APPENDIX D Cultural Resources Survey Report - US Environmental ...
APPENDIX D Cultural Resources Survey Report - US Environmental ...
APPENDIX D Cultural Resources Survey Report - US Environmental ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>APPENDIX</strong> D<br />
<strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> <strong>Report</strong>
STAGE IA CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY<br />
PUCHACK WELL FIELD SITE, OPERABLE UNIT 2<br />
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY<br />
PENNSAUKEN TOWNSHIP, CAMDEN COUNTY<br />
NEW JERSEY<br />
SERVICE ORDER NO.: 3320-007-004-HS<br />
OCTOBER 2009<br />
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES, INC.<br />
<strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consultants
Principal Investigator:<br />
Michael J. Gall, RPA<br />
Prepared by:<br />
Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.<br />
30 North Main Street<br />
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512<br />
Prepared for:<br />
CDM Federal Programs Corporation<br />
125 Maiden Lane<br />
5th Floor<br />
New York, New York 10038<br />
Date: October 6, 2009<br />
Stage IA <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Survey</strong><br />
Puchack Well Field Site, Operable Unit 2<br />
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study<br />
Pennsauken Township, Camden County<br />
New Jersey<br />
Service Order No.: 3320-007-004-HS<br />
By<br />
Michael J. Gall, RPA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc. (RGA) of Cranbury, New Jersey performed a Stage IA cultural<br />
resources survey within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Puchack Well Field Site,<br />
Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study project in Pennsauken Township, Camden<br />
County, New Jersey for CDM Federal Programs Corporation of New York, New York. The<br />
remedial investigation/feasibility study within the Puchack Well Field Site Operable Unit 2 is being<br />
performed by CDM Federal Programs Corporation under the United States <strong>Environmental</strong><br />
Protection Agency (EPA) Response Action Contract (RAC2) program pursuant to work assignment<br />
number 007-RICO-02JL. The APE consists of four non-contiguous areas, designated SGL<br />
Surrounding Property, Advance Process Supply, King Arthur, and Penler Anodizing. The Stage IA<br />
cultural resources survey assessed the potential for significant archaeological resources within the<br />
APE for the proposed remedial investigation/feasibility study project. The Stage IA survey was<br />
performed as a requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as<br />
amended, and meets the standards of the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office.<br />
Background research indicated that no previously identified historic or prehistoric archaeological<br />
sites are located within the APE. The Camden and Amboy Railroad Historic District is situated<br />
adjacent to, but outside, the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE. No historic properties<br />
are located within the APE. Based upon the results of background research, environmental setting<br />
and a site visit, the APE was characterized by significant mid-to-late twentieth-century grading<br />
disturbances, resulting in a low potential to contain intact, significant prehistoric and historic<br />
archaeological resources. RGA recommends no further cultural resources survey.<br />
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i<br />
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. ii<br />
List of Figures, Photo Plates, and Tables ........................................................................................ iii<br />
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1<br />
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1-1<br />
1.2 Area of Potential Effects....................................................................................................... 1-2<br />
2.0 Research Goals ................................................................................................................................. 2-1<br />
2.1 National Register of Historic Places Criteria ..................................................................... 2-1<br />
2.2 Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 2-3<br />
3.0 <strong>Environmental</strong> Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3-1<br />
4.0 Background Research ...................................................................................................................... 4-1<br />
4.1 Site Specific Research ............................................................................................................ 4-1<br />
4.2 Prehistoric Context ................................................................................................................ 4-4<br />
4.3 Historic Context ..................................................................................................................... 4-5<br />
5.0 Archaeological Fieldwork and Results .......................................................................................... 5-1<br />
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 6-1<br />
7.0 References ......................................................................................................................................... 7-1<br />
Appendices:<br />
Appendix A: Qualifications of the Principal Investigator<br />
Appendix B: Annotated Bibliography<br />
ii
FIGURES:<br />
LIST OF FIGURES, PHOTO PLATES, AND TABLES<br />
Figure 1.1: County Map ........................................................................................................................... 1-3<br />
Figure 1.2: U.S.G.S. Map ......................................................................................................................... 1-4<br />
Figure 1.3: Aerial Base Map .................................................................................................................... 1-5<br />
Figure 3.1: Physiographic Provinces Map ............................................................................................ 3-3<br />
Figure 3.2: Soils Map ............................................................................................................................... 3-4<br />
Figure 3.3: Soils Map ............................................................................................................................... 3-5<br />
Figure 3.4: Soils Map ............................................................................................................................... 3-6<br />
Figure 4.1: Map of Historic Properties ................................................................................................. 4-3<br />
Figure 4.2: 1777 William Faden, Province of New Jersey .................................................................. 4-8<br />
Figure 4.3: 1846 John Clement, Jr. A Map of Camden County, State of New Jersey.................. 4-10<br />
Figure 4.4: 1853 R. P. Smith, Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia from Actual <strong>Survey</strong>s ............ 4-11<br />
Figure 4.5: 1857 Frederick C. Merry, A Map of Camden County, New Jersey. ........................... 4-12<br />
Figure 4.6: 1861 D. J. Lake and S. N. Beers, Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and<br />
Camden ................................................................................................................................ 4-14<br />
Figure 4.7: 1898 U.S.G.S. 15’ Quadrangle: Philadelphia, PA-NJ .................................................... 4-15<br />
Figure 4.8: 1900 C.C. Vermeule, Geological <strong>Survey</strong> of New Jersey, Camden Sheet ................... 4-16<br />
Figure 4.9: 1949 U.S.G.S. 7.5’ Quadrangle: Camden, NJ-PA .......................................................... 4-19<br />
Figure 5.1: Aerial Map of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
photograph locations and directions ................................................................................. 5-3<br />
Figure 5.2: Aerial Map of the Advance Process Supply portion of the APE showing<br />
photograph locations and directions ................................................................................. 5-4<br />
Figure 5.3: Aerial Map of the King Arthur portion of the APE showing photograph<br />
locations and directions ....................................................................................................... 5-5<br />
Figure 5.4: Aerial Map of the Penler Anodizing portion of the APE showing<br />
photograph locations and directions ................................................................................. 5-6<br />
iii
PHOTO PLATES:<br />
Plate 5.1: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing existing<br />
structures ............................................................................................................................... 5-7<br />
Plate 5.2: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing existing<br />
structures ............................................................................................................................... 5-8<br />
Plate 5.3: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
large fill pile ........................................................................................................................... 5-9<br />
Plate 5.4: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
large file pile in the background and grading disturbance in the mid ground ........... 5-10<br />
Plate 5.5: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
dirt road and railroad ......................................................................................................... 5-11<br />
Plate 5.6: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
concrete building ................................................................................................................ 5-12<br />
Plate 5.7: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
vegetative clearing .............................................................................................................. 5-13<br />
Plate 5.8: Overview of the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE showing<br />
undulating terrain ............................................................................................................... 5-14<br />
Plate 5.9: Overview of the Advance Processes Supply portion of the APE showing<br />
existing building .................................................................................................................. 5-15<br />
Plate 5.10: Overview of the Advance Processes Supply portion of the APE showing<br />
existing building, asphalt parking lot, and grade change .............................................. 5-16<br />
Plate 5.11: Overview of the Advance Processes Supply portion of the APE showing<br />
existing building, asphalt parking lot, and grade change .............................................. 5-17<br />
Plate 5.12: Overview of the King Arthur portion of the APE showing existing building and<br />
