the Crawford Knoll type is the most common in northern Ohio. Cresap points are larger, stemmed bifaces 

that are believed to be a possible antecedent to later stemmed Adena projectile points (Shane 1967). Other 

artifacts that are diagnostic of the Transitional Period are stone bowls, birdstones, and smoking pipes 

(Mason 1981; and Stothers and Abel 1993).

3.1.6 Early Woodland Period (2,600 – 2,100 BP) 

Early Woodland in Ohio is defined primarily with reference to the Adena Culture of central and southern 

Ohio, which in turn is divided into the Early Adena (3,000 – 2,500 BP), Late Adena (2,500 – 2,100 BP), and 

Transitional Adena-Hopewell (2,100 – 1,900 BP) sub-periods (Greber 1983). Specific Adena traits include: 

conical mounds located within earthen enclosures or constructed over burned dwellings; sacred circles with 

interior ditches; log tombs; circular houses with paired posts; and artifacts such as stemmed projectile points 

(especially the Robbins type), Adena Plain ceramics, expanded center gorgets, tubular tobacco pipes, 

hematite cones, galena artifacts, mica artifacts, use of ornamental copper, jaw spatulas, scapula awls, 

tablets with stylistic engravings, and sculpture in the round (Kime 1986). 

Early Woodland social organization in southern Ohio adopted a hierarchical system that drew together 

groups on at least three social levels: regional bands, local bands, and band segments. Several types of 

Early Woodland sites are common throughout the region. Village sites accommodated large groups of more 

than five households as year-round primary domiciles; they frequently were occupied for more than one 

year, and they provide evidence of permanent structures. Camps were short-term seasonal occupation 

sites with structural remains, or were used for other special purpose activities. Mortuary sites contain one 

or more burials in non-mound contexts, as at the Caldwell’s Little Bluff Site (Lovejoy 1967). Mounds are 

earth and stone deposits placed over one or more burials. Earthworks consist of earthen walls arranged in 

geometric patterns.

3.1.7 Middle Woodland Period (2,100 – 1,500 BP) 

The Middle Woodland has been defined primarily with reference to the Hopewell culture. Ohio Hopewell 

culture was based primarily in the Ohio and Scioto river valleys. The Hopewell cultural phenomenon is 

defined by the exchange of rare ritual items rather than by local phases. Sizable populations were present, 

but truly large-scale agriculture was not practiced. Hopewell sites elaborated on Early Woodland models; 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

19

their larger earthworks and richer burials suggest intensified ceremonialism and greater social inequality. 

Specific Hopewell traits include enclosure, burial, and effigy mounds and earthworks; distinctive dentatestamped and rocker-stamped ceramic vessels; platform pipes; cut animal jaws and teeth; pan pipes; 

extensive villages located near water sources; and widespread long-distance exchange networks (Fitting 

1978). 

Maslowski and Seeman (1992) identified five ecological zones for Hopewell habitation, including stream 

channel, flood zone, Wisconsin terraces, Illinoisan terraces, and uplands. The majority of recorded Scioto 

Valley sites are located on terraces overlooking the floodplain of the river, often near its confluence with a 

smaller stream (Prufer 1967a), although habitation sites from the Middle Woodland have been identified in 

all of the above-mentioned ecological zones. The primary Hopewell settlement pattern consisted of small 

farmsteads scattered around ceremonial centers (Fitting 1978), although the exact relationship between 

these two types of sites is still debated (Dancey and Pacheco 1997). Mound sites have been interpreted as 

communal hubs of trade, redistribution, and shared ceremonial events (Pacheco 1997).

3.1.8 Late Woodland Period (1,500 – 800 BP) 

The Late Woodland Period was marked by the gradual disappearance of Hopewell influences and by a 

gradual contraction of the inter-regional exchange of raw materials and finished artifacts (Griffin 1983). In 

terms of settlement patterning, Dancey (1992), in his comparison of Middle and Late Woodland settlement 

patterns, noted that the size of Late Woodland habitation sites was 2 ha to 4 ha (4.94 ac – 9.88 ac), a 

marked increase from the previous average size of 0.6 ha to 2 ha (1.48 ac – 4.94 ac) during the Middle 

Woodland. The “nucleation” of typically dispersed populations in southern Ohio seems to have been tied 

directly to the advent of subsistence strategies that benefited from cooperation and creation of surpluses 

(Dancey 1992). 

True maize-beans-and-squash agriculture adopted by the Late Woodland populations in the Ohio Valley, 

such as the occupants of the Water Plant Site in the Hocking River Valley (Dancey 1992), offered a more 

constant food source and decreased the area over which earlier populations ranged. Villages typically 

included several households, evidenced in the archeological record by numerous and spatially separate 

artifact distribution density peaks; these villages sometimes were surrounded by defensive ditches or 

palisades. Storage pit features are common, as at the Graham Site (McKenzie 1967). Village sites typically 

were located on level ground on higher terraces above major rivers, often near the confluence with a smaller 

stream. 

Projectile point styles from the Late Woodland period in Ohio most often associated with bow and arrow 

technology are the Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Raccoon Notched, Hamilton and Levanna types. Thomas 

(1978) has put forth a quantitative analysis of the relative size of dart and arrow points, and according to 

his data only Madison triangular points (1,100 – 500 BP) qualify as true arrow points. Dates associated with 

Madison points may demonstrate a widespread acceptance of bow and arrow technology, with a “trial use” 

period from 600 to 800 A.D., marked by the some of the most pronounced changes in projectile point 

morphology in the Woodland period (Seeman 1992). 

Ceramic traditions followed during the Late Woodland period in southern Ohio seems to represent a 

mingling of indigenous cultures with newly prominent Mississippian cultural traditions. In the Scioto Valley, 

Peters ceramics represents a continuation of local traditions (Prufer 1967b). Baum focus ceramics, marked 

by crushed granite temper, cord-wrapped paddle decoration and straight to slightly flaring lips, is often 

affiliated with the Fort Ancient tradition, and seems to represent a local population that had extensive 

interaction with and influence from Mississippian cultures (McKenzie 1967). Feurt ceramics typically are 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

20

incised and demonstrate mussel shell temper. These ceramics are likely a direct adoption of Mississippian 

technologies (Prufer 1967b). 

3.1.9 Late Prehistoric Period (800 BP– 350 BP) 

Mississippian culture spread northward from the Gulf Coast through all of the headwaters of the Mississippi 

drainage (Nass and Yerkes 1995; Rogers and Smith 1995; Rutter 1984; Stothers and Graves 1985; and 

Stothers and Rutter 1977). An Upper Mississippian manifestation in Southern Ohio from ca. 1,450 – 1,600 

A.D. is known as Fort Ancient (Nass and Yerkes 1995; and Ullman 1985). Early Fort Ancient phase peoples 

still built monumental earthworks, but by A.D. 1300, mound building had ended and Fort Ancient peoples 

shifted to cemetery burial with no overt mound construction (Drooker 2000). 

Fort Ancient villages generally consisted of several round or rectangular houses ranged around a central 

plaza, with later sites evidencing defensive works surrounding the settlement (Harper 2000). Maize 

production increased sharply during the period (Wymer 1992), although hunting was still an important part 

of Fort Ancient phase subsistence patterns. Prufer (1967a) and Shane and Murphy (1967) identified several 

sites with substantial Fort Ancient components in their surveys of the Scioto and Hocking River valleys. 

These sites often cover several acres and are located on the bottomlands below the Illinoisan terrace. 

In eastern Ohio, the Late Prehistoric Period includes evidence for the Monongahela culture, better known 

from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Defining artifacts of the tradition include limestone and shell 

tempered, collarless ceramic vessels demonstrating both plain and cordmarked exterior treatment, cannel 

coal pendants, bird bone beads, ceramic pipes, small triangular chert projectile points (Nass and Hart 2000, 

Mayer-Oakes 1955). The Monongahela lived in villages of several households organized around a central 

plaza, often situated in upland areas several kilometers from major river valleys. Semi-subterranean pits 

enclosed by bent posts covered with hides were popular means of storage among the Monongahela for the 

surplus of crops generated by their intensive maize agricultural practices (Nass and Hart 2000). Early 

Monongahela sites in eastern Ohio, such as the Opatrny site (Baker 1979), typically do not evidence a 

palisade or other defensive measures. Later sites in eastern Ohio show trends towards larger villages with 

greater complexity of house pattern and storage feature arrangement. 

3.2 Historic Context

3.2.1 Frontier (ca. 1775–1795)

Until the late eighteenth century, few Euro-Americans had settled in Ohio. Those who were in Ohio either 

lived in or near Native American villages or were hunter-farmers. During the Revolutionary War, squatters 

from western Pennsylvania and Virginia began occupying land in the future Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, 

Guernsey, Harrison, Jefferson, Monroe, Mahoning, and Stark counties. By 1779, there were clearances 

along the Ohio River as far south as the Muskingum River. In 1785, there were approximately 300 families 

at the falls of the Hocking River, 300 along the Muskingum River, and 1,500 along the Miami and the Scioto 

rivers (Jones 1983). These small settlements would have been rather perilous because they were not 

welcomed by the Native Americans, nor was their settlement sanctioned by the United States government. 

The descendants of these first migrants to Ohio probably formed the core of native-born Ohioans in eastern

Ohio. 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

21

3.2.2 Settlement (1796–1819)

The Treaty of Greenville, signed August 3, 1795, was the impetus for rapid settlement of Ohio. Previously, 

Ohio pioneers, like pioneers of New England, had settled in defensible nucleated groups with in-lots and 

out-lots for mutual protection. Following the conflicts with Native Americans during 1794 and the Greenville 

Treaty line was established in 1795, the situation was drastically altered and most of Ohio was safe for 

isolated farms (Bond 1941).

Migrants to Ohio at first gravitated toward the Virginia Military District, the Symmes Purchase, and the Ohio 

Company Purchase. These areas were held privately and were already open for settlement. The Survey 

of the Seven Ranges (1785–1786) and the Connecticut Western Reserve greatly increased the available 

land (Bond 1941). Settlement of Northeast Ohio was essentially the result of migration from Mid-Atlantic 

states, especially Pennsylvania and Maryland. Settlers from this area moved westward, crossing the Ohio 

River and following its tributaries inland.

Most migrants were farmers seeking fertile farmland in the new frontier. Their livelihood depended on 

livestock raising and grain production, particularly wheat (Wilhelm 1982). Although new settlers, out of 

necessity, were self-sufficient, they still had to trade for basic supplies such as coffee, tea, salt, sugar, 

hardware, farm implements, and cloth. The average settler cleared only 2.47 ac (1 ha) of land per year. 

Generally, the early farmer only put a small portion of land (about 9.88 ac [4 ha]) for crops under the plow 

and reserved plenty for pasture for animals and forest for firewood and livestock, usually pigs. However, 

there was little advantage to producing much more than one’s family needed as roads were not adequate 

to get their goods to market. Any surplus produce was used to trade for supplies or was distilled (Heald 

1949; Noble and Wilhelm 1995).

The land comprising eastern Ohio was not ceded to the United States until the early nineteenth century 

through a succession of land treaties. The former Native American trails through the region aided in 

establishing frontier settlements (Blue 1928). The region’s counties, known for their rich, agricultural lands, 

became great wheat producers and by 1815 were the center of an exclusively sheep-raising, agricultural 

region (Howe 1902). Coal-mining activity in the region has a history extending back to 1806. Ten years 

later, coal was the chief source of fuel in many counties (Perrin 1881).

3.2.3 Immigration

Little immigration occurred in the first decade-and-a-half of the nineteenth century, due to the disturbance 

of shipping caused by the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. After peace was achieved by 1815, 

transatlantic shipping resumed. With a change in European land policies of the nineteenth century, 

emigration was also encouraged or viewed as the only viable option by European peasants (Wilhelm 1982).

Immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, and Germany left their homelands due in part to changing land policies. 

When the potato crops failed, most notably in Scotland in 1846 and in Ireland ca. 1830 to 1845, there was 

a massive wave of emigration from those countries. Many Germans left their homeland after the failed 

Revolution of 1848. These nineteenth-century German immigrants often joined and reinforced the cultural 

ways of the westward-moving Pennsylvania Dutch, descendants of eighteenth-century German immigrants 

(Wilhelm 1982).

Diverse social, economic, political, and material traits became established in eastern Ohio because of the 

varying cultural backgrounds of the migrants. 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

22

Since the major migrant groups became geographically distinct during settlement and did not overlap 

greatly, their respective cultural influences remained relatively unchanged and persistent, providing the 

basis of the region’s cultural differentiation of today (Wilhelm 1982).

The 1850 census of Ohio is a good indicator of the ethnic and regional composition of the state in the middle 

of the nineteenth century, after the initial settlement and predominantly western European immigration, and 

before the largely eastern European immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries 

(Wilhelm 1982). All of these groups probably shared a similar cultural background, that of 

Germanic/Pennsylvania Dutch. Judging by the sheer number of Pennsylvanian migrants, the Marylanders 

were probably from parts of Maryland strongly influenced and dominated by Pennsylvania culture. 

Likewise, the number of German immigrants indicates that the French were probably from parts of France 

strongly influenced and dominated by Germanic culture. Thus, a Germanic influence would be expected 

to dominate much of eastern Ohio due to the sheer numbers of the migrants from the Pennsylvania sphere, 

combined with the immigrants from the German sphere.

3.2.4 The Industrial Period (ca. 1850–1930)

An investment in infrastructure complemented Ohio's central location and put it at the heart of the nation's 

transportation system traveling north and south and east and west, and also gave eastern Ohio a head 

start during the national industrialization process which occurred during this period. By the late 1810s, the 

National Road crossed the Appalachian Mountains, connecting the region with the east coast. The Ohio 

River aided the agricultural economy by allowing farmers to move their goods by water to the southern 

states and the port of New Orleans. The construction of the Erie Canal in the 1820s allowed businesses 

to ship their goods through Lake Erie and to the east coast, which was followed by the completion of the

Ohio and Erie Canal and the connection of Lake Erie with the Ohio River. This gave the region complete 

water access to the world within the borders of the United States. The Ohio Loan Law of 1837 allowed the 

state to loan one-third of construction costs to businesses, passed initially to aid the construction of canals, 

but instead used heavily for the construction of railroads. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad crossed the 

Appalachians in the mid-1850s and connected the state with the east coast (Heald 1949).

With the emergence of a successful and growing industrial base in the region, the need for workers were 

high and the increase in population created a need for more housing (Heald 1949). For these developments 

to be attractive to potential property owners, improved transportation was required. At first there were 

horse-drawn trolley cars, but by the end of 1889, electric street railways were the norm. The interurban 

lines were popular until the early 1920s when automobiles and bus transportation became more highly 

used.

3.2.5 Twentieth Century 

From the time Ohio attained statehood in 1803, the state’s ready access to raw materials and navigable 

waterways at its northern and southern boundaries offered industrious entrepreneurs opportunity for profit. 

With an abundance of coal and iron ore, industrialists throughout the state erected iron works for the 

production of pig iron. The Mahoning Valley, in northeast Ohio, developed into a significant iron smelting 

area. The iron industry in turn facilitated development of a large steel industry, with Youngstown in the 

Mahoning Valley arising as one of the most prominent steel towns in the country (Hunker 1958:11–17).

During World War II, the region experienced significant industrial development and population growth. The 

state’s diversified industrial base and geographical proximity to transportation routes and other population 

centers made it well suited for wartime production needs. 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

23

The industrial development and consequential economic prosperity generated during World War II shaped 

the region’s economic, cultural, and social history for decades thereafter.

As the development of paved roads and automobiles accompanied this industrial development, 

demographic trends shifted from population increases in the cities at the expense of the countryside, to the 

opposite trend. The population of both the county and cities continued to grow, but the population living in 

the cities dropped to 59 percent, meaning the non-city population grew more quickly than the city population 

by that time. The suburban areas by 1958 had more residents than any single city in the region. Early 

suburban development in the post-World War I period had focused on subdivisions for the wealthy. In the 

post-World War II period, suburban living for city workers became the rule rather than the exception (Heald 

1958).

The agricultural sector of the region’s economy also benefitted from wartime expansion and demand.

