Final Report Historical Structures Assessment Report for the Muddy ...

FINAL REPORT 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE 

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT RELICENSING 

APPLICATION 

DRUMORE AND MARTIC TOWNSHIPS, LANCASTER COUNTY AND LOWER 

CHANCEFORD AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIPS, YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

FERC NO. 2355 

ER 2011-0212-042-B 

Submitted to: 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

Prepared by: 

TRC ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 

4425-B Forbes Boulevard 

Lanham, Maryland 20706 

August 2012

FINAL REPORT 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE 

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT RELICENSING 

APPLICATION 

DRUMORE AND MARTIC TOWNSHIPS, LANCASTER COUNTY AND LOWER 

CHANCEFORD AND PEACH BOTTOM TOWNSHIPS, YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

FERC NO. 2355 

ER 2011-0212-042-B 

Submitted to: 


Prepared by: 

TRC ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 

4425-B Forbes Boulevard 

Lanham, Maryland 20706 

Authored by: 

____________________________________ 

Geoffrey B. Henry, M.A. 

Ellen Jenkins, B.S. 

August 2012

Historic Structures Assessment Report for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility Project Relicensing Application 

Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) has initiated with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) the process of relicensing the 800-megawatt Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

(Project). The current license for the Muddy Run Project was issued on September 21, 1964 and expires 

on August 31, 2014. FERC issued the final study plan determination for the Muddy Run Project on 

February 4, 2010, approving the revised study plan with certain modifications. FERC’s final study plan 

determination required Exelon to conduct an Archaeological and Historic Cultural Resource Review and 

Assessment. This report provides a preliminary, planning level survey limited to the historic architectural 

survey conducted in Martic and Drumore Townships in Lancaster County and Lower Chanceford and 

Peach Bottom Townships in York County, Pennsylvania. 

Between October 2010 and September 2011, TRC conducted an architectural survey within the Project 

Area of Potential Effect (APE), defined as “…the lands enclosed by the project’s boundary and lands or 

properties outside of the project’s boundary where project construction and operation or project-related 

recreational development or other enhancements may cause changes in the character or use of historic 

properties, if any historic properties exist." The Muddy Run Project APE consists of all lands enclosed 

by the project boundary, as depicted on figures in this report, and in the initial filing. The architectural 

survey identified resources in the APE listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP), as well as those resources that may be eligible for listing in the NRHP pending further 

investigation. 

The survey consisted of background research on previously identified architectural resources in the APE, 

preparation of an historic context developed from the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission 

(PHMC) thematic contexts, and a field survey of any resources 50 years or older within the APE. There 

are no NRHP-listed architectural resources or architectural resources determined NRHP-eligible by the 

PHMC within the APE. The one previously identified resource within the APE, the Ritchie-Robinson 

House (PHMC ID# 118594) located at the southern end of the Project transmission line, is not 

recommended eligible for the NRHP either individually or as part of any potential rural historic district. 

The farm does not possess a strong representation of a range of typical buildings and landscape features 

that illustrate important changes over time in the region’s agricultural history. There are no other 

architectural resources 50 years or older in the APE. 

The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility, built between 1964 and 1968, was the largest pumped storage 

facility in the world on its completion. The Muddy Run facility may be NRHP-eligible under Criteria A 

(energy production) and C (engineering), Criteria Consideration G, which recognizes significant 

architectural resources less than 50 years old. In accordance with the comments of the PHMC, TRC 

recommends further research and field survey to complete the PHMC Historic Structures Resource (HSR) 

form for the Muddy Run facility and to evaluate its eligibility for the NRHP. 

i



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 5 

Agency Consultation and Prior reports ................................................................................................ 5 

Background Research ........................................................................................................................... 5 

Field Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 6 

Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 6 

Registration Requirements for Pennsylvania: Criterion A-Agriculture ............................................... 7 

III. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 9 

The Colonial Period: Early European Settlement (1600-1775) ................................................... 9 

The American Revolution (1775-1783) .................................................................................... 10 