asphalt parking lot .............................................................................................................. 5-18<br />
Plate 5.13: Overview of the King Arthur portion of the APE showing existing building and<br />
manicured lawn ................................................................................................................... 5-19<br />
Plate 5.14: Overview of the King Arthur portion of the APE showing existing building and<br />
asphalt parking lot .............................................................................................................. 5-20<br />
Plate 5.15: Overview of the King Arthur portion of the APE showing asphalt parking lot<br />
and manicured lawn ........................................................................................................... 5-21<br />
iv
Plate 5.16: Overview of the Penler Anodizing portion of the APE showing existing building<br />
and asphalt parking lot ....................................................................................................... 5-22<br />
Plate 5.17: Overview of the Penler Anodizing portion of the APE showing existing building,<br />
sloped grade, and vegetation ............................................................................................. 5-23<br />
TABLES:<br />
Table 4.1: Southern New Jersey prehistory ....................................................................................... 4-5<br />
v
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION<br />
This report presents the results of a Stage IA cultural resources survey conducted at the Puchack<br />
Well Field Site, Operable Unit 2, in Pennsauken Township, Camden County, New Jersey (Figures<br />
1.1-1.3). CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal) is conducting a Remedial<br />
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the site for the U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency<br />
(<strong>US</strong> EPA). The Stage IA cultural resources survey was conducted to determine the potential for the<br />
presence of significant archaeological resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). This<br />
Stage IA cultural resources survey was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National<br />
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office’s<br />
Standards for Phase IA cultural resource surveys (1994, 2003), and the guidance provided by Section<br />
2.4 of the January 1988 CERCLA/SARA <strong>Environmental</strong> Review Manual. The Stage IA survey was<br />
completed by an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Certified archaeologist<br />
(29 CFR 1910.120) meeting the professional qualifications and standards of 36 CFR 61 (Appendix<br />
A).<br />
Reconnaissance-level archaeological fieldwork was completed on July 7, 2009 by Michael J. Gall,<br />
RPA. Allison Gall performed background research. Graphics for the report were produced by<br />
Patricia McEachen, Allison Gall, and Michael J. Gall. The report was written by Michael J. Gall, and<br />
edited by Paul J. McEachen, Christina Dunn, and Richard Grubb. Field data project documents and<br />
copies of this report are stored at the offices of Richard Grubb & Associates (RGA) in Cranbury,<br />
New Jersey. Further copies of this report are on file at CDM Federal Programs Corporation in New<br />
York, New York, United States <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency (EPA) in New York, New York,<br />
and the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
1.1 Project Description<br />
The Puchack Well Field, Operable Unit 2 is comprised of six supply wells owned by the City of<br />
Camden. The supply wells are located on four properties known as SGL Surrounding Property,<br />
King Arthur, Advance Process Supply (APS), and Penler Anodizing (see Figure 1.3). In the early<br />
1970s, groundwater contamination consisting of trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-<br />
DCA), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and chromium, was detected at Puchack Well No. 6. Later samples<br />
revealed the presence of hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium at concentrations above the<br />
EPA MCL (100 ug/L). In 1978, chromium was detected at Puchack Well No. 5. In 1982,<br />
chromium was detected in Puchack Wells No. 2, 3, and 7. In response, the EPA is performing a<br />
RI/FS study to ascertain the source area for these contaminants (CDM Federal 2009). In<br />
compliance with a Health and Safety Plan prepared by CDM Federal (2009), personnel performing<br />
1-1
the site visit to the APE wore Level D personal protective equipment.<br />
1.2 Area of Potential Effects<br />
The APE is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d) as “the geographic area or areas within which an<br />
undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if<br />
any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an<br />
undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects cause[d] by the undertaking.” For<br />
the Stage IA cultural resources survey, the APE includes all locations where an undertaking may<br />
result in ground disturbance (see Figure 1.3).<br />
The APE consists of four non-contiguous areas in the western section of Pennsauken Township.<br />
These consist of SGL Surrounding Property, a triangular lot located north of Cove Road and west<br />
of River Road; King Arthur, a rectangular property consisting of a large light manufacturing building<br />
south of Bethel Avenue; Advance Process Supply, a small rectangular lot east of River Road that<br />
contains a light manufacturing building; and Penler Anodizing, a trapezoidal lot situated north of<br />
Suckle Highway, upon which an elongated vacant building is sited. The extent and character of<br />
proposed project-related disturbance is currently not known. Consequently, all of the land<br />
encompassed by the four parcels is included within the APE.<br />
1-2
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
�����������<br />
���������������������������������������<br />
������������� ����������������������������<br />
���<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
�����������<br />
�������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������������<br />
���<br />
����������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
����������������<br />
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
���<br />
����<br />
���<br />
�
SECTION 2.0 RESEARCH GOALS<br />
The goal of the Stage IA cultural resources survey was to determine if documented prehistoric and<br />
historic period archaeological resources exist within the APE, and to determine the probability for<br />
the APE to contain undocumented significant archaeological resources. Determinations of<br />
significance or potential significance are based on the National Register of Historic Places Criteria of<br />
historic and/or archaeological significance.<br />
2.1 National Register of Historic Places Criteria<br />
Significant historic properties include districts, structures, objects, or sites that are at least 50 years<br />
old and that meet at least one National Register criterion. Criteria used in the evaluation process are<br />
specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60, National Register of Historic Places<br />
(36 CFR 60.4) and reiterated in Procedures Concerning the New Jersey Register of Historic Places<br />
(N.J.A.C. 7:4-2.3). To be eligible for inclusion in the New Jersey and National Register of Historic<br />
Places, an historic property(s) must possess:<br />
the quality of significance in American History, architecture, archeology, engineering,<br />
and culture [that] is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that<br />
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and<br />
association and:<br />
a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the<br />
broad patterns of our history, or<br />
b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or<br />
c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of<br />
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic<br />
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose<br />
components lack individual distinction, or<br />
d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory<br />
or history. (36 CFR 60.4)<br />
There are several criteria considerations. Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical<br />
figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have<br />
been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily<br />
commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years<br />
shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if<br />
2-1
they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following<br />
categories:<br />
a) a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic<br />
distinction or historical importance, or<br />
b) a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant<br />
primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most<br />
importantly associated with an historic person or event, or<br />
c) a birthplace or grave of an historical figure of outstanding importance if there is<br />
no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his/her productive<br />
life, or<br />
d) a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of<br />
transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from<br />
association with historic events, or<br />
e) a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and<br />
presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no<br />
other building or structure with the same association has survived, or<br />
f) a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or<br />
symbolic value has invested it with its own historic significance, or<br />
g) a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional<br />
importance. (36 CFR 60.4)<br />
When conducting National Register evaluations, the physical characteristics and historic significance<br />
of the overall property are examined. While a property in its entirety may be considered eligible<br />
based on Criteria A, B, C, and/or D, specific data is also required for individual components therein<br />
based on date, function, history, physical characteristics, and other information. <strong>Resources</strong> that do<br />
not relate in a significant way to the overall property may contribute if they independently meet the<br />
National Register criteria.<br />
A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic architectural qualities, historic<br />
associations, or archeological values for which a property is significant because a) it was present<br />
during the period of significance and possesses historic integrity reflecting its character at that time<br />
or is capable of yielding important information about the period, or b) it independently meets the<br />
National Register criteria. A noncontributing building, site, structure, or object does not add to the<br />
historic architectural qualities, historic associations, or archeological values for which a property is<br />
significant because a) it was not present during the period of significance, b) due to alterations,<br />