Eastern Ohio farmers worked within a constantly changing dynamic that involved weather, market forces, 

and technological developments. A farmer’s success often depended on his or her acumen at correctly 

assessing both current events and future trends. At the onset of World War II, the region’s farmers faced 

numerous difficult challenges, many of which had been brewing for more than two decades. Small and 

family farms met additional obstacles as most federal government programs were tailored toward 

consolidating farms and meeting the needs of large farmers. The resultant industrialization of agriculture 

that began during this period continued through the remainder of the twentieth century (Hunker 1958:67).
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

24

4.0 METHODS

4.1 Background Research Methods

Preliminary research was initiated by reviewing the archaeological and historical architecture files and 

relevant cultural resource management reports housed at the OHPO. Previously recorded cultural 

resources within approximately 1-mi of the APE were identified and mapped.

Additional research was undertaken to develop prehistoric and historic contexts to identify known and/or 

potential site locations within the project area. The cultural contexts included an assessment of the 

prehistory and history of the project area and formed the foundation required for the interpretation and 

evaluation of archaeological sites discovered during field investigations. Environmental research focused 

on aspects of local geology, soils, hydrology, geomorphology, vegetation, and recent natural and/or cultural 

disturbances to the project area. Existing data and preliminary background research, gathered during 

earlier studies, was incorporated and utilized, as appropriate.

4.2 Field Methods

The fieldwork entailed subsurface testing of all intact soils with slopes of less than 15 percent within the 

APE. Fieldwork was conducted using metric units. For the convenience of the reader the English 

conversions are provided in this section. Subsurface testing was achieved through the excavation of STPs. 

STPs were initially placed at 15-meter (m) (50-ft) intervals in all areas with slopes of less than 15 percent. 

Pedestrian reconnaissance was undertaken in all areas not shovel tested. These areas included locations 

with slope in excess of 15 percent were not shovel tested and areas that have been previously disturbed. 

Pedestrian reconnaissance inspected these areas for the presence of historic-period features as well as 

rockshelters and level benches that could contain prehistoric sites. 

Each STP measured 50 x 50 centimeters (cm) [20-x-20 inches (in)] and was excavated at least 10 cm (4 

in) into sterile subsoil. No alluvial soils were encountered during the investigation as all excavation took 

place within residual or disturbed soils. All excavated soils were sifted through 0.25 in mesh hardware 

cloth. When feasible, STPs were excavated by stratigraphic level and recovered artifacts were collected 

separately and placed in appropriately labeled containers. A description of each STP was recorded in the 

field. This included a description of the local terrain; the Munsell color, texture, composition and thickness 

of soil strata; the presence or absence of cultural materials; and a description of any signs of previous soil 

disturbance. All testing locations were plotted on maps in the field and recorded using a hand-held Trimble 

XH GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. 

4.3 Architectural Survey Methods

Field survey involved a systematic survey of historic architectural resources within the APE. The survey 

team members traversed all passable public roads located within the APE. Historic architectural resources 

were observed and documented from the public right-of-way unless otherwise accessed via privatelyowned driveways or roads when express consent of the landowner was provided. Buildings normally 

construed as public, such as churches, stores, and cemeteries were approached more closely. Every effort 

was made to identify and record each resource over 50 years old within the APE. USGS topographical 

quadrangle maps dated from 1961 guided field observations related to dates of construction and the NRHP 

age criterion. 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

25

Pursuant to OHPO’s Guidelines for Conducting History/Architecture Surveys in Ohio (Revised 2014) and 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, the 

reconnaissance-level survey identified, digitally photographed, and recorded resources over 50 years old 

including primary buildings and any contributing outbuildings. The resources were recorded in Section III 

of the Project Review Form in the Section 106 Documentation Table (Appendix A). Photographs are 

provided as Appendix B. Tetra Tech architectural historians recorded the architectural style, condition, and 

important features of each resource and noted any major changes or alterations. The location of each 

resource was recorded using a handheld GPS (Trimble GeoExplorer XH 7000) unit. GPS data was 

differentially corrected and plotted on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

26

5.0 RESULTS

In October 2019, Tetra Tech conducted a search of the OHPO Online Mapping System utilizing a 1.6-

kilometer (km) (1-mi) buffer around the LOD prior to conducting fieldwork (Figure 5-1). The LOD roughly 

parallels the Ohio River following the upland ridgelines just west of the river. By using a 1.6-km (1-mi)

buffer, the search radius includes similar terrain along the Ohio River but also looks to the west to follow 

the upland ridge spines further away from the river and covers the valley bottoms of watercourses that flow 

to the Ohio River. This search area includes the representative landforms present in the Ohio River valley.

5.1 Results of Background Research

This search identified a total of 12 previously conducted Phase I archaeological or cultural resource surveys 

within the search radius (Table 5.1-1; Figure 5.1-1). Four of these surveys were discovered based on 

references listed on Ohio Archaeological Inventory forms, but the survey boundaries are not present within 

the digital map inventory as either technical reports were not prepared or were not included in the database. 

One of the previously recorded surveys crosses the LOD along the northern bank of Opossum Creek 

(Hornum 2006). This survey did not identify any cultural resources and determined the area north of 

Opossum Creek within the current LOD has been previously disturbed. The majority of the remaining past 

surveys are linear surveys supporting pipeline development and cross a range of terrain. No archaeological 

resources were identified within the search radius by surveys documented in the Online Mapping System.

One previously recorded archaeological resource is located within the search radius (Figure 5.1-1). Site 

33MO0155 consists of a historic artifact scatter associated with known historic structures along a ridgeline 

east of County Road 386. This site was professionally recorded but the survey information is not present 

within the Online Mapping System. The site form associated with the site does not recommend it as eligible 

for listing in the NRHP, but it is unknown if the OHPO concurred with the recommendation. 

One above ground reconnaissance survey was conducted that intersects the LOD (Figure 5.1-1). This 

survey (Gibbs 1987) was part of a larger Monroe County survey that inventoried the historic resources of

the county. This survey identified 15 aboveground resources in the search radius. None of these resources 

have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP. 

The majority of historic resources within the search radius were identified in the village of Clarington (Table 

5.2-1; Figure 5.1-1). In Clarington, the survey identified 13 structures within the search radius including six 

single dwellings, two commercial buildings, two church/religious structures, one municipal building, one 

school, and one structure of unknown use. An additional two historic structures were recorded within the 

search radius in Ohio Township. These two resources, MOE0031812 and MOE0031912, are located on 

opposite sides of an existing pipeline ROW in which part of the proposed NGL pipeline will be collocated.

In addition to the above ground structures, seven cemeteries were located within the search radius (Figure 

5.1-1). None are located within the LOD. The cemeteries represent a mix of sizes and styles from small, 

historic family plots to larger, community cemeteries. None of the cemeteries have been evaluated for 

listing in the NRHP.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

27

Table 5.1-1 Previous Archaeological Surveys within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the Project.

OHPOID Report Title Author1 Author2 Year Phase

A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the 

Proposed Powhatan 7 Mine Reclamation 

Borrow Area, Salem and Ohio Townships, 

Monroe County, Ohio

Murphy, 

James L. 1999 1

Phase I Archaeological Survey of the 

Proposed SBA Network Services Long 

Ridge (Site #10135-061B) Wireless 

Communications Tower Location in Ohio 

Township, Monroe County, Ohio

Pecora, 

Albert M. 2001 1

25449

Proposed Berne to Natrium Natural Gas 

Liquid Condensate Pipeline Franklin, 

Summit, Center, Adams, and Salem 

Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

McHugh, 

Sean

Mary 

Lynne 

Rainey & 

Michael L. 

Young

2014 1

28004

Fourth Supplemental Phase I Archeological 

Survey For The Proposed Columbia Gas 

Transmission, LLC Leach Xpress Project 

Belmont, Fairfield, Guernsey, Hocking, 

Jackson, Lawrence, Monroe, Morgan, 

Muskingum, Noble, Perry, And Vinton 

Counties, Ohio

Hornum, 

Michael B. 2017 1

Supplemental Phase I Archaeological 

Survey for the Proposed Time II Project, 

(Salem Township, Monroe County, Ohio

Hornum, 

Michael B. 2006 1

28004

Third Supplemental Phase I Archeological 

Survey for the Proposed Columbia Gas 

Transmission, LLC Leach Xpress Project -

Belmont, Fairfield, Hocking, Jackson, 

Lawrence, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, 

Noble, Perry, and Vinton Counties, Ohio

Hornum, 

Michael B.

Alison 

Darling 2017 1

18986

Phase I Archaeological Survey (for the) 

Monroe Extension Natural Gas Pipeline 

Project in (Ohio Township) Monroe County, 

Ohio

Duerksen, 

Ken

Christopher 

A. 

Bergman

2011 1

Phase I Archaeological Survey of the 

Proposed SBA Network Services Long 

Ridge (Site #10135-061) Wireless 

Communications Tower Location in Ohio 

Township, Monroe County, Ohio

Pecora, 

Albert M. 2001 1
"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

"Ý

#*#*#* #*#*#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

!?

!?

!?

!?

Data Sources:ESRI USA Topo Map,

Copyright: © 2014 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_1_1_LREG_Previously_Recorded_CR.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5-1-1

Previously Recorded Surveys

and Cultural Resources

Legend

!? Previously Recorded Archaeological Site

#* Previously Recorded Historic Structure

"Ý Previously Recorded Cemetery

Previously Surveyed for Historic Resources

Previous Phase 1 Archaeological Survey

Pipeline LOD

Transloading Facility LOD

1.6-km (1-mile) Buffer - Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CJ 

-

C] 

CJ 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

29

Table 5.1-2 Previously Recorded Historic Structures within 1.6-km (1-mi) of the Project.

OHI Number Address Place Name Architectural 

Style Historic Use Date

MOE0021008 Market St Clarington Vernacular Single Dwelling 1900

MOE0021108 Market St Clarington Italianate Single Dwelling 1880

MOE0021208 Market St Clarington Greek Revival Village/Twp/City 

Hall 1870

MOE0021308 Market & Church Clarington Gothic Revival Church/Religious 

Structure 1880

MOE0021408 Market St Clarington Vernacular Single Dwelling 1880

MOE0021508 Ferry St & Market St Clarington Italianate COMMERCIAL 1870

MOE0021608 Ferry St at 3rd Clarington Italianate COMMERCIAL 1870

MOE0021708 Ferry St Clarington Queen Anne Single Dwelling 1890

MOE0021808 3rd St & Ferry St Clarington Gothic Revival Church/Religious 

Structure 1890

MOE0021908 Church St Clarington Tudor/English 

Revival School 1925

MOE0022008 Ferry St & Front St Clarington Italianate Unknown Use 1810

MOE0022108 Main St & Market St Clarington Italianate Single Dwelling 1870

MOE0022208 Market St Clarington Eastlake Single Dwelling 1890

MOE0031812 S Side Co 43 Ohio 

Township Federal Single Dwelling 1870

MOE0031912 S Side Co 43 Near 

Salem Twp

Ohio 

Township Italianate Church/Religious Structure 1870
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

30

5.2 Results Architectural Reconnaissance Survey

The reconnaissance survey identified five historic architectural resources and two previously recorded 

historic resources within the APE (Figure 5.2-1). No resources were identified within the Project’s LOD. 

The five resources identified in this survey consist of historic farmsteads or farm buildings. two of which are 

recommended potentially NRHP-eligible as individual resources (Table 5.2-1). Two of these resources, the 

Lucas Farmstead (MOE005308) and the Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) are recommended as 

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP and described below. 

Photo documentation of all five newly identified resources is provided in Appendix B. The draft I-Form 

documentation completed for the two resources recommended potentially eligible is provided in Appendix 

C. The potential for the presence of a historic agricultural district is not demonstrated. No further study 

regarding the potential for the APE to contain unrecorded rural or agricultural historic districts is 

recommended. 

As described in Section 5.1, two previously recorded historic resources, MOE0031812 and MOE0031912, 

are located on opposite sides of an existing pipeline ROW in which the Project will be collocated. No 

additional tree clearing will be conducted in the existing pipeline ROW. Thus, visual effects to these 

resources will be temporary.

Lucas Farmstead – MOE005308

This resource is a farmstead located in a rural area with similar farmsteads and houses nearby. The house 

sits east of Sykes Ridge Road within a manicured yard with a few mature trees scattered about. 

Outbuildings located at the edge of the yard bordering agricultural fields include a workshop, Bank Barn, 

poultry house, and corn crib all of which date to the mid-twentieth century. The side gable workshop is 

constructed of concrete block and features metal sliding windows. The workshop's gable roof is covered 

in asphalt shingles. The Bank Barn stands on a concrete block foundation. The barn's exterior is clad in 

vinyl or aluminum siding. The barn's side gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The barn features a 

large sliding door on the upper eaves side. The poultry house stands on a concrete block foundation; its 

exterior walls are clad in asphalt siding. The poultry house's front gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. 

Some of the poultry house's windows are no longer intact; the intact fenestration is comprised of 3/3 wood 

sash windows. The shed-roofed corn crib is constructed on wood piers. The corncrib's exterior is clad in 

vertical wood boards with spaces in between. The building's shed roof is covered in asphalt shingles.

The c. 1945, 1-story wood frame vernacular-style dwelling features replacement vinyl siding, replacement 

1/1 vinyl sash windows, and a side gable roof covered in standing seam metal. The building is constructed 

on a rectangular plan. The three-bay facade has a centered entrance door which is sheltered by a small 

overhang supported by square wood posts. This dwelling is an example of a common mid-twentieth century 

vernacular form found throughout southeastern Ohio. The dwelling is part of a larger agricultural complex, 

of which a barn, workshop, poultry house and corncrib remain. The farmhouse and associated outbuildings 

convey their original function and purpose and demonstrate the spatial planning of small, mid-twentieth 

century farms in Monroe County. As such, the Lucas Farmstead is recommended eligible for NRHP listing 

under Criterion A for agriculture. No evidence linking this property to any significant individuals in local 

history could be identified. As such, this resource is recommended not eligible for NRHP listing under 

Criterion B. The Lucas Farmstead residence does not exemplify a remarkable or distinctive vernacular 

house form and has been altered with replacement siding and windows. The residence does not have 

sufficient architectural significance or integrity to warrant individual NRHP listing. However, coupled with 

the collection of relatively well-preserved outbuildings, the farmhouse provides architectural context for this 

mid-twentieth century Monroe County farm. The Lucas farmstead is recommended as potentially eligible 

for NRHP-listing under Criterion C; it serves as a relatively well-preserved collective representation of a 

mid-twentieth century farmstead in Monroe County.
")

")

")

")

")

TT-001

LUCAS FARMSTEAD

TT-002

DEITRICH BARN

TT-003

RUFENER FARMSTEAD

TT-004

HASLAM FARMSTEAD

TT-005

BLATTLER RESIDENCE AND BARN

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 1,250 2,500 5,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_2_1_Aboveground_Historic_Resources.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5-2-1

Historic Architectural Resources

Identified in the Reconnaissance 

Survey

Legend

") Aboveground Historic Resource

Pipeline LOD

Transloading Facility LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Data Sources:ESRI USA Topo Map,

Copyright: © 2014 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

D 

D 

Twp 

Ohio Twp 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

32

Table 5.2-1 Recommendations for Resources Identified in the Reconnaissance Survey.

Reference/SHPO ID Resource Name Street Address City Date Architectural 

Style Recommendation

TT-001/MOE0055308 Lucas Farmstead 52189 Sykes Ridge 

Road Clarington c.1945 Vernacular Potentially Eligible –Criteria A and C

TT-002 Deitrich Barn 52146 Sykes Ridge 

Road Clarington Unknown Vernacular Not Eligible

TT-003/MOE0055408 Rufener Farmstead 52067 Sykes Ridge 

Road Clarington c.1915; c.1930 Vernacular Potentially Eligible –Criteria A and C

TT-004 Haslam Farmstead 52017 Sykes Ridge 

Road Clarington unknown Vernacular Not Eligible

TT-005 Blatter Residence 

and Barn 52246 Rouse Road Clarington unknown Vernacular Not Eligible
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

33

Rufener Farmstead – MOE005408

This resource is a farmstead located in a rural area with similar farmsteads and houses nearby. The house 

sits east of Sykes Ridge Road within a manicured yard with a few scattered mature trees. Outbuildings 

located at the edge of the yard bordering agricultural fields include a Basement Barn, milk house, silo, 

machine/hay shed, pigsty, and smoke house. Two modern garages are also located in close proximity to 

the house near the property's driveway. The exterior of the c.1915 Basement Barn is clad in a combination 

of vertical wood boards and aluminum or vinyl siding. The upper eaves side of the barn features large siding 

doors and simple wood brackets along the roof line. The barn's side gable roof is covered in corrugated 

metal. Located at the west gable end of the barn is a concrete stave silo. A c.1930 concrete block milk 

house with a pyramidal roof is located at the barn's northwest corner adjacent to the driveway. The milk 

house’s pyramidal roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The c.1915, side gable, wood frame smoke house 

stands on stone piers. The smoke house's exterior is clad in a combination of weatherboard and vertical 

wood boards. The smoke house features two human doors on the eaves side. A pigsty is located at the 

southeast corner of the barnyard and is constructed on a concrete block foundation. The pigsty's exterior 

is clad in an unknown material. The pigsty's side gable roof is covered in corrugated metal. The machine/ 

hay shed is comprised of a side gable structure with a completely enclosed shed-roofed addition. The side 

gable portion of the shed is clad in vertical wood boards; the rear addition is clad in standing seam metal. 