The Federal and Antebellum Periods (1783-1840) ................................................................... 11 

The Civil War (1861-1865) ....................................................................................................... 14 

Post-Civil War and Industrial Expansion (1865-1900) ............................................................. 14 

The Modern Era (1900 to Present) ............................................................................................ 15 

IV. SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 17 

Previously Recorded Resource in the Project APE ............................................................................ 17 

Ritchie-Robinson House (PHMC ID #118594) ......................................................................... 17 

Newly Recorded Resource ................................................................................................................. 22 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility ....................................................................................... 22 

REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................................................... 27 

ii



LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1. Location of the Muddy Run Project Area along the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. ....... 3 

Figure 1-2. Location of Project Area of Potential Effect (USGS Topographic Quadrangle, Holtwood 

1955, revised 1990). ............................................................................................................................. 4 

Figure 3-1. 1895 view of Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal with overhead bridge at the Pennsylvania and 

Maryland State Line, looking south. (Source: Maryland Historical Society 2011) ........................... 12 

Figure 4-1. Location of the Muddy Run Project Area and surveyed architectural resources. (USGS 

Topographic Quadrangle, Holtwood 1955, revised 1990)................................................................. 19 

Figure 4-2. View of Ritchie-Robinson House, looking southwest. (Source: TRC 2010) ........................... 20 

Figure 4-3. View of Ritchie-Robinson Farm, looking southwest. (Source: TRC 2010) ............................. 20 

Figure 4-4. View of ca. 1850 house on Slateville Road, looking southeast. (Source: TRC 2011) ............. 21 

Figure 4-5. View of modern house and outbuildings on Flintville Road, looking southeast. (Source: TRC 

2011)................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 4-6. View of Muddy Run Reservoir, looking east. (Source: TRC 2010) ........................................ 24 

Figure 4-7. View of Muddy Run Main Dam, looking northeast. (Source: TRC 2010) .............................. 25 

Figure 4-8. View of Muddy Run Intake Structures, looking south. (Source: TRC 2010) .......................... 25 

Figure 4-9. View of Muddy Run Powerhouse, looking north. (Source: TRC 2010) .................................. 26 

iii



APPENDIX A– PHMC CORRESPONDENCE 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX B– QUALIFICATIONS OF TRC PERSONNEL 

iv



I. INTRODUCTION 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) has initiated with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) the process of relicensing the 800-megawatt (MW) Muddy Run Pumped Storage 

Project (Project). Exelon is applying for a new license using the FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process 

(ILP). The current license for the Project was issued on September 21, 1964 and expires on August 31, 

2014. 

Exelon filed its Pre-Application Document (PAD) and Notice of Intent (NOI) with FERC on March 12, 

2009. On June 10, 2009, a site visit and one scoping meeting was held for resource agencies and 

interested members of the public. Following these meetings, formal study requests were filed with FERC 

by several resource agencies. Many of these study requests were included in Exelon’s Proposed Study 

Plan (PSP), which was filed on August 24, 2009. On September 22 and 23, 2009, Exelon held a meeting 

with resource agencies and interested members of the public to discuss the PSP. Formal comments on the 

PSP were filed with FERC on November 22, 2009 by Commission staff and several resource agencies. 

Exelon filed a Revised Study Plan (RSP) for the Project on December 22, 2009. FERC issued the final 

study plan determination for the Project on February 4, 2010, approving the RSP with certain 

modifications. 

The final study plan determination requires Exelon to conduct a historic structures study in the Project’s 

APE, which is the subject of this report. The Project APE is defined as “…the lands enclosed by the 

project’s boundary and lands or properties outside of the project’s boundary where project construction 

and operation or project-related recreational development or other enhancements may cause changes in 

the character or use of historic properties, if any historic properties exist." For the Project, the APE 

consists of all lands enclosed by the project boundary, as depicted on Figures 1-2 and 4-1 in this report. 