disturbances, additions, or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity reflecting its<br />
2-2
character at that time or is incapable of yielding important information about the period, or c) it<br />
does not independently meet the National Register criteria.<br />
2.2 Research Design<br />
The Stage IA cultural resources survey was performed in accordance with the Phase I archaeological<br />
survey and reporting guidelines of the HPO (New Jersey Historic Preservation Office 1994, 1996,<br />
and 2003). The first step of the survey was to identify the areas where project activities had the<br />
potential to affect archaeological sites through below-ground disturbance, referred to as the APE.<br />
After defining the APE, documentary research was conducted to determine which locations could<br />
have been used by people during the prehistoric (i.e., Native American) or historic periods and to<br />
identify areas where intact archaeological evidence, such as foundations, structural remains, or<br />
Native American artifacts and activity areas, may be present.<br />
The second step of the Stage IA survey consisted of a site visit or reconnaissance to observe the<br />
existing conditions and to determine the extent to which the original topography was still present<br />
and the effects that subsequent landscape alterations may have had on potential archaeological<br />
resources. Archaeologically sensitive areas based on topographic features, vegetation, and soils were<br />
noted, as were disturbances that would have compromised archaeological resources. The results of<br />
the site visit were used to assess whether significant archaeological resources may be affected by the<br />
proposed project.<br />
2-3
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING<br />
The APE is located within the New Jersey Inner Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (see Figure<br />
3.1). This portion of the Inner Coastal Plain is characterized by unconsolidated clays, sands, marls,<br />
and gravels deposited during the Late Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary geological time periods<br />
(Widmer 1964; Wolfe 1977; Tedrow 1986). Potomac Formation Cretaceous-(Upper Member) and<br />
Cenomanian-(Lower Member)-Age sand interbedded with clay underlie the APE (Owens, et. al.<br />
1998).<br />
Topographic settings within the APE vary. The SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE is<br />
located on an upland terrace setting that formerly overlooked the Delaware River, but currently<br />
overlooks made-land to the west (see Figure 1.3). The remaining three sections of the APE are<br />
situated on broad nearly flat, upland plains (see Figure 1.3). Topographic elevation ranges from 40<br />
to 60 feet above mean sea level. Historically, the Delaware River was situated 200 to 300 feet west<br />
of the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE, 1,400 feet west of the Advance Process<br />
Supply section of the APE, 2,500 feet west of the King Arthur portion of the APE, and 3,600 feet<br />
west of the Penler Anodizing section of the APE (U.S.G.S. 1898) (see Figure 1.2). Pochack Creek,<br />
which drains into the Delaware River, and its tributaries separate Penler Anodizing from the<br />
remainder of the APE. The headwaters of an unnamed tributary of Pochack Creek were once<br />
located roughly 2,000 feet northeast of the King Arthur and Advance Process Supply portions of the<br />
APE (U.S.G.S. 1949). Further, the headwaters of a former seasonal unnamed tributary of Pochack<br />
Creek were located 200-300 feet southeast of the Penler Anodizing section of the APE (Figure 3.2).<br />
Specific soils mapped within the Penler Anodizing portion of the APE in 1966 consisted of<br />
Freehold and Downer, clayey substrata-Urban Land Complex (Fy) soils (Markley 1966) (Figure 3.2).<br />
This soil type consists of areas where either Freehold series, Downer soils, or modified soils are<br />
present, but occupy areas too small to map individually (Markley 1966). Freehold series soils<br />
typically consist of a nine-inch thick dark grayish brown fine sandy loam plowzone, underlain by a<br />
six-inch thick yellowish brown fine sandy loam subsoil, followed by a 20-inch thick dark yellowish<br />
brown sandy clay loam substratum (Markley 1966). Downer series soil profiles consist of a ten-inch<br />
thick dark grayish brown loose loamy sand topsoil, underlain by an eight-inch thick yellowish brown<br />
loose loamy sand subsoil, followed by a 12-inch thick yellowish brown sandy loam substratum<br />
(Markley 1966). Urban land complex soils are comprised of soils altered by construction activities or<br />
capped by roads, parking lots, and buildings. The SGL Surrounding Properties, King Arthur, and<br />
Advance Process Supply portions of the APE were located in portions of Camden County in which<br />
the soils were not characterized in the 1966 soil survey (Markley 1966) (see Figure 3.2).<br />
3-1
More recent soil mapping indicates that the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE<br />
contained Psamments (PssA) soils, which consist of sandy fills deposited in disturbed areas to<br />
elevate and re-claim the landscape (National <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service 2008) (Figure 3.3).<br />
Freehold-Downer-Urban land complex soils (FrpB) were present in the King Arthur and Advance<br />
Process Supply sections of the APE (see Figure 3.3). Psamments soils (PssA) were also located in<br />
the Penler Anodizing section of the APE (National <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service 2008) (Figure<br />
3.4).<br />
Native vegetation within the APE consisted of a pine and oak forest (Collins and Anderson 1994).<br />
Currently, vegetation at the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE consists of poison ivy,<br />
briars, tall grass, and mature oak and maple trees. Vegetation in other portions of the APE primarily<br />
consisted of manicured lawn.<br />
3-2
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
�������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������<br />
��������������������<br />
���
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
��������������������������<br />
����<br />
�������������� ��������������������������������������������<br />
� ����<br />
���
����������������<br />
������������<br />
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
����<br />
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
� ���<br />
���<br />
��� ���
����������������<br />
������������<br />
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
����<br />
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
� ���<br />
��6<br />
��� ���
SECTION 4.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH<br />
An assessment of archaeological potential is based upon environmental factors (topography and<br />
hydrology), presence of previously identified cultural resources recorded in the files at the New<br />
Jersey State Museum (NJSM) and the HPO, a review of historic maps at the New Jersey State<br />
Library, and a site visit.<br />
4.1 Site-Specific Research<br />
Archaeological Sites<br />
Research at the NJSM, the HPO, and an examination of the published references indicate that no<br />
registered archaeological sites are situated within the APE (Skinner and Schrabisch 1913; Spier 1915;<br />
Cross 1941). However, one registered prehistoric Native American site, the Unami I site (28-Ca-3),<br />
is located 5,000 feet north of the APE along the southern bank of the Pennsauken Creek (Mason<br />
1949:8-9). This site was collected by Ronald Mason during the late 1940s, and yielded<br />
hammerstones, projectile points, debitage, a chert scraper, a sandstone celt, and a soapstone sinew<br />
dresser. Based on the artifacts recovered, tool manufacturing, food procurement, and likely food<br />
processing were conducted at the site. The occupation period at the site was not specified in NJSM<br />
site files.<br />
<strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Survey</strong>s<br />
Three cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the SGL Surrounding Property section<br />
of the APE (Fitting 1979; TRC <strong>Environmental</strong> Corporation 2005; <strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consulting<br />
Group 2006). A sensitivity analysis survey conducted along the Delaware River determined that the<br />
area within and surrounding the APE had a low sensitivity for archaeological resources (Fitting<br />
1979). In a Phase IA cultural resources survey for the Fisherman’s Point redevelopment project,<br />
TRC <strong>Environmental</strong> Corporation (2005) identified one historic site, the Tammany Hall Fish House<br />
Site, which had been previously determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic<br />
Places. This resource was located west of the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE. In a<br />
subsequent Phase IA cultural resources survey of the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE<br />
and land to the west and north of this portion of the APE, <strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consulting Group<br />
(2006), determined that the remains of brick works, such as the Pea Shore Brick & Terra Cotta<br />
Works could remain intact west of the APE. The survey also identified the remains of the<br />
Tammany Pea Shore Fishing Company house (a.k.a. Tammany Fish House) southwest of the APE.<br />
The <strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consulting Group (2006) also concluded that the SGL Surrounding Property<br />
section of the APE had undergone extensive disturbance during the early to mid-twentieth century<br />
and that the area had a low sensitivity to contain potentially significant historic or prehistoric<br />
4-1
archaeological resources.<br />
Numerous cultural resources surveys have been conducted in the vicinity of the APE (GAI<br />
Consultants, Inc. 1983; Mounier 1984; McCormick, Taylor & Associates 1997; Hunter Research,<br />
Inc. 2000; URS 2003; Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc. 2009) of which one identified<br />
archaeological resources in the vicinity of the APE (Hunter Research, Inc. 2000). In a Phase IA<br />
cultural resources survey conducted 400 feet southwest of the APE, Hunter Research (2000)<br />
identified a stone retaining wall and earthen berm that once fronted Tammany Fish House. Hunter<br />
Research (2000) recommended the resource eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic<br />
Places under Criteria A and D given its association with the development of early nineteenth-century<br />
political organizations with a strongly “democratic” and Jeffersonian flavor that later became<br />
associated with organized labor and its potential to yield important information on the layout of the<br />
property and buildings associated with the Tammany Fish House.<br />
National and State Register Eligible or Listed Historic Properties<br />
No historic properties are located within the APE (Figure 4.1). Five historic properties are located<br />