The two modern garages are side-gabled and are clad in standing seam metal.

The c.1915, 2-story, 5-bay I-house features aluminum siding, 1/1 windows (sash material unknown), and a 

side gable rood covered in asphalt shingles. The main block and rear ell form an L plan. The 5-bay facade 

has a centered entrance door which is sheltered by a small overhang supported by decorative steel 

columns. This I-house is an example of a common early-twentieth century vernacular form found 

throughout southeastern Ohio. The dwelling is part of a larger agricultural complex, of which a Basement 

Barn, milk house, silo, pigsty, smoke house, and machine/hay shed remain. The complex also includes two 

garages of recent construction. The farmhouse and associated outbuildings (with the exception of the 

modern garages) convey their original function and purpose and demonstrate the spatial planning of earlytwentieth century dairy farms in Monroe County. As such, the Rufener Farmstead is recommended eligible 

for NRHP listing under Criterion A for agriculture. No evidence linking this property to any significant 

individuals in local history could be identified. As such, this resource is recommended not eligible for NRHP 

listing under Criterion B. The Rufener Farmstead residence does not exemplify a remarkable or distinctive 

vernacular house form and does not have sufficient architectural significance or integrity to warrant 

individual NRHP listing. However, coupled with the collection of well-preserved outbuildings, the farmhouse 

provide context for this early-twentieth century Monroe County dairy farm. The Rufener farmstead is 

recommended potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion C for its well-preserved collection of early 

twentieth-century domestic and agricultural buildings.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

34

5.3 Results of Phase I Archaeological Survey

The Phase I archaeological survey consisted of pedestrian reconnaissance and subsurface excavation 

along the entirety of Project’s LOD. A total of 76 STPs were excavated during the investigation with no 

cultural material recovered from subsurface investigations (Figure 5.3-1, Pages 1-6). Pedestrian 

reconnaissance identified the disarticulated structural remains of a mid to early twentieth-century 

farmstead, 33MO211, within the LOD (Figure 5.3-1, Page 2). 

Subsurface testing began at bore pit exit on the eastern edge of a bluff overlooking the Ohio River (Figure 

5.3-1, Page 1). From this location at the northern end of the LOD the pipeline roughly parallels the Ohio 

River southward for approximately 5.4 mi before reaching the LRET. The terrain encountered across the 

LOD generally consists of east to west trending ridgelines separated by steep, narrow stream valleys. 

Subsurface testing was generally limited to the flat portions of the upland ridgelines, however some isolated 

testing of hillside benches, potential rock shelters, and stream benches was undertaken when such areas 

were identified during pedestrian reconnaissance. Soil encountered in the upland portions of the direct 

APE were formed in residuum, generally with a plowzone (Ap-horizon) overlying a Bt- or BC-horizon (Figure 

5.3.2). STPs generally extended to depths of 30-40 cm (11.8-13.8 in) below surface before being 

terminated in sterile subsoil (Photos 5.3-1 and 5.3-2). 

Subsurface testing also occurred on the floodplain south of Opossum Run (Figure 5.3-1, Page 3) and within 

a grouping of four rock overhangs on the side slopes above Gilmore Run (Figure 5.3-1, Page 2). While the 

floodplain south of Opossum Creek is mapped as the alluvial Chagrin silt loam, this area previously served 

as a coal processing area for the former Powhatan Mine Works. Aerial imagery dating to 1994 (Google 

Earth 2019) shows several large coal piles and conveyer belts within the direct APE that shows the area 

being used to store and transport coal from the mine to the Ohio River. Limited shovel testing within the 

floodplain to investigate this area determined the floodplain has been subject to reclamation with STPs 

exhibiting a mix of imported soil mix of unsorted gravel and rock to impasse at approximately 25 cm (19.7 

in) below surface (Figure 5.3.2; Photo 5.3-3). 

The cluster of four rock overhangs were noted on the south facing ridge of the slopes north of Gilmore Run 

(Figure 5.3-1, Page 2). The first two overhangs were clustered near the top of the ridge at approximately 

348 m (1,140 ft) above mean sea level (amsl) (Photo 5.3-4, Location 9210). The two other overhangs were 

clustered together further down slope at approximately 357 m (1,170 ft) amsl (Figure 5.3-1, Page 2, 

Location 9230). Five STPs were excavated within and around the two upper rock overhangs with no cultural 

material recovered (Figure 5.3-1, Page 2, Location 9210). Soil profiles exhibited in these STPs exhibited 

residual soil profiles overlying rock impasse at 38 cm (15.7 in) below surface (Figure 5.3-2) Due to the 

severe slope and unstable ground around the two lower rock overhangs, only one STP, RO4 was excavated 

at this location exhibiting shallow lenses of loose silt developed over rock impasse (Figure 5.3.2; Photos

5.3-6 and 5.3-7). 

The remainder of the LOD was subject to pedestrian survey. Those areas where slope exceeded 15

percent or where obvious past disturbance had destroyed the integrity of the landscape were photodocumented. Photo-documentation is provided in Appendix D. The pipeline will be either co-located with

an existing pipeline ROW or within the existing terminal facility for the southernmost 1.8 km (2.49 mi) of the 

proposed route. 

The following section discusses site 33MO211 in more detail. 
!

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

F

h

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

Bore Pit-Exit

West Virginia

Ohio

8937

9066

9063

9091

9093

9096

9071

9106

9127

9141

9114

9149

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_3_1_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 1 of 6

Legend

Negative Shovel Test

h

F Photo_Location

! Bore Pit-Exit

Centerline

State Boundary

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

TETRA TECH 

0 

D 
h

F

h

F

F

h

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

h

F

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

F

h

h

F

F

h

! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! 33MO211

8991

8950

8942

0300

0307

0308

0313

0315

0316

8987

9009

9010

9018

9039

9210

9230 9335

9238

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_3_1_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 2 of 6

Legend

Negative Shovel Test

! Historic Cultural Feature

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Site 33MO211

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Well 1

Chimney

Well 2

Bottle Dump

Cinder Block

and Fieldstone

Foundation

Well 3

Bank Barn

Foundation

33MO211

0 

D 

D 
F

h

h

F

F

h

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

9238

9247

9263

9265

9264

9267

9167

9196

9202

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_3_1_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 3 of 6

Legend

Negative Shovel Test

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

0 

D 

~--z ' ,.--~1 

.~6: ~-r-~ : _._.__ 

.. ll,~1} : : 

Salem ~~ - ; -

I ' ' ' 

[ __ t -j;_~ roctor 

: ,%1~---..: --:----· 
h

F

h

F

h

F

9185

9202

9206

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_3_1_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 4 of 6

Legend

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

TETRA TECH 

D 

~--z ' ,.--~1 

~6 : ' ~ : ,_ .. -r- ... -• 

..... ,~1• : } : 

s alern ~w., 1 _ 

•P"• I 

' ' ' ' :m 

'~ ~:~!'"" ~-:----· 
h

h

F F

9176

9179

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_3_1_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 5 of 6

Legend

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

TETRA TECH 

D 

:-"?:( ~l 

: ~ : ~6~-r- ... ---• 

..... ,~1• : } : 

Salem ~w., •- •• ,. I 

' ' 

! -. I o 

' ' 

[ __ ~ ~ roctor 

.~ -----· 
West Virginia Ohio

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 2/20/2020

±

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Figure5_3_1_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 6 of 6

Legend

Centerline

State Boundary

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

Transloading Facility LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

TETRA TECH 

D L-----,D 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

37

Figure 5.3-2 Representative Soil Profiles .

Residual Profiles 

STPA9 

--------------,0 cmbs 

Ap 

---------------119 

BC to Cr 

..._ __________ ___.34 

Base of Excavation 

Ap: 10YR 5/4 Dark Yellov.,,ish Brown 

Silt Loam 

BC to Cr: 10YR 6/6 Brownish Yellow Silt 

with 80% Sandstone 

STP 811 

-------------, 0 cmbs 

Ap 15 

Bt 

1-------------25 

BC 

-----------~30 

Base of Excavation 

Ap: 10YR 3/4Dark Yellowish Broll'm 

Silt Loam 

Bt: 10YR 6/6 Brownish Yellow 

Silt Clay 

BC: 1 0YR 3/6 Dark Yellowish Brown 

Silt Clay 

Disturbed by Mine Reclamation 

STP 82 

-------------. 0 cmbs 

Fill I 

1-------------27 

Fill II 

.__ __________ __. 51 

Base of Excavation 

Fill I: 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown with 7.5YR 5/6 

Strong Brown Massive Silt with Clay Inclusions 

Fill 11 : 7.5YR 4/4-5/6 Brov.n to Strong Brown with 

10YR 5/1 Gray Massive Silt Clay Loam with 

Unsorted Gravel and Rock 

Profiles from Rock Overhangs 

STPA3 

------A- ____________ 0 ------,s 0 cmbs 

A 

-------------17 Be ------------21 

8vv ____________ 33 

BC ..._ __________ ___. 39 

Base of Excavation 

Ao: 1 0YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown 

Loose Loam and Leaf Litter 

A: 10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silt Loam 

Be: 10YR 6/6 Brownish Yellow Silt 

Bw: 10YR 6/8 Brownish Yellow Silt Loam 

BC: 10YR 6/8 Loose Silt 

STP RO4 

______ A_c_1 _____ _,I O '""" 

AC2 . 

0 

Base of Excavation 

AC1 : 10YR 4/3 Brown Silt 

AC2: 10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown 

Loose Silt 

10 20 40 

Centimeters 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

38

Photo 5.3-1 Residual Soil Profile, STP A9.

Photo 5.3-2 Residual Soil Profile, STP B11.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

39

Photo 5.3-3 Disturbed Soil Profile, Opossum Creek Floodplain, STP B2.

Photo 5.3-4 (Location 9211) Rock Overhangs, Facing East.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

40

Photo 5.3-5 (Location 9230) Rock Overhang, Facing West 

Photo 5.3-6 Rock Overhang Soil Profile, STP RO4.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

41

Photo 5.3-7 Rock Overhang Soil Profile, STP A3.

Site 33MO211

Site 33MO211 consists of the structural remains of a historic farmstead. The remains consisted of a 

fieldstone and concrete block foundation, likely a residential structure, an adjacent cement pad, a fieldstone 

bank barn foundation, three fieldstone and ceramic lined wells, remnant electrical or telephone and fence 

poles, and a scatter of mid-twentieth century to modern glass and ceramic fragments (Figure 5.3-1, Page 

2). The bank barn foundation is located outside of the LOD. The site is located at the end of Township 

Road 2124 which extends south along a narrow ridge spine approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) south of Rouse 

Road/County Road 388.

The fieldstone and concrete block foundation was centered approximately 38.7 ft west of the proposed 

centerline. The foundation is oriented roughly 11.2 (m) 36.75 ft north to south and 7.2 m (23.6 ft) east to 

west (Figure 5.3-3). The unimproved extension of Township Road 2124 is situated roughly 16.4 ft to the 

northeast of the foundation. The approximate northern half of the foundation is composed of dry laid 

fieldstone cut into the hillside to a depth of 0.91 (3.01 ft) (Photo 5.3-8). The southern half of the foundation 

transitions to concrete block at the point where the foundation is no longer cut into the hillside (Photo 5.3-

9). The concrete block reaches a maximum height of 1.12 m (3.67 ft) along the southern wall. A terra cotta 

line concrete block chimney is situated along the southern façade of the foundation and an approximately 

2.5-2.0 m (8.2-x-6.4 ft) concrete pad was located directly north of the foundation. 

Two stone lined wells were noted on either side of the foundation. Well 1 was located approximately 1.5 

m (4.9 ft) west of the foundation and consists of a stone lined, bell shaped well with a surface radius of 3.6 

ft and reached a maximum depth of 3.9 ft below surface (Photo 5.3-10). Well 2 was located approximately 

9.0 m (29.5 ft) southeast of the foundation. This well consisted of a 9.2-m (30.2-ft) deep stone lined shaft 

capped with a ceramic ring (Photo 5.3-11). Two metal pipes extended out from the side of the ceramic ring 

and would have drained into the well. The ceramic ring measured approximately 70 cm (27.6 in) in 

circumference and extended to a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft) before resting on the stone lined portion of the well. 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

42

A small bottle dump situated in a shallow depression along the east side of the unimproved road was 

identified approximately 22 m (72.2 ft) northeast of the foundation (Photo 5.3-12). The bottles were 

composed of a mix of modern to mid-twentieth century container and non-diagnostic glass. 

A Bank Barn foundation was identified approximately 60 m (197 ft) southeast of the house foundation, 

opposite the unimproved road (Photo 5.3.13). The eastern wall of the foundation was composed of dry laid 

fieldstone measuring 1.6 m (5.25 ft) in height and 7.9 m (26 ft) in width. The remaining three sides of the 

Bank Barn were nearly flush to the ground. A third circular, stone lined structure, possibly a third well or a 

trough was noted was southeast of the barn foundation. Both the barn foundation and the stone lined 

well/trough are outside of the Project’s LOD. 

A light scatter of historic period architectural materials such as brick and degrading sheet metal was spread

about the site. Adjacent to the north side of the foundation was a small, disarticulated pile of bricks stamped 

with the word “ALAMO” (Photo 5.3.14). This style of brick was produced between from 1935 to the early 

1960’s by the Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. in Vandalia and Fulton, Missouri (Gurcke 1987). Outside 

of the bottle dump, limited evidence of domestic kitchen or personal items were noted at the site. 

Photographs of a representative sample of artifacts were taken but were otherwise left in situ at the site 

(Photo 5.3-15). 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

43

Figure 5.3-3 Scaled Field Drawing of Site 33MO211 within the LOD.

e 

Fieldstone 

Cinder-Block ! J 

lJ 

n 

Concrete 

Pad 

Chimney 

' 

() 

0 2 4 

Meters 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

Approx imate'('ipeline 

Center Linc \ 

\ 

\ 

" \ 

\ 

\ 

" \ 

\ 

\ 

' 

\.. 

'\ 

\ 

\ Road Cut 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

'-. \ \ 

\ 

\ 

"' 

Well 2 

0 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\'\. 

\ 

\\ '\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

Approximata Pipeline 

Center Line ' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

44

Photo 5.3-8 (Location 8991) North Half of Foundation, Facing West.

Photo 5.3-9 (Location 315) South Half of Foundation, Facing Southwest .
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

45

Photo 5.3-10 (Location 313) Well 1 West of House Foundation.

Photo 5.3-11 (Location 316) Well 2 with Metal Pipes Extending into Well Wall.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

46

Photo 5.3-12 (Location 308) Bottle Dump Northeast of House Foundation.

Photo 5.3-13 (Location 9009) Bank Barn Wall Outside Direct APE, Facing West.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

47

Photo 5.3-14 Brick with “ALAMO” Makers Mark.

Photo 5.3-15 (Location 8987) Representative Bottles from Bottle Dump.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

48

A review of available cartographic resources of the region identified land records for this property extending 

as far back as 1853. Monroe County Tax & Plat Maps from 1853 (Monroe County) and 1859 (Monroe 

County) indicate the land was once owned by Daniel Steenrod. By 1869, David Potts is depicted as the 

owner of the property, but no evidence of a structure is depicted at the site (Noll 1869). A structure is 

represented at the location of the remnant structures in 1898 when the property is owned by W.A. Rouch 

(Caldwell 1898). This structure continues to be exhibited on the New Martinsville USGS quadrangles 

throughout the twentieth century (USGS 1906, 1924, 1960, 1976, 1994). Township Maps through the 

period show the property continues to be held by members of the Rouch family until the 1960s (Monroe 

County 2019). By the 1960’s the property changes hands numerous times in short succession before being 

sold to the Quarto Mining Company by 1980. The Quarto Mining Company held the property until 2018 

when it was sold to CNX Land, LLC.