The Project is located in Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania (Figure 1-1). The Project 

Powerhouse and Upper Reservoir (Muddy Run Reservoir portion of the Project area) are located in 

Martic and Drumore Townships, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, along the eastern shoreline of 

Conowingo Pond, approximately two miles downstream of PPL’s Holtwood Hydroelectric Project. The 

primary 4.25-mile-long transmission line corridor portion of the Project APE is located in Lancaster 

County and in Lower Chanceford and Peach Bottom Townships in York County. The Muddy Run 

Powerhouse and vehicular tunnel also lie within the Project boundaries of the Conowingo Hydroelectric 

facility which is currently also undergoing FERC relicensing (ER 2011-0212-042-B). The 

recommendations regarding the Muddy Run powerhouse and vehicular tunnel are included in this report 

(the Muddy Run Historic Structures Assessment) as opposed to the Conowingo Historic Structures 

Assessment Report for the Conowingo Hydroelectric Project (December 2011). 

Exelon filed the Phase IA Archaeological Study and Preliminary Historic Structures Assessment Report 

for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Relicensing Application Project (Preliminary Structures Assessment) 

(Sara et al. 2011) with the PHMC in March, 2011. This report provided an update on the one previously 

surveyed architectural resource (Ritchie-Robinson House) within the Project area and the 

recommendation to conduct a survey of any other resources 50 years or older in the APE. Following 

further consultation with the PHMC in July 2011, TRC is submitting this Historic Structures Assessment 

Report according to revised PHMC report guidelines and provides recommendations for additional survey 

only. Exelon is submitting this Historic Structures Assessment Report in order to provide additional 

information to assist FERC in making its federal licensing determination for the Project, as well as inform 

the development of a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the Project. The HPMP will 

specify how Exelon will consider and manage the historic properties within the Project’s APE throughout 

the term of the next FERC license, and assist Exelon in its compliance with applicable state and federal 

laws, guidelines, and regulations. The architectural survey complies with Section 106 of the National 

1



Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800. The 

historic architectural assessment and reconnaissance survey were conducted by TRC architectural 

historians Geoffrey B. Henry and Ellen Jenkins. 

This report is organized as follows: Chapter II outlines the methodology of the architectural survey. 

Chapter III provides the historic and architectural context of the Project region. Chapter IV presents the 

results of the survey and the recommendations for any additional investigations. Appendix A provides the 

previous PHMC correspondence and Appendix B lists the qualifications of the TRC project personnel. 

2

Legend 

Holtwood Dam 

Road 

Hydroelectric Project 

Water Body 

County Boundary 

State Boundary 

Project Boundary 

YORK 

COUNTY 

PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

HARFORD 

COUNTY 

C o n o w i n g o P o o l 

CUMBERLAND 

County 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project 

LANCASTER 

COUNTY 

CECIL 

COUNTY 

³ 

EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC 

Entrainment and Impingement Assessment 

MUDDY RUN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT Figure 1-1: 

PROJECT NO. 2355 

Location of the Muddy Run Project Area 

1 inch = 2 miles 

0 1 

2 4 along the Susquehanna River 

Miles in Pennsylvania 

Data Source: ESRI; Exelon; PA Chesapeake Bay Program; PA State University - 

Environmental Resources Research Institute; USGS National Hydrography Dataset. 

Copyright © 2012 Exelon Generation Company, LLC. All rights reserved. 

ADAMS 

County 

DAUPHINLEBANON 

County County 

YORK 

County 

LANCASTER 

County 

BERKS 

County 

CARROLL HARFORD 

CECIL 

County 

County 

County 

BALTIMORE 

County 

Index Map 

CHESTER 

County 

Path: X:\GISMaps\project_maps\study_plan\muddy_run\rsp_study_3.14\fig_1-1_location_map.mxd 

Conowing



Figure 1-2. Location of Project Area of Potential Effect (USGS Topographic Quadrangle, Holtwood 

1955, revised 1990). 