in the vicinity of the APE (see Figure 4.1). The closest of these are the Tammany Fish House Site,<br />
situated 200 feet west of the APE (SGL Surrounding Property) and the Camden and Amboy<br />
Railroad Line, located immediately west and outside of the APE (SGL Surrounding Property). The<br />
Tammany Fish House Site represents the remains of structures associated with the Tammany Pea<br />
Shore Fishing Company, an entertainment and sporting club founded in 1803. The Tammany Hall<br />
Fish House was established by politicians associated with the Tammany Society of the Columbia<br />
Order in Philadelphia. The site served as a getaway for Democratic or Jeffersonian Republican<br />
politicians, where debates about Philadelphia’s political issues were informally discussed. By the<br />
mid-nineteenth-century, the property was opened to the public. As stated above, this resource was<br />
determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and D<br />
(SHPO Opinion 10/11/2000). The Camden and Amboy Railroad (C&ARR) Mainline Historic<br />
District (SHPO Opinion: 7/12/1991), eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places,<br />
bounds the western portion of the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE (Zerbe 1991).<br />
The Griffith Morgan House is located 4,200 feet northwest of the APE. This house, constructed in<br />
1693, is prominently sited on the bank of the Pennsauken Creek near its confluence with the<br />
Delaware River. It is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (NR: 1/25/1973,<br />
SR: 5/12/1972) under Criterion C as a surviving example of late-seventeenth-century domestic<br />
architecture. The Universal-Rundle Manufacturing Plant, located 3,200 southwest of the APE, is<br />
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C as an excellent<br />
4-2
�����������������<br />
�������������������<br />
������������������������<br />
��������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
����������������������������<br />
�������������������������<br />
���������������������������<br />
����������������������<br />
�����������<br />
������� ��������������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������������<br />
���<br />
����������������<br />
������������������������<br />
�����������������<br />
������������������������<br />
��������������������<br />
���������������������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
and intact example of an enamelware factory (SHPO Opinion 7/17/1998). The factory was also an<br />
important component of New Jersey’s and Camden County’s industrial heritage. Further, the<br />
Delaware River Railroad and Bridge Company (DRRR&BCo.) Historic District (SHPO Opinion:<br />
11/12/2004), located 800 feet north of the Advance Process Supply section of the APE, is also<br />
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.<br />
4.2 Prehistoric Context<br />
Since the 1930s, archaeologists have organized chronological and cultural information about the<br />
prehistoric occupants of New Jersey and the Middle Atlantic into three broad time periods: Paleo-<br />
Indian +/-9500B.C.- 8000 B.C., Archaic 8000-1000 B.C., and Woodland 1000 B.C.-A.D. 1600<br />
(Chesler 1982; Custer 1996; Grossman-Bailey 2001; Kraft 1986). These periods are a way to study<br />
the information about 12,000 years of human occupation of the area. The Archaic and Woodland<br />
periods are subsequently subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late sub-periods. The prehistoric era<br />
ends approximately 1550 to 1600 A.D., during the time of initial contact between Native groups and<br />
Old World populations, and is followed by a period of extensive colonization by the Dutch,<br />
Swedish, and English. The early period of contact and colonization is also called the “proto-historic”<br />
period or the Contact period (Custer 1996). A highly generalized prehistoric background for the<br />
Middle Atlantic and southern New Jersey is presented in Table 4.1.<br />
Although no prehistoric sites were documented for the APE or its vicinity (i.e., one-half mile radius),<br />
many important sites have been found along the length of the Lower and Middle Delaware drainage.<br />
These include the Trenton Complex, Koens-Crispin, Savich Farm, Ware and Indian Head sites (e.g.<br />
Custer 1996; Kraft 2001; Stewart 1994; Stewart et. al. 1986; Stutz 1992). A number of sites are<br />
known for both the Pennsauken Creek and Cooper River drainages, important tributaries of the<br />
Delaware River north and south of the APE. Along the Delaware, hunter/gatherer procurement and<br />
processing camps focused on large scale seasonal harvesting of fish like sturgeon and shad, deer,<br />
nuts and other resources (Wall et al. 1996; Schindler 2006). Areas located further inland, closer to<br />
the headwaters of Delaware River tributaries, were more likely used for gathering lithic materials,<br />
deer hunting and harvesting forest resources.<br />
4-4
Table 4.1: Southern New Jersey prehistory.<br />
Time Frame Period Characteristics<br />
A.D. 1550/1600 Contact<br />
-European contact and initial colonization<br />
-Continuity of aspects of Algonkian ideology<br />
-triangular projectile points- bow and arrow<br />
-unfortified hamlets, camps, smaller territories<br />
-territories of the proto-Lenape/Unami, Algonkian ideology<br />
A.D. 900 to A.D. 1600 Late Woodland -foraging, limited agriculture in portions of southern NJ<br />
-cord-decorated and incised ceramics<br />
-use of cobble cherts and jasper<br />
-Climate: modern- Sea level rise remains a factor<br />
-hunter-gatherers, seasonal fission/fusion of social groups<br />
A.D. 0 to A.D. 900<br />
Middle<br />
Woodland<br />
-large and small camps<br />
-more kinds of ceramics<br />
-mortuary ceremonialism<br />
-large scale exploitation of seasonal resources<br />
-band level society with first evidence of community identity<br />
-mortuary ceremonialism<br />
1000 B.C. to A.D. 0 Early Woodland<br />
-extensive trade networks for exotic raw materials<br />
-shellfish exploitation<br />
-experimentation and early use of ceramics<br />
-Climate: cool and wet<br />
-broadspear, narrow-stemmed, fishtail points<br />
-mortuary ceremonialism<br />
-extensive trade networks for exotic raw materials<br />
1000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. Late Archaic<br />
-intensive use of local materials<br />
-social differentiation<br />
-increased sedentism<br />
-change in vessel technology- soapstone bowls<br />
-Climate: warmer & dryer than present, sea level rise slows<br />
-bifurcate points, stemmed points<br />
-hunter-gatherers with increasing intensification of resource use<br />
-use of shell fish documented in the region<br />
3000 B.C. to 6500 B.C. Middle Archaic -use of more varied lithic materials and tool categories<br />
-large and small camps, stratified riverine settlement system<br />
-band level society<br />
-Climate: warm and wet<br />
-corner-notched and stemmed point types<br />
-spear- thrower technology<br />
6500 B.C. to 8000 B.C. Early Archaic<br />
-use of more types of stone for tools<br />
-exploitation of more kinds of food resources?<br />
-very similar to Paleo-Indian Period<br />
-Climate: cold and drier than present, rapid sea level rise<br />
-highly mobile<br />
-large game hunting followed by generalized foraging patterns<br />
8000 B.C. to 9500 B.C. Paleo-Indian<br />
-fluted projectile points usually made of jasper or chert<br />
-band level society<br />
-Climate: cold and wet, mosaic of mixed grasslands, extremely<br />
rapid sea level rise<br />
4-5
Riverine sites within southern New Jersey include large villages or macro-base camps, small hunting<br />
and fishing camps and processing stations (Kraft and Mounier 1982:73). Generally, it is considered<br />
that a three or four-tier settlement system emerged during the Archaic period in New Jersey’s Inner<br />
Coastal Plain. This consisted of semi-permanent macro-band base camps or macrosocial units, semi-<br />
sedentary micro-band base camps or microsocial units, base-camp/staging areas and more short-<br />
term or limited use sites designated as procurement sites, transient camps, stations, or specialized<br />
camps. Bands, likely extended family groups, moved between these different levels of sites on a<br />
seasonal basis, dividing up to utilize resources in many different environments- both up and down<br />
stream of major drainages, and coming together in larger groups to conduct trade and marriages<br />
(Custer 1984:67, 1989:131, 278; Fitting 1979; Grossman-Bailey 2001; Kraft and Mounier 1982;<br />
Mounier and Martin 1992; Wall et al. 1996).<br />
Larger sites within the Delaware drainage like the Savich Farm (28BU56) in the Rancocas Creek,<br />
Indian Head on the Maurice River, and possibly the Woodbury Annex or Riggins sites had multiple<br />
functions and were places where large groups came together seasonally for trade and social<br />
interaction. Regional models for settlement systems suggest that seasonal fission/fusion of social<br />
groups occurred as people occupied different types of sites throughout the year. Large base camps<br />
where smaller extended family groups come together are often found in rich environments in midto<br />
upper tributary stream confluences and smaller procurement camps or specialized work camps<br />
are found in many settings on shorelines, headwaters and marshes (e.g., Custer 1996; Grossman-<br />
Bailey 2001; Mounier 1978; Stewart et al. 1986; Wall et al.1996).<br />
Numerous sites are known to have existed along the Pennsauken Creek, and were recorded by the<br />
Indian Site <strong>Survey</strong> (ISS) in the 1930's. Dorothy Cross (1941: 240-243) discussed 21 sites on the<br />
North and South Branches of the Pennsauken Creek to the north of the APE and 16 sites along the<br />
Cooper Creek [River] to the south of the APE. Information about sites came from collections and<br />
excavations such as those at the Gruno and Hurff sites. The Hurff site was a small processing camp<br />
along the North Branch of the Pennsauken Creek, which dated to at least the Woodland period<br />
judging by the presence of ceramics. Skinner and Schrabisch (1913:60-61) note sites nearby,<br />
including one at “Pennsauken Station.” Historical accounts (e.g., Prowell 1886) mention that an<br />
Indian village, Eriwomac, once existed at the mouth of the Pennsauken Creek. One Native<br />
American site has been identified within the vicinity of the APE along the bank of the Pennsauken<br />
Creek. Similar sites are likely to have existed on the high ground locations along the creek,<br />
particularly close to its confluence with the Delaware River. No prehistoric archaeological sites have<br />
been identified along the Puchack Creek near its confluence with the Delaware River.<br />
4-6
4.3 Historic Context<br />
Pennsauken Township is bordered by the Delaware River to the north, Pennsauken Creek to the<br />
east, Cherry Hill Township to the south, and the City of Camden to the west. The area was initially a<br />
part of Waterford Township within Gloucester County; it was not until 1844 that Camden County<br />
was officially recognized as its own entity. Pennsauken Township was formed in 1892 from<br />