Additional research into the local history of the County determined the W.A. Rouch shown on the 1898 map 

first depicting the structure was likely owned by William A. Roush (Hardesty 1882). Mr. Roush descended 

from German immigrants who arrived in the United States in the eighteenth century and the Fisher family 

from Maryland. Members of the Roush family arrived in Harrison County in the mid-eighteenth century 

before moving to both Belmont and Monroe Counties. By the late-nineteenth century, Mr. Rouch had four 

children, only two of which survived to adulthood (Hardesty 1882). Boston Earl Roush lived from 1884 to 

1908 and Matilda Blanche Roush lived from 1887 to 1963, neither of whom ever married. The “Rouch” 

family members depicted on the tax and plat maps (Monroe County 2019) are likely William’s daughter 

Matilda or “Mattie” and his brother John. Members of the Roush family are buried in the Sykes Cemetery

(OGS ID 8167) at the intersection of Rouse Rd/County Rd 388 and Sykes Ridge Road approximately 1.4 

km (0.87 mi) northwest of the site while Matilda is buried in Wetzel County, West Virginia. 

Documentary research and artifact analysis indicate the site is a former farmstead associated with the 

Roush Family who occupied the site in the early to mid-twentieth century. While the Roush family are noted 

in the local history of the area, they are not described as historically significant members of the local 

community. Cartographic research indicates a structure was present as early as 1898 and continued to be 

represented on USGS maps until the 1990s. Given the death in 1963 of the last member of the Roush 

family to be associated with the property and the subsequent sale of the property to the Quarto Mining 

Company, occupation of the site likely did not extend past the 1960s. Given the narrow range of occupation, 

additional investigation into the site are unlikely to yield significant information regarding long term trends 

in agriculture, labor, or domestic life of rural Ohio. In addition, the mix of modern and historic material 

strewn about the surface of the site indicate discrete archaeological deposits relating to the period of 

occupation at the site are unlikely to remain intact. Better preserved, active farmsteads that are 

contemporaneous to site 33MO211 are also located within the project vicinity (see Section 5.2.1) that better 

preserve evidence of agricultural practices of the region. Tetra Tech recommends site 33MO211 as not 

eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

49

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In the Fall of 2019, Tetra Tech conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey for the proposed LRET 

Project. The two components of the Project include an approximately 9.5-km (5.9-mi) NGL pipeline and a 

Transloading Facility. The pipeline originates from the Blue Racer NGP processing facility at Natrium, 

West Virginia and extends under the Ohio River via conventional bore into the uplands west of the river. 

The length of the LOD on the Ohio side of the river from the bore pit exit to the LRET is approximately 

23,387 ft. Thus, the LOD for construction of the pipeline is defined by a linear corridor measuring 23,387 ft 

by 100 ft (65.17 acres). Adding the 20-acre footprint of the Transloading Facility gives a total LOD of 

approximately 85.17 acres. Since the pipeline will be buried and the surface restored to preconstruction 

contours, the potential visual effects for the Project are limited to views of those portions of the pipeline 

LOD where tree clearing will occur, approximately 75 acres. Summing these components gives a total APE 

of 160.17 acres.

The entirety of the LOD was subject to either pedestrian survey or subsurface investigation through the 

excavation of STPs. A total of 76 STPs were excavated with no cultural material recovered. Pedestrian 

reconnaissance identified one historic archaeological resource, 33MO211. This site consists of the 

disarticulated structural remains of an early to mid-twentieth century farmstead and a surface scatter of 

modern and early to mid-twentieth century artifacts. Based on a review of cultural material at the site and 

the historical record the site represents a narrow range of occupation. Additional investigation into the site 

is unlikely to yield significant information regarding long term trends in agriculture, labor, or domestic life of 

rural Ohio. In addition, the mix of modern and historic material strewn about the surface of the site indicate 

discrete archaeological deposits relating to the period of occupation at the site are unlikely to remain intact. 

Better preserved, active farmsteads contemporaneous with site 33MO211 that preserve evidence of 

agricultural practices of the region are located in the Project vicinity (see Section 5.2.1). As such, Tetra 

Tech does not recommend this site as eligible for listing in the NRHP and no additional archaeological 

investigations are recommended. 

The reconnaissance level history/architectural survey identified five historic aboveground resources within 

the APE that meet the 50-year minimum age requirement for NHRP listing. Two of these resources, the 

Lucas Farmstead (MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) are recommended as potentially 

eligible for NRHP-listing. The Lucas Farmstead is recommended as potentially eligible for NRHP-listing 

under Criteria A and C; it serves as a relatively well-preserved collective representation of a mid-twentieth 

century farmstead in Monroe County. Likewise, the Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) is recommended 

potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criteria A and C for its well-preserved collection of early twentiethcentury domestic and agricultural buildings. The Draft Ohio Architectural Inventory Forms are included in 

Appendix C. It should be noted that these two farmsteads, together with the three other historic 

aboveground resources identified, are not spatially related in a manner that exhibits a somewhat 

contiguous collection of resources. Further, due to the proximity to the river, the area encompassing these 

resources is heavily infiltrated by modern industrial development. As such, the potential for the presence of 

a historic agricultural district is not demonstrated. No further study regarding the potential for the APE to 

contain unrecorded rural or agricultural historic districts is recommended.

The Lucas Farmstead (MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408) are located primarily in open 

agricultural land that would be restored to preconstruction conditions and the view of the permanent pipeline 

corridor would be minimal. Further, routing of the Project through mostly open agricultural land minimizes 

effects to historic agricultural landscape features such as treelines, wind breaks, and woodlots. As a result, 

the Project’s effects would not occur to an extent that would diminish the historic integrity of the Lucas 

Farmstead (MOE005308) and Rufener Farmstead (MOE005408). Tetra Tech recommends that no adverse 

effect would occur to these potentially eligible resources as the result of Project activities.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

50

7.0 REFERENCES CITED

Adovasio, J.M., R.C. Carlisle, K.A. Cushman, J. Donahue, J.E. Guilday, W.C. Johnson, K. Lord, P.W. 

Parmalee, R. Stuckenwrath, Jr., and P.W. Wiegman.

1985 Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County 

Pennsylvania. In Environmental Extinction: Man in Late Glacial North America, edited by Jim I. 

Mead and David J. Meltzer, pp. 73-110. Peopling of the Americas. Center for the Study of Early 

Man, University of Maine, Orono.

Anderson, David G.

1996 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In The Paleoindian 

and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. The 

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Anderson, David G. and J. W. Joseph

1988 Prehistory and History along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource 

Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Russell Papers, Interagency 

Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.

Baker, S.W.

1979 Radiocarbon Information from Eastern Ohio and a Summary of the Late Prehistoric Occupation at the 

Opatrny Village Site. Ohio Archaeologist 29(2):40-41.

Bartlein, P.J., T. Webb III, and E. Fleri

1984 Holocene Climatic Change in the Northern Midwest: Pollen-Derived Estimates. Quaternary 

Research 22:361-374.

Belknap, Daniel, and John Kraft

1977 Holocene Relative Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Stratigraphic Units on the Northwest Flank of 

the Baltimore Canyon Trough Geosyncline. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 47:610-629.

Bense, Judith A.

1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: Paleoindian to World War I. Academic Press, San 

Diego, California.

Black, Deborah B.

1979 Adena and Hopewell Relations in the Lower Hocking Valley. Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe 

Conference. D.S. Brose and N. Greber, eds. Pp. 19-26. Kent State University Press, Kent, OH.

Bond, Beverly W., Jr.

1941 The Foundations of Ohio. In The History of the State Of Ohio, vol. 1, edited by C. Wittke, pp. 1–

507. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.

Bradbury, Andrew

1998 The Examination of Lithic Artifacts from an Early Archaic Assemblage: Strengthening Inference 

through Multiple Lines of Evidence. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 23(2):263-288.

Bradbury, Andrew and Philip J. Carr

1999 Examining Stage and Continuum Models of Flake Debris Analysis: An Experimental Approach. Journal 

of Anthropological Science 26:105-116.

Bradstreet, T.E. and R.B. Davis

 1975 Mid-Postglacial Environments with Emphasis on Maine. Arctic Anthropology 12(2):7-22.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

51

Braun, E.L.

1985 Deciduous Forests of North America. The Free Press, New York, NY (Facsimilie of the 1950 

edition).

Brockman, C. Scott

1998 “Physiographic Regions of Ohio.” Electronic Document. 

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/27/sip/nonattain/f2-physiographic_regions_of_ohio.pdf. 

Accessed January 31, 2017.

Brose, David S. and Alfred Lee

1985 A Model of Historical Sites Archeology in the Inner City. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 

Research Report No. 55.

Broyles, Bettye J.

 1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia, 1964-1968. 

Report of Archaeological Investigations 3, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 

Morgantown.

Burger, Richard L.

1995 Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. Thames and Hudson.

Caldwell, J.A.

 1898 Atlas of Monroe County, Ohio. Atlas Publishing Company, Mount Vernon, Ohio.

Carbone, Victor

1974 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Chapman, Jefferson

1975 The Rose Island Site and the Bifurcate Point Tradition. University of Tennessee, Department of 

Anthropology, Report of Investigations 14.

1985 Archeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge and Valley Province. In Structure and 

Process in Southeastern Archeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward, Alabama.

Claflin, William H.

1931 The Stallings Island Mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Peabody Museum of American 

Archaeology and Ethnology Papers 14(1):1-47.

Claggett, Stephen R., and John S. Cable

1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina 

Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Report No. 23386. Prepared for Wilmington District 

Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, NC.

Coe, Joffre

1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 

54(5).

Dancey, William S.

1992 Village Origins in Central Ohio: The results and Implications of recent Middle and Late Woodland 

Research. From Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley. Edited 

by Mark F. Seeman. Kent University Press.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

52

Dancey, William S. and Paul J. Pacheco

1997 A Community Model of Ohio Hopewell Settlement. From Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. 

Edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco. Kent State University Press.

Davis, M.B., R.W. Spear, and L.C.K. Shane

 1980 Holocene Climate of New England. Quaternary Research 14:240-250.

DeJarnette, David L., Edward Kurjack, and James Cambron

1962 Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter Excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology, Volume VIII, 

Numbers 1 and 2. Alabama Archaeological Society, University of Alabama.

Delcourt, H.R.

 1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland Plateau 

of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 255-280.

Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt

 1980 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 Years B.P. to the Present. In Geobotany II, 

edited by Robert C. Romans. Plenum Press, New York.

 1986 Late Quaternary Vegetational Change in the Central Atlantic States. In The Quaternary of Virginia–

A Symposium Volume, edited by J.N. McDonald and S.O. Bird, pp. 23-35. Commonwealth of 

Virginia, Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Charlottesville.

DeRegnaucourt, R.

1983 Middle Archaic (Data Free Zone) Study Unit for All of Ohio. Report to the Ohio Historic Preservation 

Office, Columbus.

1986 Preservation Plan for Late Archaic Study Unit in Northwestern Ohio. Report to the Ohio Historic 

Preservation Office, Columbus.

Dragoo, Don. W.

1963 Mounds for the Dead. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, Volume 37. Pittsburgh.

1976 Adena and the Eastern Burial Cult. Archaeology of Eastern North America 4:1-8.

Driskell, Boyce N.

1996 Stratified Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Deposits at Dust Cave, Northwestern Alabama. In 

The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. 

Sassaman. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Fitting, J.

1978 Regional Cultural Development, 300 B.C. to A.D. 1000. In Handbook of North American

Indians: Northeast, Volume 15, edited by B. Trigger. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

Fowler, Melvin L.

1959 Summary Repost of Modoc Rock Shelter 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956. Illinois State Museum Report of 

Investigations No. 8:1-72. Modoc Rock Shelter: An Early Archaic Site in Southern Illinois. American 

Antiquity 24(3): 257-270.

Gardner, William M.

1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: Report on the 1971-1973 Seasons. Occasional Publication 

1, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.\
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

53

1980 The Archaic. Paper presented at the 11th Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware.

1987 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site 

Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology

3:49-80.

Gardner, William M. and Robert Verrey

1979 Typology and Chronology of Fluted Points from the Flint Run Area. Pennsylvania Archaeologist

49:13-45.

Goodyear, Albert C. III

1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline raw materials among Paleoindian Groups of North 

America. Research Manuscript Series, University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and 

Anthropology. Columbia, South Carolina.

1982 The Chronological position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American 

Antiquity 47(2): 382-395.

1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North 

America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Christopher Ellis and Jonathan C. 

Lothrop, pp. 1-9. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

Goodyear, Albert C. III, James L. Michie, and Tommy Charles

1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Essays in honor of 

Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear,III, and Glen T. Hanson, pp.19-52. 

Anthropological Studies 9. Columbia: South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 

University of South Carolina.

Graetzer, M.A.

 1986 Settlement Patterns and Paleoclimatic Modeling: A Preliminary Study of Data from the Bald Eagle 

Watershed of Central Pennsylvania. Masters paper, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania 

State University, University Park.

Greber, N.

 1983 Early-Middle Woodland Study Unit Archeological Resource Plan, Northeast Ohio. Report to the 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

Griffin, James B.

 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspects: Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi Valley Archaeology.

University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 15(3772):175-191.

Guilday, John E.

 1967 The Climatic Significance of the Hosterman's Pit Local Fauna, Centre County, Pennsylvania. 

American Antiquity 32(2):231-232.

 1982 Appalachia 11,000-12,000 Years Ago: A Biological Review. Archaeology of Eastern North America 

10:22-26.

Gurke, Karl,

 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. University of Idaho Press, Boise.

Hardesty, H.H.

 1882 A History of Monroe County, Ohio. H.H. Hardesty & Co. Publishers, Chicago and Toledo.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

54

Holmes, William H.

 1912 Steatite. In Handbook of American Indians, edited by Frederick Webb Hodge. Bulletin of the 

Bureau of American Ethnology 30:635-36.

Hansen, Michael C.

 1995 The Ice Age in Ohio. Modified from Education Leaflet No. 7 Revised Edition 2008 ODNR Division 

of Geological Survey

Jeffries, Richard W.

 2008 Holocene Hunter-Gatherers of the Lower Ohio River Valley. University of Alabama Press, 

Tuscaloosa.

Jenkins, Ned J.

 1975 The Wheeler Series and Southeastern Prehistory. Florida Anthropologist 18:17-26.

Jonathon Kerr and Andrew P. Bradbury

 1999 Paleo-Indian and Archaic Settlement at Kentucky Lake. Tennessee Anthropologist 23:1-20.

Johnson, William C., William P. Athens, Martin T. Fuess, Luis G. Jaramillo, Keith R. Bastianini, and 

Elizabeth Ramos

1989 Late Prehistoric Period Monongahela Culture Site and Cultural Resource Inventory. Prepared by 

the University of Pittsburgh Cultural Resource Program for the Pennsylvania Historical and 

Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Justice, N.D.

1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana 

University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Kimball, Larry R.

 1996 Early Archaic Settlement and Technology: Lessons from Tellico. In The Paleoindian and Early 

Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. The University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Kime, J.

 1986 Preservation Plan for Early Woodland Study Unit Drainage A, Western Lake Erie Spatial Unit. 

Report to the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Columbus.

King, J.E.

 1980 Post-Pleistocene Vegetational Changes in the Midwestern United States. In Archaic Prehistory of 

the Prairie-Plains Border, edited by A.E. Johnson, pp. 3-11. University of Kansas Publications in 

Anthropology No. 12, Lawrence, Kansas.

Kneberg, Madeline

 1956 Some important projectile points types found in the Tennessee area. Tennessee Archaeologist, 

Vol. XII, No. 1:17-28. Knoxville.

Kneller, Margaret and Dorothy Peteet

 1999 Late-Glacial to Early Holocene Climate Changes from a Central Appalachian Pollen and 

Macrofossil Record. Quaternary Research 51:133-147.

Kraft, John, and Daniel Belknap

 1983 Potentials of Discovery of Human Occupation Sites on the Continental Shelves and Nearshore 

Coastal Zone. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology: Towards the Prehistory of Land 

Bridges and Continental Shelves, edited by P. Masters and N. Flemming, pp. 87-100. Academic 

Press, London.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

55

Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg Lewis

 1961 Eva: An Archaic Site. A University of Tennessee Study in Anthropology. The University of 

Tennessee Press. Knoxville.

Logan, Wilfred D.