4



II. METHODOLOGY 

In 2010-2011, TRC conducted an architectural survey within the Project APE to identify resources 50 

years or older and to provide recommendations for further research and field survey based on their 

historic significance and integrity. This survey was conducted after the completion of a Preliminary 

Structures Assessment in 2010 which consisted of initial consultation with the PHMC, definition of the 

Project APE, background research on previously identified resources in the APE, preparation of an 

historic context, and a field reconnaissance of the APE to verify the background research results. The 

Preliminary Structures Assessment in 2010 did not identify any resources not previously surveyed. 

Following review of the Preliminary Structures Assessment Report, PHMC requested that TRC reevaluate 

the Ritchie-Robinson Farm (PHMC #118594) utilizing the recently completed York-Adams 

County Diversified Field Crops, Cannery Crops, And Livestock, C. 1750-1960 Multiple Property 

Documentation Form (McMurry 2011) and the possibility it may be part of a potential rural historic 

district. TRC’s survey followed all applicable federal and state guidelines, including those contained in 

National Register Bulletin 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (National 

Park Service 1978, rev. 1985) and revised PHMC guidelines for recording above-ground resources 

(PHMC 2011). 

AGENCY CONSULTATION AND PRIOR REPORTS 

On December 14, 2010 TRC submitted a “Request to Initiate Consultation” form for the Muddy Run 

Pumped Storage Re-Licensing Project (FERC 2355) to the PHMC. (Appendix A) Exelon submitted the 

TRC Phase IA Archaeological Study and Preliminary Historic Structures Assessment Report for the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Relicensing Application Project in March 2011. Following review of this 

report, PHMC requested an evaluation of the previously surveyed Ritchie-Robinson Farm as it relates to 

the agricultural history of York County along with an evaluation of the surrounding area for a possible 

rural historic district. 

As a result of a July 12, 2011 telephone conversation between TRC Archaeologist Tim Sara and Doug 

McLearen (Division Chief, Archaeology and Protection), PHMC recommended that the Muddy Run 

facility may require further documentation, but that TRC Architectural Historians should discuss the 

project directly with Ann Safely (Historic Building Reviewer, Archaeology and Protection) as to the level 

of detail required. TRC Architectural Historian Ellen Jenkins spoke with Ann Safely on July 13, 2011 

who confirmed Mr. McLearen’s initial analysis and requested an initial survey and assessment of the 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility. TRC met with the PHMC in July 2011 and was informed of 

changes to the format for architectural surveys for review by PHMC. After the completion of a 

reconnaissance-level survey, the consultant provides recommendations on which resource(s) should be 

researched and surveyed further before providing NRHP evaluations. Following PHMC concurrence with 

these recommendations for additional survey, the consultant submits completed Historic Resource Survey 

(HSR) forms along with NRHP evaluations. 

BACKGROUND RESEARCH 

TRC conducted background research on the history and development of the lands located within and 

immediately surrounding the Project APE and its regional surroundings for the preparation of an historic 

context spanning the colonial period to the present. Published histories and previous architectural and 

historical studies of Lancaster and York Counties were consulted, as were historic maps and atlases of the 

two counties. The historic context identified the themes of agriculture, transportation (including canals 

and railroads), and hydroelectric power as important themes in the history and development of the Project 

APE. 

5



Using the PHMC’s Cultural Resource GIS (CRGIS), TRC conducted a search for NRHP-listed and - 

eligible resources and previously surveyed structures. At the PHMC Archives in Harrisburg, TRC 

reviewed PHMC Historic Resource Survey Forms (HRSF) for all previously surveyed resources and 

CRM reports for previous surveys conducted in the Project APE. 

Within the Project APE, there are no NRHP-listed architectural resources or architectural resources 

determined NRHP-eligible by the PHMC. There have been no comprehensive architectural surveys 

conducted in Lancaster and York Counties since the 1980s. Due to the fact that these surveys occurred 

over 20 years ago, the existing data base is now out of date. There is one previously identified resource 

within the Project APE, the Ritchie-Robinson Property (PHMC ID #118594) at 1321 Lay Road, Peach 

Bottom Township, located at the southern end of the transmission line. 