Stockton Township, which in 1859, was subdivided from Delaware Township, an original<br />
municipality of Camden County (Dorwart 2001:79; Greenberg 1992).<br />
The earliest attempt to settle present-day Pennsauken Township occurred in 1634 when English<br />
Quakers established Fort Eriwomac at the mouth of Pennsauken Creek. The fort was abandoned<br />
three years later when the settlers moved to the more established community of Salem. Shortly<br />
thereafter, a group of Swedes and Finns established New Sweden, a community occupying the lower<br />
Delaware River Valley that included settlements along the Pennsauken Creek. Several of these early<br />
settlers purchased land rights after title passed to the English proprietors, namely John, Lord<br />
Berkeley in 1664 (Fitchter 1975: 30-31; Prowell 1886: 740).<br />
The sale of Lord Berkeley’s holdings in New Jersey to London brewer and Quaker convert, Edward<br />
Byllynge, led to the region’s development as a Quaker society. After some contentious debate over<br />
financial and proprietary matters, Quaker Trustees brokered a deal to divide the land into “tenths”<br />
or equal parts, outlined procedures for creating townships or “constable wicks,” divided farmland,<br />
establish courts, and appointed a board of land commissioners (Dorwart 2001: 16-17). The Third or<br />
“Irish” Tenth encompassed all land from Timber Creek to Pennsauken Creek, including the location<br />
of present-day Pennsauken Township. Quakers from Dublin, Ireland and England began to<br />
purchase tracts and build houses in the Third Tenth during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth<br />
centuries (Dorwart 2001: 17; 28).<br />
By 1684, highway commissioners were appointed from each Tenth to oversee the construction of a<br />
road connecting the cities of Salem and Burlington. The highway became known as King’s Highway<br />
(Lane 1939: 35). The route ran north from the City of Salem, intersecting the cities of Woodbury,<br />
Gloucester and Camden and continued north roughly following the bank of the Delaware River to<br />
the City of Burlington, bisecting the Third Tenth approximately 3,000 feet southeast of present-day<br />
Delair (Faden 1777; Figure 4.2). This road, in conjunction with Cooper’s Ferry, a late-seventeenth<br />
century ferry crossing of the Delaware River linking Camden and Philadelphia, allowed plantation<br />
owners of the Third Tenth access to large markets in Philadelphia. This connection between<br />
Philadelphia and Camden County was further strengthened by religious and cultural ties that would<br />
4-7
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
������������������������������� �������������<br />
���<br />
�<br />
����<br />
���
continue to be a force in the development of the region (Cammarota 2001: 23-24; Dorwart 2001: 19,<br />
22-23).<br />
Agriculture, with a particular emphasis on animal husbandry, was the principal livelihood of the early<br />
settlers who exploited the extensive meadows along the creeks for pasture livestock and for growing<br />
hay. Others were engaged in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables for the local and Philadelphia<br />
markets (Prowell 1886: 747; Fitcher 1966:21-22). Landowners also dammed streams to establish<br />
grist, saw, and fulling mills. Local fisheries were established along the banks of the Delaware River,<br />
as were rows of brick kilns. The large landowning families of Waterford Township, about 60 in<br />
number, included the Spicer, Morgan, Coles, Burroughs, Lippincott, Inskeep, Browning and Adams<br />
families. These families had created a “northern tidewater plantation society” during the eighteenth<br />
century on land that is now occupied by Pennsauken Township and Camden County (Fichter 1975:<br />
34; Dorwart 2001: 28-30, 32-34, 79).<br />
In 1834, the Camden and Amboy Railroad (C&ARR) and Transportation Company laid tracks from<br />
Bordentown to Camden. These tracks were situated on the west side of the APE near SGL<br />
Surrounding Property. The first passenger train ran in early 1835. The railroad partnered with the<br />
Camden and Philadelphia Steamboat Ferry Company, creating a major transportation corridor from<br />
Philadelphia (via the Delaware River) to New York City (via the Raritan Bay) (Dorwart 2001: 53).<br />
The track ran along the Delaware River from Camden to Bordentown, passing through present-day<br />
Delair, then continued northeast, to South Amboy (see Figure 4.3). As the first in New Jersey and<br />
third in the nation, the C&ARR set standards for modern railroading and fostered both<br />
industrialization and development in New Jersey (Archeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.<br />
2001).<br />
The introduction of the railroad had a marginal effect on the APE and vicinity in the early and midnineteenth<br />
century. While the landscape remained largely agricultural, local resort clubs were<br />
established along the banks of the Delaware River. The Tammany Pea Shore Fishing Company was<br />
founded in 1803 and located southwest of present-day Delair (Hunter Research 2000: 2). The club<br />
began as an exclusive meeting place for wealthy residents of Philadelphia and Camden to informally<br />
discuss politics. By 1850, the “Fish House,” as it was known, was open to the public operating as a<br />
yacht club or “pleasure resort” (Dorwart 2001: 79). The Fish House first appears on an 1857 map<br />
of Camden County (Figures 4.4-4.5). The road to the Fish House, known as Cove Road (formerly<br />
Cove Landing), however, first appears on an 1846 map of the county, which does not distinguish<br />
buildings (Clement 1846). This small road intersects the former King’s Highway, which by 1857 had<br />
become the Burlington Turnpike, a local toll road (Lane 1939: 148, 152-153; Merry 1857).<br />
4-9
�����������<br />
�����������������������<br />
�������� ������������������������ ������������<br />
����<br />
����������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
������������������<br />
������ ���������������� ����������������������������������<br />
����<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
�����������<br />
��������������������������������� ���������������������������<br />
����<br />
����������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
By 1861, the Mohegan Fish House, a resort club similar to the Tammany Fish House, had opened<br />
along the Delaware River north of Pochack Creek (Figure 4.6). The sandy banks of the Delaware<br />
River, locally known as “Pea Shore,” became a summer destination for wealthy residents from<br />
Camden and Philadelphia (Fitcher 1966: 48). Other resort clubs, such as the Mozart and the<br />
Beidemann Clubs, were founded in the area as well. In the mid- and late-nineteenth century,<br />
Pennsauken, then part of Stockton Township, was known as a resort community (Dorwart 2001:<br />
79). Additional residential developments grew modestly by 1861, and were mostly centered on the<br />
Burlington Turnpike southeast of present-day Delair. Brickyards established along the west side of<br />
the C&ARR operated by the Pea Shore Brick and Terra Cotta Works, among some of the early<br />
industrial enterprises in the area, shipped building materials to the City of Camden by rail (Dorwart<br />
2001: 78; Lake and Beers 1861).<br />
In addition to the resort community and industrial brick yards, a small residential community<br />
developed near the Tammany Fish House. In 1853, two homes stood in the western portion of the<br />
SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE (see Figure 4.4). Both homes appeared to be owned<br />
by J. Lonton. These homes were likely row houses occupied by laborers of the nearby brickworks.<br />
One, located at the northeast intersection of Cove Road and the C&ARR (now NJ Transit) within<br />
the APE, was razed between 1995 and 2002 (Nationwide <strong>Environmental</strong> Title Research 1995, 2002)<br />
(Figure 4.7). The other had been demolished during the late-nineteenth century when much of the<br />
SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE was utilized as a clay mine for the nearby brickworks<br />
(Figure 4.8). Mid-nineteenth-century brickyards owned by Wharton and Matlack were located north<br />
and west of this section of the APE. In 1857, the homes were owned by Wharton V. Matlock,<br />
Joseph Matlock, and John S. Gobens (see Figure 4.5). The spur in residential development<br />
prompted the construction of River Road between 1861 and 1898 adjacent to the APE (see Figures<br />
4.6 and 4.7). In addition to the two row houses, by the late-nineteenth century, two other structures<br />
stood in the western portion of the SGL Surrounding Property section of the APE (see Figure 4.7).<br />
These too were razed when the property was converted into a clay mine.<br />
In 1886, the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR), which had leased the C&ARR in 1871, constructed a<br />
railroad station, freight house, and shed in Delair (Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.<br />
2001: 106; DMJM BA&H 1997e; see Figure 4.6). The station was located on the west side of the<br />
tracks, while the adjacent freight house and shed were located on the east side. The installation of<br />
the railroad station had a significant impact on the development of Delair, changing its landscape<br />
from three farmsteads to a residential suburb (Archeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. 2001:<br />
106-7). The community of Delair is situated north and east of the APE.<br />
4-13
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
���������������������������������<br />
������ ���������������� �������������������������<br />
����<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
��������������������������������������������������<br />
����<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
����������������<br />
�����������<br />
��������������������<br />
�������������������� ��������������������������<br />
����<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
Probably in response to the construction of the Delair Station, two local entrepreneurs, Betram<br />
Bonsall and John Zimmerman, bought a combined 131-acres of farmland from the Browning and<br />
Adams’ estates in the 1880’s (Fichter 1966: 109). Over the next decade, roads were established, the<br />
land was subdivided, and large Queen Anne and Carpenter Gothic-style dwellings were constructed<br />
in an effort to continue the area’s reputation as a resort community for the wealthy (DMJM BA&H<br />
1997). Buyers from Camden and Philadelphia had a two-fold attraction to Delair: its reputation as a<br />
resort and vacation community, and the ease, availability, and economy of the quick commute from<br />
Camden via the C&ARR. Delair thrived briefly as a resort community and vacation destination<br />
(Fichter 1966: 31-32).<br />
In 1894, the New Jersey Railroad Company and the PRR drafted plans for the construction of a<br />
railroad bridge across the Delaware River, the track which was to pass south of Delair. It was not<br />