 1952 Graham Cave: An Archaic Site in Montgomery County, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society 

Memoir No. 2.

Lovejoy, Claude O.

 1967 Caldwell's Little Bluff: An Unusual Adena Burial Site. Studies in Ohio Archeology. Edited by Olaf H. 

Prufer and Douglas H. McKenzie. Press of Western Reserve University. Cleveland.

MacDonald, George F.

 1968 Debert: A Paleo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. National Museums of Canada. Anthropology 

Papers No.16.

Maslowski, Robert F. and Mark F. Seeman

 1992 Woodland Archeology in the Mid-Ohio Valley: Setting Parameters for Ohio Main Stem/ Tributary 

Comparisons. Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley. Edited 

by Mark F. Seeman. Kent University Press.

Maxwell, J. S., and M.B. Davis

 1972 Pollen Evidence of Pleistocene and Holocene Vegetation on the Allegheny Plateau, Maryland. 

Quaternary Research: 2:506-530.

Mayer-Oakes, William J.

 1955 Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Introductory Archeological Study. Annals of the Carnegie 

Museum, Volume 34. Pittsburgh.

McKelvey, A.T.

1903 Centennial History of Belmont County, Ohio and Representative Citizens. Biographic Publishing 

Company, Chicago Illinois.

McKenzie, Douglas H.

 1967 The Graham Village Site: A Fort Ancient Settlement in the Hocking Valley, Ohio. Studies in Ohio 

Archeology. Edited by Olaf H. Prufer and Douglas H. McKenzie. Press of Western Reserve 

University. Cleveland.

McMichael, Edward V.

 1968 Introduction to West Virginia Archaeology. Second edition. West Virginia Geological and 

Economic Survey, Morgantown.

 1970 Adena East, an appraisal of the more easterly extensions of the spread of the Adena Phenomenon. 

In Adena: The Seeking of an Identity, edited by B.K. Swartz, Jr., pp. 88-96. Ball State University 

Press, Muncie.

Means, Bernard

 2007 Circular Villages of the Monongahela Tradition. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Michie, James L.

 1969 Excavations at Tom's (Thom's) Creek. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 

University of South Carolina, The Notebook 1 (10):2-16.

 1978 An Intensive Archaeological Test of the Endenwood Site, 38LX135, Lexington County, South 

Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities 10(2).
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

56

 1996 The Taylor Site: An Early Occupation in Central South Carolina. In The Paleoindian and Early 

Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. The University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Milliman, J., and K. Emery

 1968 Sea Levels during the Past 35,000 Years. Science 162:1121-1123.

Monroe County

 1853 Monroe County Tax & Plat Map. Electronic Document. 

https://www.monroecountyohio.com/departments/tax_map_department/historical_maps.php. 

Accessed November 8, 2019.

 1859 Monroe County Tax & Plat Map. Electronic Document. 

https://www.monroecountyohio.com/departments/tax_map_department/historical_maps.php. 

Accessed November 8, 2019.

 2019 Historical Maps. Electronic Document. 

https://www.monroecountyohio.com/departments/tax_map_department/historical_maps.php. 

Accessed November 8, 2019.

Muller, Jon

 1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Nass, J. and R. Yerkes

 1995 Social Differentiation in Mississippian and Fort Ancient Societies. In Mississippian Communities 

and Households, edited by J. Rodgers and B. Smith. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Neumann, Thomas W.

 1988 High-magnification use-wear analysis of projectile points from southeastern Minnesota. Plains 

Anthropologist 33:367-375.

Niquette, Charles M., Albert Pecora, Richard W. Yerkes, and Kathryn J. Saul

 1991 Test Excavations at the Glasgow Site: A Stratified terminal Early Archaic and Late Archaic Site in 

Kanawha County, West Virginia. West Virginia Archaeologist, Volume 43:27-56.

Noll, JNO. B.

 1869 Map of Monroe County, Ohio. Published by Ehrgott, Forbriger,& Co. Cincinnati, Ohio.

NRCS

2017 Web Soil Survey. Electronic Document. 

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm

Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO)

 1994 Archaeology Guidelines. Publisher: Ohio Historical Society, Cincinnati.

Pacheco, Paul J.

 1997 Ohio Middle Woodland Intracommunity Settlement Variability: A Case Study from the Licking 

Valley. Ohio Hopewell Community Organization. Edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco. 

Kent State University Press.

Painter, Floyd

 1988 Two Terminal Archaic cultures of S.E. Virginia and N.E. North Carolina. Journal of Middle Atlantic 

Archaeology 4:25-38.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

57

Payne, J. H.

 1987 Windy City (154-16): A Paleoindian Lithic Workshop in Northern Maine. Unpublished M.A. thesis, 

University of Maine, Orono.

Penny, David W.

 1985 The Late Archaic Period. In Ancient Art of the American Woodland Indians, (pp.15-41) edited by 

David S. Brose, James A. Brown, and David. W. Penny. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

Pratt, G. Michael

 1981 The Western Basin Tradition: Changing Settlement-Subsistence Adaptation in the Western Lake 

Erie Basin Region. Unpublished Ph D. dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.

Prufer, Olaf H.

 1967a The Scioto Valley Archaeological Survey. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by Olaf H. Prufer 

and Douglas H. McKenzie. Western Reserve University Press, Cleveland.

 1967b Chesser Cave: A Late Woodland Phase in Southeastern Ohio. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, 

edited by Olaf H. Prufer and D. McKenzie, pp. 267-328. The Press of Case Western Reserve 

University, Cleveland.

Ranere, Anthony and Richard Cooke

 1991 Paleoindian Occupation in the Central American Tropics. In: Clovis! Origins and Adaptations, edited 

by Rob Bonnichsen and K.L. Turner. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis.

 1995 Evidencias de ocupacion humana en Panama al fin del Pleistoceno y comienzos del Holoceno. In 

Ambito y Ocupaciones Tempaanas de La America Tropica, edited by Ines Cavelier and Santiago 

Mora, Fundacion Erigale, Bocota.

Ritchie, William A.

 1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points, Revised Edition. New York State 

Museum and Science Service, Bulletin Number 384.

Rogers, J. and B. Smith (editors)

 1995 Mississippian Communities and Households. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Rutter, W.

 1984 The Upper Mississippian Component at the Fort Meigs Site, Northwest Ohio, With Special 

Emphasis on the Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Toledo, Ohio.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.

 1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson and David G. Anderson

 1990 Native American Prehistory in the Middle Savannah River Valley: Synthesis of Archaeological 

Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina.

Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and 

Anthropology, Columbia.

Scully, Edward G.

 1951 Some Central Mississippi Valley Projectile Point Types. Museum of Anthropology, University of 

Michigan.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

58

Seeman, Mark F.

 1992 Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley. Kent State University 

Press.

Shane, Orrin C. and James L. Murphy

 1967 A Survey of the Hocking Valley, Ohio. In Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by Olaf H. Prufer and 

Douglas H. McKenzie. Western Reserve University Press, Cleveland.

Slucher, E.R. and Rice, C.L.

1994 “Key rock units and distribution of marine and brackish water strata in the Pottsville Group, 

northeastern Ohio.” in Elements of Pennsylvanian stratigraphy, central Appalachian basin: 

Geological Society of America Special Paper, 294. edited by C.L. Rice, p. 27-40.

Stoltman, James B.

 1974 Groton Plantation: An Archaeological Study of a South Carolina Locality. Monographs of the 

Peabody Museum 1. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Stothers, D. and J. Graves

 1985 The Prairie Peninsula Co-Tradition: A Hypothesis for Hopewellian to Upper Mississippian 

Continuity. Archeology of Eastern North America 13:153-175.

Stothers, D. and W. Rutter

 1977 The LaSalle Site (33WO42): An Upper Mississippian Manifestation in the Western Lake Erie Basin. 

Toledo Area Aboriginal Research Bulletin News and Notes 78:1-2.

Struever, Stuart

 1968 Problems, Methods, and Organization: A Disparity in the Growth of Archaeology. In Anthropological 

Archaeology in the Americas. Betty J. Meggers, ed., pp.131-151. Anthropological Society of 

Washington, Washington, D.C.

Tankersley, Kenneth B.

 1996 Ice Age hunters and Gatherers. In, Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp.21-38. 

University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

 2008 Three Saylors: An Appalachian Mountain Clovis Site in Southeastern Kentucky. Current Research 

in the Pleistocene 25:110-112.

Tankersley, Kenneth B., Michael R. Waters, and Thomas W. Stafford

 2009 Clovis and the American Mastadon at Big Bone lick, Kentucky. American Antiquity 74:1-10.

Tuck, James A.

 1974 Early Archaic Horizons in Eastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 2(1):72-

80.

Ullman, K.

 1985 The Ceramics from the Kramer Village Site (33RO33), Ross County, Ohio. Kent State Research 

Papers in Archeology No. 5. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

 1911 Cumberland, Ohio 15 Minute Quadrangle. USGS: Washington D.C.

Ward, H., Davis, Stephen R.P., 

1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina, UNC Press,
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

59

Waters, Michael R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Brian g. Redmond, Kenneth B. Tankersley

 2009 The Age of the Paleoindian Assemblage at Sheriden Cave, Ohio. American Antiquity 74:107-111.

Watts, W. A.

1983 Vegetational History of the Eastern United States 25,000 to 10,000 years ago. Late Quaternary 

Environments of the United States Volume I: the Late Pleistocene. Edited by Stephen C. Porter, 

pp. 294-310. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

Webb, Clarence H.

 1977 The Poverty Point Culture. Geoscience and Man. School of Geoscience, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge.

White, Anta Montet

 1968 The Lithic Industries of the Illinois Valley in the Early and Middle Woodland Period. University of 

Michigan Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 35.

Wilkins, G.R., P.A. Delcourt, H.R. Delcourt, F.W. Harrison, and M.T. Turner

 1991 Paleoecology of Central Kentucky since the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Research 36:224-

239.

Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips

 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

William M.

 1980 The Archaic. Paper presented at the 11th Middle Atlantic Archeological Conference, Rehoboth 

Beach, Delaware.

Winters, Howard D.

 1963 An Archaeological Survey of the Wabash Valley in Illinois. Illinois State Museum, Report of 

Investigations No. 10. Springfield.

 1969 The Riverton Culture: A Second Millennium Occupation in the Central Wabash Valley. The Illinois 

State Museum, Reports of Investigations, No. 13, and the Illinois Archaeological Survey. 

Springfield, Illinois.

Witthoft, John

 1953 Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23(1):4-31.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

60

APPENDIX A

Section 106 Documentation Table
Section 106 Review Project Summary Form Documentation Table

Project Number:

Photo 

ID

Ref. Number 

Present Name

Property Address

UTM 

Coord.

Owner 

Information

Present use

Building Type

Architectural Style

Foundation Material Year Built/Altered

Alterations

Current Condition

NRHP 

Elig.

Page 1 of 1

Wall Construction

Exterior Wall

County 

Quad. Name

9271-

4, 

9276-

80

Lucas Farmstead

52189 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington

17

510819

4400386

52189 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington, OH 43915

RESIDENTIAL/DOMESTIC

Other House Type

No academic style - Vernacular

Concrete block

Unknown

Aluminum or vinyl siding Some alteration

Potentially eligible Criteria A (Agriculture) and C (Architecture: well 

preserved, collective representatation of a mid-20th century farmstead)

Ancillary buildings include:

1 - Photos #9273, 9274- workshop

2 - Photos #9275, 9276 - poultry house

3 - Photos #9277, 9278 - Bank Barn

Additional Sources of Information: Further Description

/

Monroe

Powhatan Point (W. 

Preparer Information

Hannah

Dye

Tetra Tech

TT-001

OHI Number:

Mark E. and Lori A. Lucas

8926-

7, 

9284

Deitrich Barn

52146 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington

17

510697

4400148

52146 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington, OH 43772

Agricultural Outbuildings

Other Barn

No academic style - Vernacular

Unknown

Unknown

Vertical board Deteriorated

Basement barn is only structure meeting NRHP 50-year age criterion; residence 

(Photo #8927) is recent construction.

Additional Sources of Information: Further Description

/

Monroe

Powhatan Point (W. 

Preparer Information

Hannah

Dye

Tetra Tech

TT-002

OHI Number:

Derek J. and Kari Deitrich

8929,

9297-

9304

Rufener Farmstead

52067 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington

17

510794

4399872

52067 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington, OH 43915

RESIDENTIAL/DOMESTIC

I House

No academic style - Vernacular

Concrete block

Unknown

Aluminum or vinyl siding Some alteration

Potentially eligible Criteria A (Agriculture) and C (Architecture; well 

preserved collection of domestic and agricultural outbuildings)

Photo IDs (Continued): 9306

Ancillary outbuildings:1-Basement Barn (Photo #s 8929, 9294, 9297, 9304); 

2-concrete stave silo (#9297);3-milk house (#9303); 4-smoke house (#9301); 

5- machine/hay shed (#9305-9306);6-pig sty (#9301); and 2 modern garages.

Additional Sources of Information: Further Description

/

Monroe

Powhatan Point (W. 

Preparer Information

Hannah

Dye

Tetra Tech

TT-003

OHI Number:

Roger K. Rufener

9286-

9293

Haslam Farmstead

52017 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington

17

510781

4399690

52017 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington, OH 43772

RESIDENTIAL/DOMESTIC

Bungalow Dormer Front

No academic style - Vernacular

Concrete block

Unknown

Aluminum or vinyl siding Some alteration

Ancillary outbuildings are heavily altered and mixed with newer construction. 

Overall, the property has been substantially altered.

Additional Sources of Information: Further Description

/

Monroe

Powhatan Point (W. 

Preparer Information

Hannah

Dye

Tetra Tech

TT-004

OHI Number:

Dewey E. and Ruth A. Has

8952,

4, 

8971-

2

Blattler Residence and Barn

52246 Rouse Road

Clarington

17

510965

439852

52246 Rouse Road

Clarington, OH 43772

RESIDENTIAL/DOMESTIC

I House

No academic style - Vernacular

Concrete block

Unknown

Aluminum or vinyl siding Some alteration

Photo IDs (continued): 9308-9

Property includes a barn (similar in form to an English Barn) that appears to have 

been reconstructed.

Additional Sources of Information: Further Description

/

Monroe

Powhatan Point (W. 