FIELD SURVEY 

In October 2010-September 2011, TRC conducted a field survey of the Project APE to record all 

architectural resources 50 years or older. The Ritchie-Robinson property was resurveyed and the 

surrounding area was examined for the possibility of a rural historic district. Other than the previously 

identified Ritchie-Robinson property, there are no resources 50 years or older. As requested by the PHMC 

on July 13, 2011, TRC surveyed the Muddy Run facility and its components, noting all building features 

and taking digital photographs, in accordance with the new PHMC guidelines. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA 

The NRHP significance criteria in 36 CFR 60.4 define eligible cultural resources as buildings, structures, 

objects, sites, and districts that have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and association and that meet one or more of the following criteria. Criterion D is most often, but not 

exclusively, used with archaeological resources. 

Criterion A: Association with events that have significantly contributed to the broad patterns of 

history; 

Criterion B: Association with persons significant in the past; 

Criterion C: Possession of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; 

exemplification of the work of a master architect, engineer, or artist; embodiment of high artistic 

values; or evidence of a significant and discernible entity whose components may lack distinction on 

their own; and 

Criterion D: Ability to yield information significant to prehistory or history. 

Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious 

institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, 

reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have 

achieved significance within the past fifty years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. 

However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if 

they fall within the following categories: 

Consideration A: A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic 

distinction or historical importance; or 

6



Consideration B: A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant 

primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with 

a historic person or event; or 

Consideration C: A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no 

appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or 

Consideration D: A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of 

transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic 

events; or 

Consideration E: A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and 

presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or 

structure with the same association has survived; or 

Consideration F: A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic 

value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or, 

Consideration G: A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional 

importance. 

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PENNSYLVANIA: CRITERION A- 

AGRICULTURE 

As requested by PHMC, the Ritchie-Robinson Farm was re-evaluated utilizing the recently completed 

York-Adams County Diversified Field Crops, Cannery Crops, And Livestock, C. 1750-1960 Multiple 

Property Documentation Form (McMurry 2011). The NRHP eligibility with respect to agriculture in each 

Historic Agricultural Region of Pennsylvania will depend upon how well a given property reflects the 

historical farming system in that region. According to the Historic Agricultural Resources of 

Pennsylvania, c. 1700-1960: a National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form, Criterion A 

significance should be assessed in relation to how a given property typifies a farming system, not in 

relation to whether a property is exceptional or unusual. A property should exemplify a farming system in 

all its aspects. The totality of a property’s representation in the areas of production, labor patterns, land 

tenure, mechanization, and cultural traditions will determine its National Register eligibility (McMurry 

2011: 119). 

A key characteristic of Pennsylvania agricultural production from settlement to about 1960 is 

diversification on small family farms. Therefore, a farmstead, farm, or historic agricultural district should 

reflect diversified agriculture through a variety in historic buildings and landscape features. It is critical to 

note that diversified agricultural production involves two facets: 1) a mix of products and 2) a variety in 

use for those products. Historic resources should reflect the variety of household and market strategies 

employed by farming families (McMurry 2011: 119). 

In addition, according to the registration requirements for the York-Adams Historic Agricultural Region, 

to be determined significant with respect to Criterion A for agriculture, a farmstead should either: 1) 

possess a strong representation of typical buildings and landscape features from one chronological phase 

of the region’s agricultural history, or 2) possess a strong representation of a range of typical buildings 

and landscape features that illustrate important changes over time in the region’s agricultural history. A 

historic agricultural district should have a more or less contiguous collection of farms representing these 

features (McMurry 2011: 118). Whether it depicts one chronological period or change over time, a 

farmstead will normally be significant under Criterion A only if: 1) its individual production system, for 

the period in question, reflects the average or above average production levels for its township in the same 

7



period, 2) its built environment and landscape reflects that product mix, 3) its built environment and 

landscape reflects locally prevalent levels of mechanization and tenancy, and labor patterns, and 4) if, in 

instances where a farm has a strong, documented connection to a particular ethnic group or land tenure 

system, its architecture and landscape shows show evidence of that connection (McMurry 2011: 119). 