until 1896, just prior to the completion of the bridge, that the railroad companies were consolidated<br />
to form the Delaware River Railroad and Bridge Company (DRRR&BCo.). As built, the Delair<br />
Bridge over the Delaware River consists of three double-track Baltimore truss spans and one swing<br />
span on masonry abutments. Junctions were made at the Frankford Station in Philadelphia with the<br />
PRR, at the West Haddonfield Station with the Camden and Atlantic Main Line Railroad (C&AtRR),<br />
and at the Pennsauken Station with the Camden and Burlington Railroad. Tracks to these newly<br />
created junctions were finished by 1897. Passenger service from New York City to Atlantic City, and<br />
sleeping car service from New York to Pittsburgh began in 1898, running across the Delair Bridge.<br />
Service between Philadelphia and Atlantic City was delayed until 1906, after a deal with the Reading<br />
Railroad was negotiated and the Window Junction and Woodbine Junction stations were completed<br />
(Coxey 1985: 8-10).<br />
The establishment of the railroad bolstered the economy, allowing local businesses to thrive with the<br />
relative ease and low cost of transporting goods. For example, Hatch kilns that had been producing<br />
brick since the 1840s thrived with the newly established railroads and produced a majority of the<br />
paving and building bricks for development and construction in the City of Camden (Dorwart 2001:<br />
79). These newly established industries brought an influx of working class people from diverse<br />
backgrounds to Delair and Pennsauken Township. Early-twentieth-century factories drew immigrant<br />
laborers from southern and eastern Europe to Pennsauken in unprecedented numbers, drastically<br />
changing the township’s cultural diversity (Archeological and Historical Consultants 2001: 106;<br />
Dorwart 2001:77-79; Greenberg 1992).<br />
Pennsauken grew rapidly in the twentieth century, transforming from an agricultural community into<br />
a suburban and industrial center. During World War I, wartime industries brought many new<br />
residents to the township (Dorwart 2001: 119-120). The next incentive to development was the<br />
4-17
completion of the Delaware River Bridge (now the Benjamin Franklin Bridge) in 1926. The new<br />
automobile bridge precipitated extensive residential development in the Township of Pennsauken<br />
(Cranston 1931: 139-140; Corotis 1944:65; Dorwart 2001: 123-124). Between the close of World<br />
War I in 1918 and the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the population of Pennsauken<br />
Township tripled (Martin/DePallo Group 1998).<br />
After an economic slowdown during the 1930s, wartime industries associated with World War II<br />
again drew workers to Pennsauken. Between 1940 and 1950, the population rose from 17,745 to<br />
22,767. After World War II, the expansion of existing highways and the completion of the Walt<br />
Whitman Bridge (1957) and Betsy Ross Bridge (1976) created new connections between Camden<br />
County and Philadelphia. This precipitated more intensive land development, including industrial<br />
parks, shopping malls, and housing projects. The towns of Pennsauken and Merchantville, located<br />
southwest of Delair began to expand rapidly, with new residential developments and associated<br />
roads compensating for the post-war increase in population. Delair nearly doubled in size during the<br />
post-war period, expanding southeast to the Burlington Turnpike (Route 130), and to the northeast<br />
north of Pochack Creek (U.S.G.S. 1949; see Figure 4.9). By 1949, only the SGL Surrounding<br />
Property portion of the APE had been developed.<br />
During the early-twentieth century a chrome plating factory was constructed on the SGL<br />
Surrounding Property portion of the APE. This facility consisted of a large metal factory building, a<br />
large concrete building, and a cinder block building. Portions of the concrete building were razed<br />
during the second half of the twentieth century (Nationwide <strong>Environmental</strong> Title Research 1940,<br />
1956, 1957, 1963, 1970, 1995, 2002). This section of the APE was bounded to the north by an<br />
asphalt manufacturing plant, constructed between 1940 and 1956 (Historic Aerials 1940, 1956).<br />
Between 1957 and 1963, a light industrial building was erected in the Penler Anodizing section of<br />
the APE on Union Avenue, which had previously been utilized as farmland (Historic Aerials 1957,<br />
1963). Between 1963 and 1970, the King Arthur and Advance Process Supply portions of the APE,<br />
which had previously been farm land, were developed (Historic Aerials 1963, 1970). These portions<br />
of the APE currently contain light industrial facilities.<br />
4-18
�����������<br />
���������������������������������������������<br />
����<br />
����������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
����
SECTION 5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK AND RESULTS<br />
An assessment of archaeological potential is based upon environmental factors (topography and<br />
hydrology), presence of recorded cultural resources in the files at the NJSM and the HPO, a review<br />
of historic maps and documents, and a site visit. The APE was examined on July 7, 2009. Each<br />
section of the APE is discussed individually below.<br />
SGL Surrounding Property<br />
The SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE is located on a triangular parcel, bounded to the<br />
northeast by an asphalt manufacturing facility, southeast by Cove Road, and west by the NJ Transit<br />
rail line, also known as the Camden and Amboy Railroad Historic District, which is eligible for<br />
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This historic district is situated outside of the<br />
APE. A one-story concrete office building, a large metal warehouse, and an asphalt parking lot are<br />
located in the eastern portion of this section of the APE (Figure 5.1; Plates 5.1-5.2). All buildings<br />
within this portion of the APE date to the mid-twentieth century. The western section of this<br />
portion of the APE is characterized by dense vegetative growth, 20 to 30-foot high soil piles, a dirt<br />
road, and a cinder block building (see Figure 5.1; Plates 5.3-5.8). This portion of the SGL<br />
Surrounding Property has experienced extensive disturbance from demolition, historic clay mining,<br />
and soil grading activities. Excavation pits and unnatural undulating terrain were observed in the<br />
wooded section of this portion of the APE, particularly at the location of the northern-most former<br />
row house. The area of the southern row house and the railroad freight house, northeast of the<br />
intersection of Cove Road and the NJ Transit rail line, exhibited extensive grading disturbance (see<br />
Figure 5.1, Plate 5.4). A previous Phase IA cultural resources survey of the SGL Surrounding<br />
Property section of the APE by the <strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consulting Group (2006), determined that as<br />
a result of extensive twentieth century disturbance, the sensitivity for intact, significant historic and<br />
prehistoric archaeological resources in this portion of the APE was low. Based on a review of<br />
historic maps and a site visit, RGA concurs with this prior assessment.<br />
Advance Process Supply<br />
This portion of the APE consists of a rectangular lot east of River Road. It is bounded to the north,<br />
east, and south by commercial and industrial building lots (Personal Communication, Jeffrey<br />
Rakowski July 7, 2009). A large commercial building and asphalt parking lot characterize this<br />
portion of the APE (Figure 5.2; Plates 5.9-5.11). This property sits two to five feet below the<br />
surrounding natural grade. Much of the parcel is flat topographically, and slopes along its south and<br />
east side to meet the elevation of abutting parcels. Vegetation in this portion of the APE was present<br />
on the outskirts of the property and consists of a manicured lawn and mature oak trees. Based on<br />
background research, hydrology, and a site visit, this portion of the APE has a low sensitivity for<br />
5-1
significant historic and prehistoric archaeological resources.<br />
King Arthur<br />
The King Arthur section of the APE is comprised of a large square parcel, bounded to the northeast<br />
by Bethel Avenue, south by woods, east by a proposed recreational development, and west by an<br />
industrial lot (Personal Communication, Jeffrey Rakowski July 7, 2009). A large coffin<br />
manufacturing factory surrounded by an asphalt parking lot lies in the northwest corner of the tract<br />
(Figure 5.3; Plates 5.12-5.15). A manicured lawn and hardwood trees are located on the southern<br />
and eastern portions of the APE (see Plate 5.15). Topography in this section of the APE is<br />
relatively flat, likely a consequence of grading activities that took place during the 1960s when the<br />
parcel was developed. Based on background research, hydrology, and a site visit, this portion of the<br />
APE has a low sensitivity for significant historic and prehistoric archaeological resources.<br />
Penler Anodizing<br />
Penler Anodizing consists of a rectangular lot on the north side of Suckle Highway. A large<br />
elongated building and asphalt parking lot encompass much of this portion of the APE (Figure 5.4;<br />
Plates 5.16-5.17). Terrain within this section of the APE slopes in a northerly direction. Vegetation<br />
north of the building consists of thick brush and high grass. Based on background research,<br />
hydrology, and a site visit, this portion of the APE has a low sensitivity for significant historic and<br />
prehistoric archaeological resources.<br />
5-2
���<br />
����<br />
���<br />
���<br />
�������������������������������<br />
���<br />
���<br />
���<br />
���<br />
�����������<br />
������������� ���������������������������������������� ���������<br />
����������������������������������������������������������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
���<br />
���<br />
���<br />
������������������������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
���
���<br />
����<br />
���<br />
�������������������������������<br />
�����������<br />
������������� �������������������������������������� ���������<br />
���������������������������������������������������������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
���<br />
���� �� �<br />
�<br />
����������������������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
���
���<br />
����<br />
���� ���<br />
�<br />
�������������������������������<br />
���<br />
�<br />
����<br />
�����������<br />
������������� ��������������������������� �����������������<br />
��������������������������������������������������������������<br />
����������������������������������������������������������<br />
�������������������<br />
���<br />
�����������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
���
���<br />
����<br />
����<br />
�������������������������������<br />
�����������<br />
������������� �������������������������������� �����������������<br />
��������������������������������������������������������������<br />