Preparer Information

Hannah

Dye

Tetra Tech

TT-005

OHI Number:

Ronald E. Blattler

li'l 

li'l 
Cultural Resources Survey 

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

61 

APPENDIX B 

Architectural Survey Resource Photos
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

i

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 1 (9271), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Residence, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Northeast.................................................................................................................1

Photo 2 (9272), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Residence, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, East..........................................................................................................................1

Photo 3 (9273), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Workshop, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, North .......................................................................................................................2

Photo 4 (9274), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Workshop, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Southwest................................................................................................................2

Photo 5 (9275), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Poultry House, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Southeast ...................................................................................................3

Photo 7 (9277), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Bank Barn, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Southeast.................................................................................................................4

Photo 8 (9278), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Bank Barn, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Southwest................................................................................................................4

Photo 9 (9278), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Corn Crib, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Southwest................................................................................................................5

Photo 10 (9279), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Corn Crib, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, West-Northwest ......................................................................................................5

Photo 11 (9280), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Corn Crib, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, West-Northeast........................................................................................................6

Photo 12 (8926), Deitrich Barn (TT-002), 52146 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, West...............8

Photo 13 (8297), Deitrich Barn (TT-002), Modern Residence, 52146 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, West...........................................................................................................8

Photo 14 (9284), Deitrich Barn (TT-002), 52146 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southwest..........................................................................................................................9

Photo 15 (8929), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Basement Barn, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, West.........................................................................................................11

Photo 16 (9295), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Overview [(Left to Right) Modern Garage, 

Residence, Modern garage, Silo, Basement Barn, Pig Sty], 52067 Sykes Ridge 

Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Northeast .............................................................................11

Photo 17 (9297), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Concrete Stave Silo and Basement Barn, 52067 

Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Northeast........................................................12

Photo 18 (9298), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Residence, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Northeast .................................................................................................12

Photo 19 (9299), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Modern Garage, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, South........................................................................................................13
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

ii

Photo 20 (9300), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Residence, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, North........................................................................................................13

Photo 21 (9301), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Smoke House, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Northeast .................................................................................................14

Photo 22 (9302), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Modern Garage, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, South-Southwest......................................................................................14

Photo 23 (9303), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Milk House, Concrete Stave Silo, and Basement 

Barn, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Southeast ...................................15

Photo 24 (9304), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Basement Barn, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Southwest ................................................................................................15

Photo 25 (9306), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Machine/Hay Shed, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, 

Monroe County, Ohio, Southeast....................................................................................16

Photo 26 (9286), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Residence, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, North-Northwest ...................................................................................................18

Photo 27 (9287), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Residence, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Northeast...............................................................................................................18

Photo 28 (9288), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Residence, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, West-Southwest ....................................................................................................19

Photo 29 (9289), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Outbuildings, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, East-Southeast .........................................................................................19

Photo 30 (9290), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Outbuildings, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Northeast .................................................................................................20

Photo 31 (9291), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Machine/Wood Shed, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, 

Monroe County, Ohio, Southeast....................................................................................20

Photo 32 (9293), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Outbuildings, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio Southeast ..................................................................................................21

Photo 33 (8952), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Northwest..............................................................................................................23

Photo 34 (8954), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, East........................................................................................................................23

Photo 35 (8971), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Southeast...............................................................................................................24

Photo 36 (8972), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, East........................................................................................................................24

Photo 37 (9308), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Residence, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, North........................................................................................................25
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

iii

Photo 38 (9309), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Residence, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Northeast .................................................................................................25
FhFh Fh

hFhFhF

hFFhhF hFFhhhFhhFF Fh hhFFFhhF hhFFFh hFhF hFhhFhFFhFhFFhF hhFF

hF FhhF

hF

hF

FhFh

hF

hF

hF

9273

9274

9276

9277

9278

9279

9280

9271

9272

9275

TT-001: Lucas Farmstead

Legend

Photo Location by Resource ID hF TT-001 hF TT-002 hF TT-003 hF TT-004 hF TT-005

Direct APE

Photo Location Map

for Aboveground Historic Resources

TT-001: Lucas Farmstead

Page 1 of 5

 ̄

Natirum to Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Monroe County, Ohio

TT-001

Date: 11/22/2019

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet

0 50 100 Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Natrium_to_LREG_CR_Photo_Locations_8pt5x11_Landscape.mxd

l -n::] TETRA TECH 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

1

Photo 1 (9271), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Residence, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Northeast

Photo 2 (9272), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Residence, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, East
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

2

Photo 3 (9273), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Workshop, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

North

Photo 4 (9274), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Workshop, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southwest
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

3

Photo 5 (9275), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Poultry House, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southeast

Photo 6 (9276), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Poultry House, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Northwest
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

4

Photo 7 (9277), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Bank Barn, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southeast

Photo 8 (9278), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Bank Barn, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southwest
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

5

Photo 9 (9278), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Corn Crib, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southwest

Photo 10 (9279), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Corn Crib, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

West-Northwest
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

6

Photo 11 (9280), Lucas Farmstead (TT-001), Corn Crib, 52189 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

West-Northeast
FhFh Fh

hFhFhF

hFFhhF hFFhhhFhhFF Fh hhFFFhhF hhFFFh hFhF hFhhFhFFhFhFFhF hhFF

Fh

Fh

Fh

8926

8927

9284

TT-002: Deitrich Barn

Legend

Photo Location by Resource ID hF TT-001 hF TT-002 hF TT-003 hF TT-004 hF TT-005

Direct APE

Photo Location Map

for Aboveground Historic Resources

TT-002: Deitrich Barn

Page 2 of 5

 ̄

Natirum to Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Monroe County, Ohio

TT-002

Date: 11/22/2019

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet

0 50 100 Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Natrium_to_LREG_CR_Photo_Locations_8pt5x11_Landscape.mxd

l -n::] TETRA TECH 

I I 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

8

Photo 12 (8926), Deitrich Barn (TT-002), 52146 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, West

Photo 13 (8297), Deitrich Barn (TT-002), Modern Residence, 52146 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, West
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

9

Photo 14 (9284), Deitrich Barn (TT-002), 52146 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Southwest
FhFh Fh

hFhFhF

hFFhhF hFFhhhFhhFF Fh hhFFFhhF hhFFFh hFhF hFhhFhFFhFhFFhF hF hF hF

Fh

hFFh hF hF hFhF hFhF hFhF

FhhF

hF

8929

9288

9291

9293

9297

9298

9299

9300

9301

9302

9303 9304

9306

9295

TT-003: Rufener Farmstead

Legend

Photo Location by Resource ID hF TT-001 hF TT-002 hF TT-003 hF TT-004 hF TT-005

Direct APE

Photo Location Map

for Aboveground Historic Resources

TT-003: Rufener Farmstead

Page 3 of 5

 ̄

Natirum to Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Monroe County, Ohio

TT-003

Date: 11/22/2019

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet

0 50100 Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Natrium_to_LREG_CR_Photo_Locations_8pt5x11_Landscape.mxd

[ 1'I:] TETRA TECH 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

11

Photo 15 (8929), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Basement Barn, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, West

Photo 16 (9295), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Overview [(Left to Right) Modern Garage, Residence, 

Modern garage, Silo, Basement Barn, Pig Sty], 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Northeast

.~ 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

12

Photo 17 (9297), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Concrete Stave Silo and Basement Barn, 52067 Sykes Ridge 

Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Northeast

Photo 18 (9298), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Residence, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Northeast
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

13

Photo 19 (9299), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Modern Garage, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, South

Photo 20 (9300), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Residence, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

North
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

14

Photo 21 (9301), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Smoke House, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Northeast

Photo 22 (9302), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Modern Garage, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, South-Southwest
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

15

Photo 23 (9303), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Milk House, Concrete Stave Silo, and Basement Barn, 

52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, Southeast

Photo 24 (9304), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Basement Barn, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, 

Ohio, Southwest
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

16

Photo 25 (9306), Rufener Farmstead (TT-003), Machine/Hay Shed, 52067 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Southeast
FhFh Fh

hFhFhF

hFFhhF hFFhhhFhhFF Fh hhFFFhhF hhFFFh hFhF hFhhFhFFhFhFFhF hF hF hF

h

h

F

F

hFFh

hFFh hF

hF

hF

9286

9287

9288

9289

9290

9291

9292

9293

9295

TT-004: Haslam Farmstead

Legend

Photo Location by Resource ID hF TT-001 hF TT-002 hF TT-003 hF TT-004 hF TT-005

Direct APE

Photo Location Map

for Aboveground Historic Resources

TT-004: Haslam Farmstead

Page 4 of 5

 ̄

Natirum to Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Monroe County, Ohio

TT-004

Date: 11/22/2019

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet

0 50 100 Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Natrium_to_LREG_CR_Photo_Locations_8pt5x11_Landscape.mxd

[ 1'I:] TETRA TECH 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

18

Photo 26 (9286), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Residence, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio,

North-Northwest

Photo 27 (9287), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Residence, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Northeast
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

19

Photo 28 (9288), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Residence, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio,

West-Southwest

Photo 29 (9289), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Outbuildings, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

East-Southeast
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

20

Photo 30 (9290), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Outbuildings, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio,

Northeast

Photo 31 (9291), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Machine/Wood Shed, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe 

County, Ohio, Southeast
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

21

Photo 32 (9293), Haslam Farmstead (TT-004), Outbuildings, 52017 Sykes Ridge Rd, Monroe County, Ohio

Southeast
FhFh Fh

hFhFhF

hFFhhF hFFhhhFhhFF Fh hhFFFhhF hhFFFh hFhF hFhhFhFFhFhFFhF hhFF hF

hF hF hF

hhFF

8952

8954

8971

8972

9308

9309

TT-005: Blattler Residence and Barn

Legend

Photo Location by Resource ID hF TT-001 hF TT-002 hF TT-003 hF TT-004 hF TT-005

Direct APE

Photo Location Map

for Aboveground Historic Resources

TT-005: Blattler Residence and Barn

Page 5 of 5

 ̄

Natirum to Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Monroe County, Ohio

TT-005

Date: 11/22/2019

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Feet

0 50 100 Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\Natrium_to_LREG_CR_Photo_Locations_8pt5x11_Landscape.mxd

l -n::] TETRA TECH 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

23

Photo 33 (8952), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Northwest

Photo 34 (8954), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

East
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

24

Photo 35 (8971), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Southeast

Photo 36 (8972), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Barn, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

East
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix B

25

Photo 37 (9308), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Residence, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

North

Photo 38 (9309), Blattler Residence and Barn (TT-005), Residence, 52246 Rouse Rd, Monroe County, Ohio, 

Northeast
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

62

APPENDIX C

Draft Ohio Historic Inventory Forms
13. Part of Established Hist. Dist? NO

4. Present or Historic Name(s): Lucas Farmstead, 52189 Sykes Ridge Road 6. Specific Address or Location: 52189 Sykes Ridge Road

 OHIO HISTORIC INVENTORY

 Draft Form - Not Reviewed by OHPO

Ohio Historic Preservation Office

800 E. 17th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43211

614/298-2000

RPR Number:

 1. No. MOE0055308 NEW

2. County: Monroe

4. Present Name(s): Lucas Farmstead, 52189 Sykes Ridge Road

5. Historic or Other Name(s):

6. Specific Address or Location:

52189 Sykes Ridge Road

6a. Lot, Section or VMD Number:

7. City or Village:

Clarington

9. U.T.M. Reference

 Quadrangle Name: Powhatan Point (W. Va.)

Zone: 17 Easting: 510819 Northing: 4400386

10. Classification: Building

11. On National Register? NO

16. Thematic Associations:

17. Date(s) or Period:

c1945

17b. Alteration Date(s):

18. Style Class and Design:

None No academic style - Vernacular

 

18a. Style of Addition or Elements(s):

19. Architect or Engineer:

unknown

19a. Design Sources: unknown

20. Contractor or Builder: unknown

21. Building Type or Plan: Non-discernable House Type

22. Original Use, if apparent:

Single Dwelling

24. Ownership: Private

25. Owner's Name & Address, if known:

Mark E. and Lori A. Lucas

52189 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington, OH 43915

26. Property Acreage: 31.56

27. Other Surveys:

28. No. of Stories: One story

29. Basement? Unknown

30. Foundation Material: Concrete block

31. Wall Construction:

Unknown

Unknown

32. Roof Type:

 Gable

Roof Material:

Standing seam (metal)

33. No. of Bays: 3

34. Exterior Wall Material(s):

Aluminum or vinyl siding

Unknown

35. Plan Shape: Rectangular

36. Changes associated with 17/17b Dates:

37. Window Type(s):

1 over 1

38. Building Dimensions: 35 x 30

39. Endangered? NO

By What?

40. Chimney Placement: Gable end, exterior

41. Distance from & Frontage on Road:

156ft

46. Prepared By: MatthewLackett 47. Organization: Tetra Tech, Inc. 48. Date Recorded: 11/16/2019

Side Bays: 1

23. Present Use:

Single Dwelling

17. Original/Most significant construction

17b. Unknown

51. Condition of Property: Good/Fair

49. PIR Reviewer: 50. PIR Review Date:

53. Affiliated Inventory Number(s):

Historic (OHI):

Archaeological (OAI):

52. Historic Outbuildings & Dependencies

Date(s):

c1945c1945

Structure Type(s):

Other Barn

Corncrib

Associated Activity:

Original/Most significant construction

Original/Most significant construction

Section 106/RPR Review:

15. Other Designation (NR or Local)

8. Site Plan (location map) with North Arrow

2. County: Monroe

OHIO 

HISTORY 

{tl 
2. County Monroe

Year Title

42. Further Description of Important Interior and Exterior Features

The c. 1945, 1-story wood frame vernacular-style dwelling features replacement vinyl siding, replacement 1/1 vinyl

sash windows, and a side gable roof covered in standing seam metal. The building is constructed on a rectangular plan.

The three-bay facade has a centered entrance door which is sheltered by a small overhang supported by square wood

posts.

43. History and Significance

This c.1945, side gable dwelling is an example of a common mid-twentieth century vernacular form found throughout

southeastern Ohio. The dwelling is part of a larger agricultural complex, of which a barn, workshop, poultry house and

corncrib remain. The farmhouse and associated outbuildings convey their original function and purpose and demonstrate

the spatial planning of small, mid-twentieth century farms in Monroe County. As such, the Lucas Farmstead is

recommended potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A for agriculture. No evidence linking this property to

any significant individuals in local history could be identified. As such, this resource is recommended not potentially

eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion B. The Lucas Farmstead residence does not exemplify a remarkable or

distinctive vernacular house form and has been altered with replacement siding and windows. The residence does not

have sufficient architectural significance or integrity to warrant individual NRHP listing. However, coupled with the

collection of relatively well-preserved outbuildings, the farmhouse provides architectural context for this mid-twentieth

century Monroe County farm. The Lucas farmstead is recommended potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion

C; it serves as a relatively well-preserved collective representation of a mid-twentieth century farmstead in Monroe

County.

44. Description of Environment and Outbuildings (See #52)

This resource is a farmstead located in a rural area with similar farmsteads and houses nearby. The house sits east

of Sykes Ridge Road within a manicured yard with a few scattered mature trees scattered about. Outbuildings are

located at the edge of the yard bordering agricultural fields and include a workshop, Bank Barn, poultry house, and corn

crib that all appear to date to the mid-twentieth century. The side gable workshop is constructed of concrete block and

features metal sliding windows. The workshop's gable roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The Bank Barn stands on a

concrete block foundation. The barn's exterior is clad in vinyl or aluminum siding. The barn's side gable roof is covered in

asphalt shingles. The barn features a large sliding door on the upper eaves side. The poultry house stands on a concrete

block foundation; its exterior walls are clad in asphalt siding. The poultry house's front gable roof is covered in asphalt

Report Associated With Project:

Primary Author

Matthew Lackett William P. Barse, 

Hannah Dye, James T. 

Marine

2019 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Natrium to Long Ridge Energy Terminal Pipeline and Transloading 

Facility Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Secondary Author(s)

1. No. MOE0055308

Door Selection: Unknown

Door Position: Flush

Orientation: Gable end axis

Symmetry: Other

4. Present Name(s): Lucas Farmstead, 52189 Sykes Ridge Road

 Draft Form - Not Review by OHPO MOE0055308 Page: 2 of 3

5. Historic or Other Name(s):

~ rm;Jiib 

D 

O eank8am 

a Pooltry Mc;ra,Q 

1 

N 
shingles. Some of the poultry house's windows are no longer intact; the intact fenestration is comprised of 3/3 wood sash

windows. The shed-roofed corn crib is constructed on wood piers. The corncrib's exterior is clad in vertical wood boards

with spaces in between. The building's shed roof is covered in asphalt shingles.

45. Sources of Information

Caldwell, J.A.

 1898 Caldwell's 1898 Atlas of Monroe Co., Ohio. Atlas Pub.: Mt. Vernon, Ohio.

Hardesty, H.H.

 1882 History of Monroe County, Ohio - Illustrated - A Condensed HIstory of the County; Biographical

 Sketches; General Statistics; Miscellaneous Matters. H.H. Hardesty & Co.: Toledo.

Harrington, R.E.

 2011 Making of Monroe County, Ohio.

 http:freepages.rootsweb.com/~harringtonfamilies/history/history2.htm. Accessed November 16,

 2019.

Lewis, Thomas William

 1928 History of Southeastern Ohio and the Muskingum Valley, 1788-1928. In Three Volumes. S.J.

 Clarke Publishing Co.: Chicago.

 Draft Form - Not Review by OHPO MOE0055308 Page: 3 of 3
13. Part of Established Hist. Dist? NO

4. Present or Historic Name(s): Rufener Farmstead, 52067 Sykes Ridge Road 6. Specific Address or Location: 52067 Sykes Ridge Road

 OHIO HISTORIC INVENTORY

 Draft Form - Not Reviewed by OHPO

Ohio Historic Preservation Office

800 E. 17th Avenue

Columbus, OH 43211

614/298-2000

RPR Number:

 1. No. MOE0055408 NEW

2. County: Monroe

4. Present Name(s): Rufener Farmstead, 52067 Sykes Ridge Road

5. Historic or Other Name(s):

6. Specific Address or Location:

52067 Sykes Ridge Road

6a. Lot, Section or VMD Number:

7. City or Village:

Clarington

9. U.T.M. Reference

 Quadrangle Name: Powhatan Point (W. Va.)