8



III. HISTORIC CONTEXT 

The Colonial Period: Early European Settlement (1600-1775) 

The earliest European exploration of the Susquehanna River is attributed to John Smith, who sailed into 

the mouth of the Susquehanna River in 1608, though earlier visits by Spanish Jesuits in the late 1500s are 

also described in early explorer's accounts. In the early 1600s, Edward Palmer established a fur trade post 

on an island at the head of the Chesapeake Bay now called Garrett Island (Preston 1901; Wright 1967), in 

Cecil County, Maryland. Early economic pursuits in the region during the 1600s and the first part of the 

1700s were based primarily on tobacco which was transported overland from tobacco plantations to Bay 

access points via rolling roads. Shipping points were located on the Gunpowder River and the Bush 

River, the latter an early settlement area of the late 1600s. 

Land at the mouth of the Susquehanna River was cleared for tobacco plantations in the second half of the 

seventeenth century. The Project area in southern York County, Pennsylvania, an area known as "The 

Barrens”, was settled by Scottish and Irish families (Hershner 1977) as well as Catholics from Maryland 

(Fortenbaugh 1950; Rupp 1845; Gibson 1886). These early settlements were primarily agricultural with 

some residents providing services such as blacksmiths, wheelwrights and other supporting enterprises. 

The economy by the early 1700s was focused on wheat production and as wheat farming became more 

profitable, mills emerged along with additional supportive trades. 

By 1709, German Mennonites were taking advantage of the rich agricultural lands in Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania and were soon followed by the Huguenots, Scottish, Scotch-Irish, English, Swiss, Quaker, 

Irish, and Palatine settlers (Wood 1979). The population was diversified both in terms of ethnic 

background as well as job skills and religions which included Mennonites, Methodists, Anabaptists, 

Presbyterians, United Brethren and others such as Catholics and Jews. Lancaster County was established 

in 1729 as an extension of Chester County, from which many of the settlers originated. At the time it was 

first settled, this was considered Pennsylvania’s western frontier and the settlements were primarily small 

farms with political leadership being dominated by landed and professional people (Loose 1976). 

By the mid-eighteenth century, single-owner proprietorships were the most common. Fur traders on the 

frontier exchanged raw materials for manufactured goods in Lancaster. As the frontier moved westward, 

other towns including Shippensburg, Carlisle, and York assumed principal trading responsibilities while 

local business concentrated on processing and manufacturing (Scull 1760). In 1749 York County was 

formed from Lancaster County. 

Settlers suffered from repeated Indian raids during the French and Indian War. The threat of such raids 

resulted in a system of frontier fortifications and trade supervision. The French and Indian War 

stimulated the local economy and as hostilities increased, Lancaster became a military center, as well as a 

manufacturing and supply station. Hundreds of wagons and pack horses commissioned by Benjamin 

Franklin to be used against the French invasion of Pennsylvania were obtained in Lancaster (Loose 1976). 

Shopkeepers received commissions to supply troops involved in placating the frontier, and military 

officials requested the services of artisans to provide them with manufactured goods. Local gunsmiths 

manufactured thousands of guns used during the Revolution and several salt works were set up to 

manufacture saltpeter. 

The development of many of the settlements and villages surrounding the Project relate directly to their 

proximity to the Susquehanna River and its tributaries and creeks. As these areas developed, the need for 

various modes of transportation grew as well. The use of roads, ferries, bridges, and canals allowed 

residents and businesses to transport their goods and travel throughout the region. 

9



Roads often served as the earliest and simplest transportation routes. The first post road from Alexandria, 

Virginia to Philadelphia ran through Harford County, Maryland, located south of the Project, by 1670. 

The road followed the first settlements along the coastal areas, and was essential in providing early 

landowners with a crude highway for their travel to the early government seats. By 1687, a second post 

road was laid out and was noted as a more direct north-south route. It was known as the “path that runs 

from the Potomack to the Susquehanna” and the “King’s Road” (Wright 1967:102–103). 