����������������������������������������������������������<br />
���������������<br />
���<br />
��<br />
��<br />
����������������������<br />
�<br />
����<br />
���
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
���������������������������<br />
����������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
���
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
���������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
���
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
�����������������������<br />
����������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
���
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
�������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
���������������������������<br />
����������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
����������<br />
����������� ���������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
��������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
����������<br />
����������� �������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
��������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� �������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� �������������������������������������� �������������������<br />
�����������������������������������������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� ��������������������������� ����������������������������������<br />
�������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� ��������������������������� ����������������������������������<br />
��������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� ��������������������������� ����������������������������������<br />
�������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� ��������������������������� ������������������������������������<br />
��������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� �������������������������������� ��������������������������<br />
����������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
�����������<br />
����������� �������������������������������� ���������������������������<br />
���������������������������������������<br />
���������������������<br />
������������������������������<br />
������������������<br />
����
SECTION 6.0 CONCL<strong>US</strong>IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
Richard Grubb & Associates has performed a Stage IA cultural resources survey within the APE for<br />
the Puchack Well Field, Operable Unit 2 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study project in<br />
Pennsauken Township, Camden County, New Jersey for CDM Federal Programs Corporation. The<br />
APE consists of four non-contiguous areas, designated SGL Surrounding Property, Advance<br />
Process Supply, King Arthur, and Penler Anodizing. The Stage IA cultural resources survey<br />
assessed the potential for significant archaeological resources within the APE. The Stage IA survey<br />
was performed as a requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as<br />
amended, and meets the standards of the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office.<br />
A previous Phase IA archaeological survey was conducted within the SGL Surrounding Property<br />
portion of the APE, which determined that due to early-twentieth-century clay mining activities, and<br />
mid-twentieth-century industrial development, that portion of the APE had a low sensitivity to<br />
contain intact, potentially significant historic and prehistoric archaeological resources (<strong>Cultural</strong><br />
Resource Consulting Group 2006).<br />
Fieldwork for this survey was conducted within the APE on July 7, 2009. During the site visit,<br />
extensive ground disturbance was observed at the SGL Surrounding Property portion of the APE.<br />
Grading disturbance associated with the construction of mid-to late-twentieth-century light industry<br />
buildings was observed at the Advance Process Supply, King Arthur, and Penler Anodizing sections<br />
of the APE. There, large buildings encompassed much of the footprint of the three properties.<br />
Based upon the results of background research, environmental setting and a site visit, the APE has a<br />
low potential to contain significant prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Richard Grubb<br />
& Associates recommends that no further cultural resources survey is necessary within the APE.<br />
6-1
SECTION 7.0 REFERENCES<br />
Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.<br />
2001 Camden and Amboy Railroad Historic Districts Study, Volume I. On file, New Jersey Historic<br />
Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Cammarota, Ann Marcia T.<br />
2001 Pavements in the Garden: The Suburbanization of Southern New Jersey, Adjacent to the City of Philadelphia, 1769<br />
to the Present. Madison: Fairleigh Dickson University Press.<br />
CDM Federal Programs Corporation<br />
2009 Invitations for Bid for Stage IA <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> for the Puchack Well Field Site Operable<br />
Unit 2, Pennsauken Township, New Jersey: Solicitation No. IFB-3320-007-004-HS. On file, CDM<br />
Federal Programs Corporation, Chantilly, Virginia.<br />
Chesler, Olga (editor)<br />
1982 New Jersey's Archaeological <strong>Resources</strong> from the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present: A Review of<br />
Research Problems and <strong>Survey</strong> Priorities. Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Clement, John<br />
1846 A Map of Camden County, State of New Jersey. John Clement Jr., Camden, New Jersey.<br />
Collins, Beryl Robichaud, and Karl H. Anderson<br />
1994[1973] Plant Communities of New Jersey: a Study in Landscape Diversity. Revised edition of Vegetation of New<br />
Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.<br />
Corotis, Charles A and James M. O’Neill.<br />
1944 Camden County Centennial. Camden: Huntzinger Co. Inc.<br />
Coxey, William J.<br />
1985 “The Delair Bridge” in William J. Coxey, ed. West Jersey Rails II. West Jersey Chapter, National<br />
Railway Historical Society, Haddonfield, New Jersey.<br />
Cranston, Paul F.<br />
1931 Camden County 1681-1931: Two Hundred Fiftieth University. Camden: Camden County Chamber of<br />
Commerce.<br />
Cross, Dorothy<br />
1941 Archaeology of New Jersey, Volume 1. The Archaeological Society of New Jersey and the New Jersey<br />
State Museum, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
<strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consulting Group (CRCG)<br />
2006 Phase IA <strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Reconnaissance, Cherokee Pennsauken, LLC, Fisherman’s Point<br />
Redevelopment Project, Pennsauken Township, Camden County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey<br />
Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Custer, Jay<br />
1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. Historical and Museum Commission,<br />
Anthropological Series No. 7, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.<br />
7-1
Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall (DMJM) and Boz Allen & Hamilton (BA&H)<br />
1997 Additional Information Regarding the Eligibility of Hilltop House and the Delair Historic District,<br />
Camden and Burlington Counties. (Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit System ) On file, New<br />
Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Dorwart, Jeffery M.<br />
2001 Camden County, New Jersey: The Making of a Metropolitan Community 1626-2000. New Brunswick: Rutgers<br />
University Press.<br />
Fadden, William<br />
1777 Province of New Jersey.<br />
Fichter, Jack H.<br />
1966 A History of Pennsauken Township. Camden NJ: Sinnickson Chew & Sons Company.<br />
1975 Our Pennsauken: Hollywood, FL: International Graphics, Inc.<br />
Fitting, James E.<br />
1979 <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Overview and Sensitivity Analysis for the Delaware River and Bay. On file, New<br />
Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
GAI Consultants, Inc.<br />
1983 Delaware River Comprehensive Navigation Study (Interim): <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Sensitivity<br />
Reconnaissance. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Greenberg, Gail<br />
1992 Site and Structures: The Camden County Inventory of Historic Places, Camden County, New Jersey.<br />
On file, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Grossman-Bailey, Ilene<br />
2001 “The People Who Lived By the Ocean”: Native American Resource Use and Settlement in the Outer<br />
Coastal Plain of New Jersey. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Temple<br />
University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.<br />
Hopkins, G. M.<br />
1861 Topographical Map of the State of New Jersey. Philadelphia: G. M. Hopkins Co.<br />
Hunter Research, Inc.<br />
2000 Summary <strong>Report</strong> Phase IA <strong>Cultural</strong> Resource <strong>Survey</strong> for Proposed Station Stops for the Southern<br />
New Jersey Light Rail Transit System Initial Operating Corridor, Camden County, New Jersey. On<br />
file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Kraft, Herbert<br />
1986 The Lenape: Archaeology, History, and Ethnography. Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society, Vol.<br />
21. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New Jersey.<br />
2001 The Lenape-Delaware Heritage 10,000 B.C.- A.D. 2000. Lenape Books, Union, New Jersey.<br />
Kraft, Herbert and R. Mounier<br />
1982 The Archaic Period in New Jersey (ca. 8000 B.C.-1000 B.C.). In New Jersey’s Archaeological <strong>Resources</strong>: A<br />
Review of Research Problems and <strong>Survey</strong> Priorities, The Paleo-Indian Period to the Present, edited by Olga<br />
Chesler, pp. 52-102. Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
7-2
Lake, D.J. and S.N. Beers<br />
1861 Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and Camden. C.K. Stone & A. Pomeroy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.<br />
Lane, Wheaton J.<br />
1939 From Iron Horse to Indian Trail: Travel and Transportation in New Jersey 1620-1860. Princeton University<br />
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.<br />
Martin/DePallo Group<br />
1998 Master Plan Reexamination for Pennsauken Township, Camden County New Jersey. On file<br />
Pennsauken Township Municipal Building.<br />
Mason, Ronald<br />
1949 Discovery of a Large Unami Camp Site. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey (2): 8-9.<br />
McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc.<br />
1997 Phase I Archaeological <strong>Survey</strong>, U.S. Route 130 and Westfield Avenue (at Pohack Creek), Pennsauken<br />
Township, Camden County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton,<br />
New Jersey.<br />
Merry, Frederick C.<br />
1857 Map of Camden County, New Jersey. Camden: R. L. Barnes.<br />
Mounier, R. Alan<br />
1984 An Archaeological <strong>Survey</strong> of Fish House Cove and Tippin’s Road, Twp. Of Pennsauken, Camden<br />
County, N.J. On file, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Mounier, R. Alan, and John W. Martin<br />