Zone: 17 Easting: 510794 Northing: 4399872

10. Classification: Building

11. On National Register? NO

16. Thematic Associations:

17. Date(s) or Period:

c1910

17b. Alteration Date(s):

18. Style Class and Design:

None No academic style - Vernacular

 

18a. Style of Addition or Elements(s):

19. Architect or Engineer:

unknown

19a. Design Sources: unknown

20. Contractor or Builder: unknown

21. Building Type or Plan: Classic I House

22. Original Use, if apparent:

Single Dwelling

24. Ownership: Private

25. Owner's Name & Address, if known:

Roger K. Rufener

52067 Sykes Ridge Road

Clarington, WV 43915

26. Property Acreage: 78.9

27. Other Surveys:

28. No. of Stories: Two story

29. Basement? Unknown

30. Foundation Material: Concrete block

31. Wall Construction:

Unknown

Unknown

32. Roof Type:

 Gable

Roof Material:

Asphalt shingle

33. No. of Bays: 5

34. Exterior Wall Material(s):

Aluminum or vinyl siding

35. Plan Shape: L-shaped

36. Changes associated with 17/17b Dates:

37. Window Type(s):

1 over 1

38. Building Dimensions: 38 x 23

39. Endangered? NO

By What?

40. Chimney Placement: Double gable end,

flush

41. Distance from & Frontage on Road:

53ft

46. Prepared By: MatthewLackett 47. Organization: Tetra Tech, Inc. 48. Date Recorded: 11/16/2019

Side Bays: 1

23. Present Use:

Single Dwelling

17. Original/Most significant construction

17b.

51. Condition of Property: Good/Fair

49. PIR Reviewer: 50. PIR Review Date:

53. Affiliated Inventory Number(s):

Historic (OHI):

Archaeological (OAI):

52. Historic Outbuildings & Dependencies

Date(s):

c1915c1930

Structure Type(s):

Raised Basement Barn

Other Outbuilding/Structure/Feature

Associated Activity:

Original/Most significant construction

Original/Most significant construction

Section 106/RPR Review:

15. Other Designation (NR or Local)

8. Site Plan (location map) with North Arrow

2. County: Monroe

OHIO 

HISTORY 

{tl 
2. County Monroe

Year Title

42. Further Description of Important Interior and Exterior Features

The c.1915, 2-story, 5-bay I-house features aluminum siding, 1/1 windows (sash material unknown), and a side gable

rood covered in asphalt shingles. The main block and rear ell form an L plan. The 5-bay facade has a centered entrance

door which is sheltered by a small overhang supported by decorative steel columns.

43. History and Significance

This c.1915 I-house is an example of a common early-twentieth century vernacular form found throughout

southeastern Ohio. The dwelling is part of a larger agricultural complex, of which a Basement Barn, milk house, silo,

pigsty, smoke house, and machine/hay shed remain. The complex also includes two garages of recent construction. The

farmhouse and associated outbuildings (with the exception of the modern garages) convey their original function and

purpose and demonstrate the spatial planning of early-twentieth century dairy farms in Monroe County. As such, the

Rufener Farmstead is recommended potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A for agriculture. No evidence

linking this property to any significant individuals in local history could be identified. As such, this resource is

recommended not potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion B. The Rufener Farmstead residence does not

exemplify a remarkable or distinctive vernacular house form and does not have sufficient architectural significance or

integrity to warrant individual NRHP listing. However, coupled with the collection of well-preserved outbuildings, the

farmhouse provide context for this early-twentieth century Monroe County dairy farm. The Rufener farmstead is

recommended potentially eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion C for its ell-preserved collection of early

twentieth-century domestic and agricultural buildings.

44. Description of Environment and Outbuildings (See #52)

This resource is a farmstead located in a rural area with similar farmsteads and houses nearby. The house sits east

of Sykes Ridge Road within a manicured yard with a few scattered mature trees. OUtbuildings are located at the edge of

the yard bordering agricultural fields and include a Basement Barn, milk house, silo, machine/hay shed, pigsty, and

smoke house. Two modern garages are also located in close proximity to the house near the property's driveway. The

exterior of the c.1915 Basement Barn is clad in a combination of vertical wood boards and aluminium or vinyl siding. The

upper eaves side of the barn features large siding doors and simple wood brackets along the roof line. The barn's side

gable roof is covered in corrugated metal. Located at the west gable end of the barn is a concrete stave silo. A c.1930

concrete block milkhouse with a pyramidal roof is located at the barn's northwest corner adjacent to the driveway. The

milkhouse's pyramidal roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The c.1915, side gable, wood frame smoke house stands on

Report Associated With Project:

Primary Author

Matthew Lackett William P. Barse, 

Hannah Dye, James T. 

Marine

2019 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Natrium to Long Ridge Energy Terminal Pipeline and Transloading 

Facility Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Secondary Author(s)

1. No. MOE0055408

Door Selection: Single centered

Door Position: Flush

Orientation: Gable end axis

Symmetry: Bilateral symmetry

4. Present Name(s): Rufener Farmstead, 52067 Sykes Ridge Road

 Draft Form - Not Review by OHPO MOE0055408 Page: 2 of 3

5. Historic or Other Name(s):

't,-

0 "' 

Farmhouse 

Agriculilural Fie•d 

;g !>.o a O Smokeho ~e Machine/Hay 

- Shed :{] El "'$;> Drivew-i 

\ _f::::JQ:Bas.ement ..Q .. ··" . 

Modem ·Sam 

3 Garages 

" QPigsty 

$ Agricu ltura I Field t= ' N 
stone piers. The smoke house's exterior is clad in a combination of weatherboard and vertical wood boards. The smoke

house features two human doors on the eaves side. A pigsty is located at the southeast corner of the barnyard and is

constructed on a concrete block foundation. The pigsty's exterior is clad in an unknown material. The pigsty's side gable

roof is covered in corrugated metal. The machine/ hay shed is comprised of a side gable structure with a completely

enclosed shed-roofed addition. The side gable portion of the shed is clad in vertical wood boards; the rear addition is

clad in standing seam metal. The two modern garages are side-gabled and are clad in standing seam metal.

45. Sources of Information

Caldwell, J.A.

 1898 Caldwell's Atlas of Monroe Co., Ohio. Atlas Pub.: Mt. Vernon, Ohio.

Hardesty, H.H

 1882 History of Monroe County, Ohio - Illustrated - A Condensed History of the County; Biographical

 Sketches; General Statistics; Miscellaneous Matters. H.H. Hardesty & Co.: Toledo.

Harrington, R.E.

 2011 Making of Monroe County, Ohio.

 http:/freepages.rootsweb.com/~harringtonfamilies/history/history2.htm. Accessed November 16,

 2019.

Lewis, Thomas William

 1928 History of Southeastern Ohio and the Muskingham Valley, 1788-1928. In Three Volumes. S.J. Clark

 Publishing Co.: Chicago.

 Draft Form - Not Review by OHPO MOE0055408 Page: 3 of 3
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

63

APPENDIX D

Archaeological Survey Photos
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

i

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photo 300. Facing West Showing Existing Road within Direct APE. ......................................................1

Photo 307. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE. ...........................................................1

Photo 8937. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope along Centerline. ..................................................2

Photo 8942. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope along Centerline. ..................................................2

Photo 8950. Facing North-Northwest Showing Centerline at edge of Ridgeline above Sloped Hillside...3

Photo 9010. Facing North-Northwest Showing Slope Along Centerline. ..................................................3

Photo 9018. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope along Centerline. ..................................................4

Photo 9039. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE. ...........................................................4

Photo 9066. Facing East-Northeast Showing Tested Area at Northern end of Direct APE......................5

Photo 9071. Facing West-Southwest Showing Slope along Centerline....................................................5

Photo 9091. Facing East-Northeast Showing Slope Along Centerline. ....................................................6

Photo 9093. Facing East-Northeast Showing Overview of Direct APE.....................................................6

Photo 9096. Facing South Showing Slope down Centerline.....................................................................7

Photo 9106. Facing South Showing Slope within Direct APE. ..................................................................7

Photo 9114. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE. ...........................................................8

Photo 9127. Facing Southeast Showing Testing in Progress along Narrow Ridgeline.............................8

Photo 9141. Facing South Showing Overview of Tested Area within Direct APE. ...................................9

Photo 9149. Facing South Showing Slope within Direct APE. ..................................................................9

Photo 9167. Facing Southeast Showing Overview of Direct APE...........................................................10

Photo 9173. Facing West-Northwest Along Direct APE co-located with Existing ROW. ........................10

Photo 9176. Facing Northeast Along Direct APE co-located with Existing ROW. ..................................11

Photo 9180. Facing East-Northeast Showing Sloped Hillside.................................................................11

Photo 9185. Facing Northeast Showing Direct APE co-located with Existing Disturbance and Slope...12

Photo 9196. Facing North Showing Sloped Area within Mine Reclamation............................................12

Photo 9202. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE. ..............................................13

Photo 9206. Facing South-Southwest Showing Existing Pipeline Marker within Direct APE. ................13

Photo 9238. Facing East Showing Steep Slope within Direct APE.........................................................14

Photo 9247. Facing West Showing Steep Slope within Direct APE........................................................14

Photo 9263. Facing Northwest Showing Slope within Direct APE. .........................................................15

Photo 9264. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE. .........................................................15

Photo 9267. Facing Northwest Showing Narrow Ridge Spine Bounded by Steep Slopes. ....................16

Photo 9335. Facing West Northwest Showing Slope within Direct APE.................................................16
!

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

F

h

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

Bore Pit-Exit

West Virginia

Ohio

8937

9066

9063

9091

9093

9096

9071

9106

9127

9141

9114

9149

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 12/5/2019

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\FigureXXX_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 1 of 6

Legend

Negative Shovel Test

h

F Photo_Location

! Bore Pit-Exit

Centerline

State Boundary

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

STP B11

STP A9

0 

D 

= 
h

F

h

F

F

h

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

h

F

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

F

h

h

F

F

h

! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

33MO211

8991

8950

8942

0300

0307

0308

0313

0315

0316

8987

9009

9010

9018

9039

9210

9230 9335

9238

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 12/5/2019

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\FigureXXX_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 2 of 6

Legend

Negative Shovel Test

! Historic Cultural Feature

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Site 33MO211

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Well 1

Chimney

Well 2

Bottle Dump

Cinder Block

and Fieldstone

Foundation

Well 3

Bank Barn

Foundation

33MO211

STP RO4

STP A3

0 

D 

D 

~-- I ~ . 

' . ' I 

·~ · Pt ,f>g'l I 

53lem Wp 

. . . . . . 

I -..J i : ~,.g_: __ • :.:· --· 
F

h

h

F

F

h

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

h

F

9238

9247

9263

9265

9264

9267

9167

9196

9202

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 12/5/2019

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\FigureXXX_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 3 of 6

Legend

Negative Shovel Test

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

STP B2

0 

D • -.J i : 

~~ _: __ . :.:· --· 
h

F

h

F

h

F

9185

9202 9206

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 12/5/2019

± 0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\FigureXXX_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 4 of 6

Legend

h

F Photo_Location

Centerline

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

TETRA TECH 

D 
h

hF

F

9176

9179

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 12/5/2019

±

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\FigureXXX_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 5 of 6

Legend hF Photo_Location

Centerline

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3
West Virginia Ohio

Data SourcesEsri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA

FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Date: 12/5/2019

±

0 250 500 1,000

Feet

Document Path: P:\GIS\LREG\Natrium_to_Ormet\GIS\Spatial\MXD\Cultural_Resources\FigureXXX_LREG_Testing_Location_Mapbook.mxd

Long Ridge Energy Terminal

Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline

Monroe County, Ohio

Figure 5.3-1

Testing Location

Mapbook

Page 6 of 6

Legend

Centerline

State Boundary

Pedestrian Survey

Pipeline LOD

Transloading Facility Footprint

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

6

1

5

4

2

3

D 

D 
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

1

Photo 300. Facing West Showing Existing Road within Direct APE.

Photo 307. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

2

Photo 8937. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope along Centerline.

Photo 8942. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope along Centerline.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

3

Photo 8950. Facing North-Northwest Showing Centerline at edge of Ridgeline above Sloped Hillside.

Photo 9010. Facing North-Northwest Showing Slope Along Centerline.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

4

Photo 9018. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope along Centerline.

Photo 9039. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

5

Photo 9066. Facing East-Northeast Showing Tested Area at Northern end of Direct APE.

Photo 9071. Facing West-Southwest Showing Slope along Centerline.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

6

Photo 9091. Facing East-Northeast Showing Slope Along Centerline.

Photo 9093. Facing East-Northeast Showing Overview of Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

7

Photo 9096. Facing South Showing Slope down Centerline.

Photo 9106. Facing South Showing Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

8

Photo 9114. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE.

Photo 9127. Facing Southeast Showing Testing in Progress along Narrow Ridgeline.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

9

Photo 9141. Facing South Showing Overview of Tested Area within Direct APE.

Photo 9149. Facing South Showing Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

10

Photo 9167. Facing Southeast Showing Overview of Direct APE.

Photo 9173. Facing West-Northwest Along Direct APE co-located with Existing ROW.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

11

Photo 9176. Facing Northeast Along Direct APE co-located with Existing ROW.

4

Photo 9180. Facing East-Northeast Showing Sloped Hillside.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

12

Photo 9185. Facing Northeast Showing Direct APE co-located with Existing Disturbance and Slope.

Photo 9196. Facing North Showing Sloped Area within Mine Reclamation.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

13

Photo 9202. Facing South-Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE.

Photo 9206. Facing South-Southwest Showing Existing Pipeline Marker within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

14

Photo 9238. Facing East Showing Steep Slope within Direct APE.

Photo 9247. Facing West Showing Steep Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

15

Photo 9263. Facing Northwest Showing Slope within Direct APE.

Photo 9264. Facing Southeast Showing Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET NGL Pipeline and Transloading Facility

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Appendix D

16

Photo 9267. Facing Northwest Showing Narrow Ridge Spine Bounded by Steep Slopes.

Photo 9335. Facing West Northwest Showing Slope within Direct APE.
Cultural Resources Survey 

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

64 

APPENDIX E 

Draft Ohio Archaeological Inventory Form
Prehistoric Plotted: Site No. 33- MO0211

800 E. 17th Avenue.

Columbus, OH 43211

614/298-2000

Ohio Historic Preservation Office

OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY (Draft Form )

3. Site No. 33- MO0211

A. Identification

1. Type of Form: New Form

2. County: Monroe

4. Site Name: Rouch Site

5. Project Number: Phase I Cultural Resources SurveyLong Ridge Energy

B. Location

1. UTM

3. Township: 23

4. Quadrangle Name: New Martinsville (W.

Township Name: Salem

6. Confident of Site Location: Yes

C. Ownership

1. Name:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone:

2. Tenant (if any):

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Phone:

3. Ownership Status:

D. Temporal Affiliations

1. Affiliations Present: Historic

2. Prehistoric Temporal Period(s) represented:

 Unassigned Prehistoric Paleoindian

Archaic: Unassigned Early Middle Late

Woodland: Unassigned Early Middle Late

Late Prehistoric Protohistoric Other:

3. Minimum Number of Prehistoric Temporal Periods Represented:

Diagnostic Features

4. Basis for Assignment of Prehistoric Temporal Period(s):

Diagnostic Artifacts Radiometric

Unrecorded Other:

5 & 6. List Prehistoric Cultural Components Identified and describe how determined (list diagnostic artifacts and/or

features and include type names).

· 0Diagnostic material(s) recorded. See Continuation sheet for details.

7 & 8. Specific Prehistoric Cultural Materials Observed or Collected (list diagnostic artifacts and/or features and include

type names).

· 0 Prehistoric cultural material(s) recorded. See Continuation sheet for details.

5. Quadrangle Date: 1994

Range: 3 Section: 2 1/4 Section: SW

Zone: 17 Easting: 511493 Northing: 4398615

 Not Applicable

OHIO 

HJ S 10 R Y 

ftJ 
Page 2 Draft Form Site No. 33- MO0211

Historic

10. Historic Temporal Period(s) Represented:

Pre-1795 1796-1829 1830-1849

1850-1879 1880-1899 1900-1929

1930-1949 1950-1974 1975-2000

Historic 18th Century 19th Century

X 20th Century Historic Aboriginal 21st Century

11. Minimum Number of Historic Temporal Periods Represented: 1

12. Basis for Assignment of Historic Temporal Period(s):

13. Describe how Historic Temporal Period(s) were determined (list any diagnostic architectural remains, diagnostic artifacts and/or

features and include type names). When listing artifacts and/or features correlate to letters used for Temporal Periods in D.10

A review of available cartographic resources of the region identified land records for this property extending as far back as

1853. Monroe County Tax & Plat Maps from 1853 (Monroe County) and 1859 (Monroe County) indicate the land was once

owned by Daniel Steenrod. By 1869, David Potts is depicted as the owner of the property, but no evidence of a structure is

yet depicted at the site of the remnant structures (Noll 1869). A structure is represented at the location of the remnant

structures in 1898 when the property is owned by W.A. Rouch (Caldwell). This structure continues to be exhibited on the

New Martinsville USGS quadrangles throughout the twentieth century (USGS 1906, 1924, 1960, 1976, 1994). Township Maps

through the period show the property continues to be held by members of the Rouch family until the 1960s (Monroe County

2019). By the 1960's the property changes hands numerous times in short sucession before being sold to the Quarto Mining

Company by 1980. The Quarto Mining Company held the property until 2018 when it was sold to CNX Land, LLC.