Crossing the Susquehanna was often accomplished by ferry in the early periods. Holtwood village in 

Lancaster County is located near the site of an early ferry that crossed the Susquehanna. William H. 

Nelson started the ferry service in 1738, and it was transferred to James McCall in 1806. The well-used 

ferry, later renamed Clark’s ferry, continued throughout the nineteenth century, and was closed around 

1936 (Snyder and Boyle 1984). 

A boundary dispute arose between Maryland and Pennsylvania, stemming from royal land grants given to 

Cecil Calvert in 1632 and William Penn in 1681. This dispute embroiled many of the early settlers in 

conflicts over land claims. The dispute was finally settled in 1766, when the proprietors chose Charles 

Mason and Jeremiah Dixon to survey the boundary line between Pennsylvania and Maryland. The 

resolution of the boundary dispute touched off a new wave of settlement, although the cultural effects of 

Pennsylvania Quakers and other Protestant immigrant groups left a strong imprint on the Lower 

Susquehanna Region. The social values of Swedish, Dutch, Quaker, and Catholic communities that 

formed the early cultures of the Lower Susquehanna Region would be reflected in social, economic, and 

political developments for years to come. 

The American Revolution (1775-1783) 

York, Pennsylvania served as interim capital for the Continental Congress during a short period, and York 

County served as a cross-roads for armies moving south during the latter part of the Revolution. Lancaster 

was also the country’s capital for a short period during the Revolution and later served as the state capital 

(1799-1812). The role of Lancaster during the Revolution was as a producer of both durable goods and 

food for the war effort (Kessler 1975; Loose 1976). After the Revolution, westward expansion continued 

and Lancaster assumed a much less prominent role in the region’s economy. In spite of this, local 

industries such as grist- and sawmills, lime kilns, textile industries and craft specialists continued to 

thrive. The town and county of Lancaster grew quickly in the late eighteenth century and became the 

residence of a number of wealthy landowners and prominent craftsmen such as the iron workers and glass 

makers Henry Stiegel and Robert Coleman. 

Before and after the Revolution, there were efforts to utilize land resources, especially in the production 

of iron. The tradesmen profited from army provisioning contracts; skilled artisans such as metalworkers, 

shoemakers, tanners, and woodcraftsmen were commissioned to manufacture boots, saddles, casks, and 

barrels; and local gunsmiths manufactured thousands of guns used during the Revolution and several salt 

works were set up to manufacture saltpeter. 

The processing of metal was an important part of both Lancaster and York County’s early economies. 

From the middle of the eighteenth century through the middle of the nineteenth century, Martic Forge, on 

Pequea Creek (located six miles above the Project) in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was the industrial 

center of Martic Township (Clare 1892:1). Iron production was the industrial focus for Lancaster County 

from an early date. 

10



The Federal and Antebellum Periods (1783-1840) 

Castle Fin Forge, located in the southern portion of Lower Chanceford Township, York County on 

Muddy Creek, opened in 1810 and was also known as Palmyra Forge (Sheets 1991:56). Lower 

Chanceford Township was also the home of York Furnace, which was located on Otter Creek and was in 

operation from 1830 to 1875. Sometimes called “Speck,” the furnace produced cannons during the Civil 

War (Sheets 1991:57). By the end of the nineteenth century, Lancaster County furnaces and forges on the 

Conowingo and Octoraro Creeks were no longer running (Clare 1892:1). 

On the western side of the river, in spite of concerted efforts, early settlers in the Peach Bottom area of 

York County did not have much luck with growing either rye or wheat. These crops, as well as barley, 

grew better in other parts of York County (Sheets 1991:134–137). The abundance of rye and corn in the 

surrounding area did, however, give rise to the production and sale of whiskey in York County. In fact, 

from 1800–1830, the county led all of Pennsylvania in whiskey production (Sheets 1991:61). 

The advent of canals was significant for the shipping industry. In the nineteenth century, canals and later 

railroads connected inland cities to those on the coast, fostered western expansion, and encouraged greater 

industrial production by facilitating transportation of more goods and raw materials. Large amounts of 

coal and lumber were transported on canals in the nineteenth century. 