1992 <strong>Report</strong> of Archaeological Data Recovery Interstate Highway 295, Section IW West Deptford Township Gloucester<br />
County, New Jersey. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration and New Jersey Department of<br />
Transportation. On file, Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Nationwide <strong>Environmental</strong> Title Research (NETR)<br />
1956 Historic Aerial Photographs. Electronic Document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July<br />
14, 2009.<br />
1957 Historic Aerial Photographs. Electronic Document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July<br />
14, 2009.<br />
1963 Historic Aerial Photographs. Electronic Document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July<br />
14, 2009.<br />
1970 Historic Aerial Photographs. Electronic Document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July<br />
14, 2009.<br />
1995 Historic Aerial Photographs. Electronic Document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July<br />
14, 2009.<br />
2002 Historic Aerial Photographs. Electronic Document, http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed July<br />
14, 2009.<br />
Natural <strong>Resources</strong> Conservation Service<br />
2008 Web soil survey 2.0. Electronic document,<br />
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoil<strong>Survey</strong>.aspx, accessed July 20, 2009.<br />
7-3
Owens, James P., Peter J. Sugarman, Norman F. Sohl, Ronald A. Parker, Hugh F. Houghton, Richard A.<br />
Volkert, Avery A. Drake, Jr., and Randall C. Orndorff<br />
1998 Bedrock Geologic Map of Central and Southern New Jersey. United States Geological <strong>Survey</strong> in<br />
cooperation with the New Jersey Geological <strong>Survey</strong>, Reston Virginia.<br />
Prowell, George R.<br />
1886 The History of Camden County, New Jersey. Philadelphia: L.J. Richards & Co.<br />
Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.<br />
2009 <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> Investigation, Pennsauken Junction Station, Atlantic City Rail Line and NJ<br />
Transit Light Rail (River Line), Pennsauken Township, Camden County, New Jersey. On file,<br />
Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Schindler, William III<br />
2006 Middle Woodland exploitation of migratory fish in the Delaware Valley. Unpublished Ph. D.<br />
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.<br />
Skinner, Alanson, and Max Schrabisch<br />
1913 A Preliminary <strong>Report</strong> of the Archaeological <strong>Survey</strong> of the State of New Jersey. Geological <strong>Survey</strong> of<br />
New Jersey Bulletin No. 9. Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Smith, R. P.<br />
1853 Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia from Actual <strong>Survey</strong>s. R. P. Smith, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.<br />
Stewart, R. Michael<br />
1994 The Prehistoric Archaeology of the Delaware Valley: Some Comments. In Recent Research into the<br />
Prehistory of the Delaware Valley, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 10: 203-214.<br />
Stewart, R. Michael, Chris C. Hummer and Jay F. Custer<br />
1986 Late Woodland Cultures of the Delaware River Valley. In Late Woodland Cultures in the Middle Atlantic<br />
Region. Jay F. Custer, ed. Pp. 58 – 89, University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware.<br />
Stutz, Bruce<br />
1992 Natural Lives, Modern Times: People and Places of the Delaware River. University of Pennsylvania,<br />
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.<br />
Tedrow, John C. F.<br />
1986 Soils of New Jersey. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.<br />
TRC <strong>Environmental</strong> Corporation<br />
2005 Phase IA <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> for Fisherman’s Point, Pennsauken Township. On file, New<br />
Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
United States Geological <strong>Survey</strong> (U.S.G.S.)<br />
1898 15’ Quadrangle: Philadelphia, PA-NJ.<br />
1949 7.5’ Quadrangle: Camden, NJ-PA.<br />
1995 7.5’ Quadrangle: Camden, NJ-PA.<br />
2002 New Jersey Digital Ortho Quarter Quad Aerial Photography, Tile Numbers K5B14, 15.<br />
URS Corporation<br />
2003 Site No.: 6456, Site Name: AT&T-Bethel Avenue, 2115 Bethel Avenue, Pennsauken, New Jersey. On<br />
file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
7-4
Vermeule, C.C.<br />
1900 New Jersey Geological <strong>Survey</strong>, Camden Sheet. New Jersey Geological <strong>Survey</strong>, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Wall, Robert D., R. Michael Stewart, John Cavallo, Douglas McLearen, Robert Foss, Philip Perazio, and John<br />
Dumont<br />
1996 Prehistoric Archaeological Synthesis. Trenton Complex Archaeology: <strong>Report</strong> 15. The <strong>Cultural</strong><br />
Resource Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., East Orange, New Jersey. Prepared for the Federal<br />
Highway Administration and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of<br />
<strong>Environmental</strong> Analysis, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
Wolfe, Peter E.<br />
1977 Geology and Landscapes of New Jersey. Crane, Russak & Company, New York, New York.<br />
Zerbe, Nancy<br />
1991 State Historic Preservation Office Opinion regarding the Camden and Amboy Railroad Main Line<br />
Historic District. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, Trenton, New Jersey.<br />
7-5
<strong>APPENDIX</strong> A: QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Years of Experience<br />
12<br />
Education<br />
MA 2004<br />
Monmouth<br />
University:<br />
American History<br />
BA 2001<br />
Monmouth<br />
University:<br />
History and<br />
Anthropology<br />
Professional<br />
Training<br />
Health and Safety<br />
Training for<br />
Hazardous Waste<br />
Operations and<br />
Emergency Responses<br />
to meet the<br />
requirements of<br />
OSHA (29 CFR<br />
1910.120)<br />
Certification updated<br />
10/2008<br />
CRM Essentials:<br />
Restoring Your Skills,<br />
Bordentown, NJ,<br />
October 26, 2007<br />
Professional<br />
Registration<br />
Register of<br />
Professional<br />
Archaeologists (RPA)<br />
New Jersey, Headquarters<br />
30 North Main Street � P.O. Box 434<br />
Cranbury, NJ 08512<br />
609-655-0692 � fax: 609-655-3050<br />
Professional Experience Summary:<br />
Pennsylvania<br />
PMB 166 � 420 West Emaus Avenue<br />
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103<br />
610-435-4525 � fax: 610-821-7988<br />
Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.<br />
<strong>Cultural</strong> Resource Consultants<br />
email: mail@richardgrubb.com � www.richardgrubb.com<br />
Michael Gall, Principal Investigator/Senior Archaeologist<br />
Mr. Gall has extensive experience in applying Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,<br />
as amended, NJ Executive Order No. 215, NJ Register of Historic Places Act, NJDEP Freshwater<br />
Wetlands Permits and other relevant state and municipal laws. Mr. Gall has served as a Principal<br />
Investigator on Phase I/II/III archaeological investigations and monitoring projects, and specializes<br />
in historic archaeology. He exceeds the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of Interior’s<br />
Standards for Prehistoric Archaeologists [36 CFR 61], as well as the Historic Preservation Office’s<br />
qualification standards in New Jersey. He has extensive experience in archaeological projects,<br />
including work in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.<br />
Representative Project Experience:<br />
Rowan University West Campus Tract, Gloucester County, NJ<br />
Field supervisor, Site Safety Officer for the Phase IB archaeological survey of an area proposed for<br />
soil remediation activities. Hazardous levels of the pesticide Dieldrin were present within the project<br />
area. Level C Hazmat protection was required for conducting the fieldwork. This area was<br />
considered to have a high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources. No archaeological<br />
resources were identified within the contaminated area and no further archaeological work was<br />
required.<br />
Villages at Manalapan, Monmouth County, NJ<br />
Principal Investigator for Phase I-III archaeological investigations for a proposed commercial<br />
development in Manalapan Township. Phase I archaeological survey identified three archaeological<br />
sites that included an eighteenth-century farmstead (28MO349), a nineteenth and twentieth-century<br />
farmstead (28-Mo-348), and a Contact period Native American site (28MO355). Phase II<br />
archaeological investigations determined that the eighteenth-century farmstead was eligible for<br />
listing on the National Register of Historic Places and a Phase III archaeological survey was<br />
conducted.<br />
Great Road and Cherry Valley Road Intersection Improvements, Somerset and Mercer<br />
Counties, NJ<br />
Principal Investigator for a Phase I/II/III archaeological investigation for a transportation project.<br />
The Phase I archaeological survey identified one Late Woodland site (28ME304) and one<br />
nineteenth-century tenant farmstead site (28ME305). The Phase II archaeological survey determined<br />
that both sites were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Phase III<br />
archaeological investigations were conducted at both sites.<br />
Thomas Edison Menlo Park Laboratory Complex, Middlesex County, NJ<br />
Project Archaeologist for an archaeological investigation and evaluation of Thomas A. Edison's<br />
Menlo Park laboratory site (28MI226) and workers’ homes (28MI218 and 28MI219). Identified<br />
archaeological resources consisting of backyard deposits and foundations of two late-nineteenthcentury<br />
workers’ tenements and the Thomas A. Edison's underground patent vault.<br />
Maryland<br />
#1 � 5 Bel Air South Parkway � Suite 109<br />
Bel Air, Maryland 21015<br />
410-420-7422 � fax: 410-420-7423<br />
Illinois<br />
13400 S. Route 59 � Suite G #180<br />
Plainfield, Illinois 60585<br />
815-439-3501 � fax: 815-439-1628
<strong>APPENDIX</strong> B: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY<br />
Authors: Michael J. Gall, RPA<br />
Title: Stage IA <strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong> <strong>Survey</strong>, Puchack Well Field Site, Operable Unit<br />
2, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Pennsauken Township, Camden<br />
County, New Jersey<br />
Date: October 2009<br />
RGA Database Title: Puchack Creek Well Site<br />
RGA Project No.: 2009-139<br />
State: New Jersey<br />
County: Camden County<br />
Municipality: Pennsauken Township<br />
Drainage Basin: Pochack Creek, Delaware River, Delaware Bay, Atlantic Ocean<br />
U.S.G.S. Quad: Camden, NJ-PA<br />
Regulation: Section 106<br />
Project Type: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study<br />
Project Sponsor U.S. <strong>Environmental</strong> Protection Agency<br />
Client: CDM Federal Programs Corporation<br />
Level of <strong>Survey</strong>: Reconnaissance-level<br />
<strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Resources</strong>: None