9. Affiliation Present: Non-Aboriginal

Oral Tradition

14 & 15. Functional Categories of Historic Materials Present at Site and Specific Cultural Materials Collected:

· 0historic material(s) recorded. See Continuation sheet for details.

General

16. Describe Prehistoric and/or Historic Cultural Materials observed but not collected. State reason(s) for not collecting.

17. Affiliated Ohio Historic Inventory Site Number and Name:

X Diagnostic Artifacts Diagnostic Architectural Remains Diagnostic Features

X Documentary Evidence Other:
Site No. 33- MO0211 Draft Form Page 3

E. Physical Description

9. Land Use History:

X Residential Commercial Social Government

Religious Educational Mortuary Recreation

X Subsistence Industrial Health Care Military

Transportation Unknown Other:

4. State the basIs on which site type assignment(s) were made.

Based on presenece of domestic and architectural materials and bank barn foundation

5. Site Condition: Unknown

6. Dominant Agent(s) of Disturbance:

X None Apparent

Transportation

Agriculture Water Historic Construction

Archaeological Excavation Mining Vandalism

Unrecorded Other:

7. Nature of Disturbance/Destruction

8. Current Dominant Land Use:

Deciduous Forest

1. Archaeological Setting: Open

2. Prehistoric Site Type:

Habitation:

Extractive:

Ceremonial:

 Camp

Workshop

Village Hamlet Unspecified Habitation

 Quarry

 Unknown Mound Earth Mound Stone Mound

 Effigy Mound Mound Group Hilltop Enclosure

 Geometrical Earthwork Cemetery Isolated Burial(s)

 Petroglyph/Pictograph Unknown Other:

3. Historic Site Type:

10. Site Elevation: 388 Meters A.M.S.L.

11. Physiographic Setting of Site: Unglaciated Plateau 12. Glacial Geomorphology: Not Applicable

13. Regional Geomorphological Setting: Hill or Ridge Top 14. Local Environmental Setting: Hill or Ridge Top

15. Soils

Soil Association: Gilpin-Upshur, Upshur, Soil Series-Phase/Complex: Gilpin-Upshur, Upshur,

16. Down Slope Direction: Flat 17. Slope Gradient (percent): 0 % Unrecorded:

18. Drainage System:

Major Drainage: Ohio River Minor Drainage: OHIO RIVER

19. Closest Water Source Name Gilmore Run Water Source Type: Permanent Stream

20. Horizontal Distance to Closest Water Source: 445 (m from UTM point)

21. Elevation Above Closest Water Source: 380 (m A.M.S.L. from UTM point) Site No. 33- MO0211
15. Weather Conditions: Overcast

William P. Barse, Hannah 

Dye, James T. Marine

2019 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Long Ridge Energy 

Terminal Transloading Facility and Pipeline Salem and 

Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

Secondary Author Year Title

G. References - List Primary Documentary References

Primary Author

Matthew Lackett

Site No. 33- MO0211

F. Reporting Information

1. Investigation Type:

Examination of Collection Surface Collection

Auger/Soil Corer

Deep Test(s) Test Trench(es)

Aerial Photograph Testing/Excav. (strategy unknown)

Remote Sensing:

Chemical Analysis: Other:

2. Surface Collection Strategy:

X Not Applicable Grab Sample Diagnostics

Controlled-Unknown Controlled-Total Controlled-Sample

Unrecorded

Other

3. If surface collection strategy is Controlled-Total, Controlled-Sample, or Other, describe methodology and percentage.

Artifacts Observed, Not Collected

5. Describe surface conditions. Vegetated, Forest Litter

4. Surface Visibility: 0-10%

6. Site Area (square meters): sq. m 2586

11. Institution: Tetra Tech, Inc.

12. Date of Form: 11/20/2019

13. Field Date: 10/30/2019

14. Time Spent at Site: 1 day

16. Name(s), Address(es), Phone Number(s) of Local Informants

17. Artifact Repository(ies): Not Applicable

18. Name(s), Address(es), Phone Number(s), of Owners of Collections from Site (attach inventories of private collections).

8. Confident of site boundaries? NO

Reported

21. National Register Status:

7. Basis for Site Area Estimate: Paced Other:

10. Name of Form Preparer: Matthew Lackett

Page 4 Draft Form

Shovel Test(s)

PZ or Humus Removal

Mitigation/Block Excavation

Test Pit(s)

9. Estimated Percentage of Site Excavated: 0 %

 24. Special Status (select only one, as appropriate): None
Site No. 33- MO0211 Draft Form Page: 5 

23. Discuss the potential significance of the site. Documentary research and artifact analysis indicate the site is the former farm associated with the Roush Family

who occupied the site in the early to mid-twentieth century. While the Rous family are noted in the local history of

the area, they are not described as historically significant members of the local community. Cartographic research

indicates a structure was present as early as 1898 and continued to be represented on USGS maps until the 1990s.

Given the death in 1963 of the last member of the Roush family to be associated with the property and the

subsequent sale of the property to the Quarto Mining Company, occupation of the site likely did not extend past the

1960s. Given the narrow range of occupation, additional investigation into the site are unlikely to yield significant

information regarding long term trends in agriculture, labor, or domestic life of rural Ohio. In addition, the mix of

modern and historic material strewn about the surface of the site indicate discrete archaeological deposits relating

to the period of occupation at the site are unlikely to remain intact. Given these reasons, the site is not

recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

I. Description of Site

1. State physical description of the site and its setting, including dimensions, features (with Measurements), nature and location of

artifacts and concentrations, extent, and location of disturbances, etc.

Site 33MO211 consists of the structural remains of a historic farmstead. The remains consisted of a fieldstone and cinder block

foundation, likely a residential structure, an adjacent cement pad, a fieldstone bank barn foundation, three fieldstone and ceramic

lined wells, remnant electrical or telephone and fence poles, and a scatter of mid-twentieth century to modern glass and ceramic

fragments. The bank barn foundation is located outside of the direct APE. The site is located at the end of Township Road 2124

which extends south along a narrow ridge spine approximately 500 m (1,640 ft) south of Rouse Road/County Road 388.

The foundation is oriented roughly 11.2 m (36.75 ft) north to south and 7.2 m (23.6 ft) east to west. The unimproved extension of

Township Road 2124 is situated roughly 5 m (16.4 ft) to the northeast of the foundation. The approximate northern half of the

foundation is composed of dry laid fieldstone cut into the hillside to a depth of 0.92 m (3.01 ft). The southern half of the foundation

transitions to cinder block at the point where the foundation is no longer cut into the hillside. The cinder block reaches a maximum

height of 1.12 m (3.67 ft) along the southern wall. A terra cotta line cinder block chimney is situated along the southern façade of the

foundation and an approximately 2.5-x-2 m (8.2-x-6.4 ft) concrete pad was located directly north of the foundation.

Two stone lined wells were noted on either side of the foundation. Well 1 was located approximately 1.5 m (4.9 ft) west of the

foundation and consists of a stone lined, bell shaped well with a surface radius of 1.1 m (3.6 ft) and reached a maximum depth of

1.2 m (3.9 ft) below surface. Well 2 was located approximately 9 m (29.5 ft) southeast of the foundation. This well consisted of a

9.2 m (30.2 ft) deep stone lined shaft capped with a ceramic ring. Two metal pipes extended out from the side of the ceramic ring

and would have drained into the well. The ceramic ring measured approximately 70 cm (27.6 in) in circumference and extended

1.84 m (6 ft) in depth before resting on the stone lined portion of the well.

Approximately 22 m (72.2 ft) northeast of the foundation was a small bottle dump situated in a small depression along the east side

of the unimproved road. The bottles were composed of a mix of modern to mid-twentieth century container and non-diagnostic

glass.

Approximately 60 m (197 ft) southeast of the house foundation, opposite the unimproved road, was a bank barn foundation. The

eastern wall of the foundation was composed of dry laid fieldstone measuring approximately 1.6 m (5.25 ft) high and 7.9 m (26 ft)

wide. The remaining three sides of the bank barn were nearly flush to the ground. A third circular, stone lined structure, possible a

third well or a trough was noted was noted southeast of the barn foundation.

A light scatter of historic period architectural materials such as brick and degrading sheet metal were strewn about the site.

Adjacent to the north side of the foundation was a small, disarticulated pile of bricks stamped with the word “ALAMO”. This style of

brick was produced between from 1935 to the early 1960’s by the Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. in Vandalia and Fulton,

Missouri (Gurcke 1987). Outside of the bottle dump, limited evidence of domestic kitchen or personal items were noted at the site.

Photographs of a representative sample of artifacts were taken but were otherwise left in situ at the site.

2. Discuss the relationship between the site and other known sites in the area in terms of location, physical characteristics, size,

etc.

Only on archaeological resource, 33MO0155, is located within one mile of site 33MO211. Site 33MO0155 consists of a historic

artifact scatter associated with known historic structures along a ridgeline east of County Road 386. This site was professionally

recorded but the survey information is not present within the Online Mapping System. The site form associated with the site does

not recommend it as eligible for listing in the NRHP, but it is unknown if the OHPO concurred with the recommendation. No

relationship between these two resources is presently known. Site 33MO211 is one of many early twentieth century farmsteads

located throughout the region.
Site No. 33- MO0211 Draft Form Page: 6 
Site No. 33- MO0211 Draft Form Page: 7 

D. 5 & 6 Diagnostic Artifact List

Diagnostic Artifact Cultural Component Description Count

No Records .. .. ..

D. 7 & 8 Preshistoric Artifact List

Material Category Other Count

No Records .. .. ..

D. 14 & 15 Historic Artifact List

Material Category Other Count

Bricks Architectural

Cinderblock Architectural 0

Fieldstone Wells Architectural

Historic to Modern Bottle Dump Kitchen

Sheet Metal Architectural

H. Radiometric Date List

Material Dated Date (uncorrected C14 years) Laboratory Sample #

No Records .. .. ..
Site No. 33- MO0211 Draft Form Page: 8 

K. Sketch Map or Copy of Project Map of Site.

Include north arrow and scale of the appropriate U.S.G.S. quadrangle. Outline total area surveyed and include locations of all

identified sites.
Cultural Resources Survey

LRET Transloading Facility and NGL Pipeline 

Salem and Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio

65

APPENDIX F

Resume of Principal Investigator
James T. Marine

Principal Investigator /

Geomorphologist

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY

Mr. Marine is a Registered Professional Archaeologist and accredited geomorphologist with 

27 years of experience in the Middle-Atlantic and Southeast regions. Mr. Marine received his 

MS in Geology from the University of Pittsburgh in 1997 where he specialized in 

geoarchaeology, geomorphology and sedimentology. 

Mr. Marine started the Cultural Resources group at Tetra Tech’s Pittsburgh location in 2009. 

In 2015 the Cultural Resources group expanded to include an office in Fairmont, West Virginia

that Mr. Marine manages and that houses Tetra Tech’s archaeological laboratory. The Tetra 

Tech Cultural Resources Group specializes in archaeological, geomorphological and historic 

structures surveys in support of NHPA / NEPA compliance for clients such as the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Navy, the United States Coast Guard, the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Army Department of Energy, state 

DOT’s, and several private Oil and Gas clients.

Mr. Marine helped to develop an interdisciplinary team at Tetra Tech that focused on providing 

integrated permitting and environmental compliance solutions to our clients in the MiddleAtlantic and Southeast regions.

SELECTED EXPERIENCE

Task Manager/Principal Investigator/Geomorphologist: Phase I, II and III archaeological 

investigations for the FERC regulated 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline. The alignment 

traverses 11 counties in West Virginia, including Wetzel, Harrison, Doddridge, Lewis, Braxton, 

Nicholas, Webster, Greenbrier, Fayette, Summers and Monroe, Equitrans Partners LLP, 2014-

2018.

Principal Investigator/ Geomorphologist: Phase I and II archaeological Investigation for the 

Guernsey Power Station (Facility), a new 1,650-MW natural gas-fired combined cycle 118-acre 

generating facility in Valley Township, Guernsey County, Ohio. Guernsey Power LLC, 2017.

Principal Investigator/ Geomorphologist: Phase I, II and III archaeological investigations at 

site 46MR190, for expansion of the MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources LLC’s natural gas 

processing facility at Majorsville, Marshall County, West Virginia, 2012-2015.

Geomorphologist: Geomorphological Evaluation of the Yellow Creek Floodplain in conjunction 

with the FERC Regulated Rover Pipeline 00002A-10. Jefferson County, Ohio. Spectra Energy 

Transmission 2015.

Principal Investigator/Geomorphologist: Phase I and II archaeological investigations for the 

Moose Property Natural Gas Processing Plant and Wetland Mitigation site Doddridge County, 

WV, MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources LLC, 2013-2014.

Principal Investigator/ Geomorphologist: Phase I and II archaeological investigations for the 

proposed Sherwood Natural Gas processing facility Doddridge County, WV, MarkWest Liberty 

Midstream & Resources LLC. 2012.

Principal Investigator: Phase I archaeological survey of the Majorsville to Hopedale Natural 

Gas Pipeline, Marshall, Brook and Ohio Counties, West Virginia; Harrison, and Jefferson

Counties OH, MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources LLC, 2013.

EDUCATION

MS / Geology 

University of Pittsburgh 1997

BS / Business Management 

University of Pittsburgh 

19881988

AREA OF EXPERTISE

Archaeological Investigations

Geomorphological Evaluations

TRAINING/

CERTIFICATIONS

30 Hour OSHA General 

Construction

40 Hour OSHA Hazwoper

OSHSA Excavation Safety

Confined Space Entry

REGISTRATIONS/

AFFILIATIONS

Registered Professional 

Archaeologist # 15794

Pennsylvania Archaeological 

Council

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

27

111::] TETRA TECH 
APPENDIX D-2 

SHPO RESPONSE LETTERS 

 
OHIO 

HISTORY 

CONNECTION 

April 16, 2020 

Katherine Zeringue, Federal Preservation Officer 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Zeringue: 

In reply, please refer to: 

2020-MOE-47889 

Re: Long Ridge Energy Terminal, Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline & Transloading Facility 

Monroe County, OH 

This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding the above-listed project and a Phase I Cultural Resources 

Survey prepared by Tetra Tech Inc., received on March 17, 2020. Our office has the responsibility to respond to 

findings made by federal agencies pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended, and the associated regulations at 36 CFR Part 800. 

The "Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Long Ridge Energy Terminal and Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline, Salem and 

Ohio Townships, Monroe County, Ohio" report identified five new and two previously surveyed building, along 

with one archaeological site. We agree that the two previously surveyed buildings (MOE003 l 812 & 

MOE0031912), the archaeological site (33MO21 l) and the buildings identified in the survey as TT-002, TT-005 and 

TT-005 are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

We agree with your determination that the two remaining farmsteads which were surveyed as MOE0055308 and 

MOE0055408 are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and Criterion C. We also 

agree that it is unlikely these properties will experience adverse effects from the minimal tree clearing that will be 

the only project activity that will be visible long term from the primary building groups. 

Therefore, we concur with your finding that the proposed project will have no adverse effect on historic properties in 

Ohio. We also request that your office provide us with a copy of the comments from the West Virginia SHPO to 

complete our project file when it is available. 

If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at ladkins@ohiohistory.org. Our office is currently 

closed due to COVID-19, so our office phones are currently not the best way to reach us. 

Lisa Adkins, Architecture Reviews Mgr. 

Dept. of Resource Protection and Review 

RPR Serial No. 1083509 

"Please be advised that this is a Section 106 decision. This review decision may not extend to other SHPO programs." 

800 E. 17th Ave., Columbus, OH 43211-2474 • 614.297.2300 • ohiohistory.org