The Susquehanna Canal, also known as the Maryland, Port Deposit, and Conowingo Canal, was opened 

to traffic in 1803 and was located on the east bank of the Susquehanna. It ran from the Pennsylvania- 

Maryland border south to the outskirts of Port Deposit in Cecil County. It is noted as contributing greatly 

to the growth of towns along the Susquehanna, including Port Deposit. (MHT, NHRP Detail Report, Port 

Deposit Historic District, CE-1291) The canal included nine locks. In spite of the corporation holding 

exclusive rights to the canal and any gristmills or water works built upon it, the canal was not financially 

successful (Wilner 1984:5). It was bypassed frequently on the river heading downstream, so not enough 

tolls were collected to maintain it properly. The canal was sold at auction in 1817 and was abandoned 

when the Susquehanna and Tidewater canal opened in 1840. (Shank 1988) 

The Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal (Figure 3-1) was the most significant canal for the area, with a 

charter that was approved on April 18, 1835 by the Pennsylvania and Maryland legislatures. In operation 

by 1840, it was located on the west bank of the river and went as far north as Wrightsville on the west 

side of the Susquehanna in York County, terminating at its southern end at Havre de Grace in Harford 

County (Smeltzer 1963:13). Most of the traffic on this canal was going to Baltimore, Philadelphia, and 

New York (Smeltzer 1963:42). There was a two-tiered towpath built on the canal; the mules on the lower 

walkway went east and the mules on the upper walkway traveled west (Smeltzer 63: 43). 

In 1843, groceries were the largest item traveling up the Susquehanna, and to a lesser extent iron 

products, coffee, bricks, and dry goods. Coal was the most significant product going down river, in 

addition to lumber, bacon, tobacco, and whiskey. The canal had steady traffic; in 1850, there were 1,640 

boats towed to Baltimore and 2,560 towed to Philadelphia from Havre de Grace (Shank 1988:6). A count 

of four dams, five culverts, 18 overhead bridges, 33 waste-weirs, and six aqueducts were located on the 

canal (Shank 2001:71). By 1870, the traffic on the canal began to decline, mostly due to competition 

from the railroad (Shank 1988:7). 

11



Figure 3-1. 1895 view of Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal with overhead bridge at the 

Pennsylvania and Maryland State Line, looking south. (Source: Maryland Historical Society 2011) 

Railroad transportation made an early appearance in the Lower Susquehanna Valley because of its 

location on a natural travel corridor between the South and the Middle Atlantic states. Railroad investors 

were also eager to tap the natural resources of the area, especially anthracite coal. Initially, canals had the 

advantage of capacity and cost. Before long, however, improvements in locomotives allowed trains to 

pull greater loads. Canals could not operate in the winter months and they were vulnerable to ice and 

flood damage. As canal revenues slipped after the Civil War, high maintenance costs became an 

increasing drain on profits. Inevitably, canals came under the control of railroad companies. Some canals 

became more valuable as rights-of-way for new rail lines or highways (Stranahan 1993:69). 

Planned in 1828 and finished in 1834, the "Iron Rail Road" was built from Philadelphia to Columbia on 

the Susquehanna River and included a stop in Lancaster. It was the first publicly-built railroad in the 

world. In 1837, the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore line reached the Susquehanna. Ferry 

services were eventually provided for rail cars crossing over the river. In later years, the second rail line to 

cross the Lower Susquehanna was the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) in 1885 (Lower Susquehanna Heritage 

Greenway 2006). Both lines were heavily used for passenger and freight transport and a network of 

railroad lines developed along the Susquehanna River and its tributaries including the Maryland & 

Pennsylvania Railroad (along Muddy Creek) and the Octoraro Railroad (along Octoraro Creek and the 

Susquehanna River). 

In 1857, local interests incorporated the Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad in Pennsylvania as the 

Washington and Maryland Line Railroad Company. The name was changed to the Columbia and Port 

Deposit Railroad in 1864. Its nickname was “The Port Road.” Construction was begun in 1866. Part of 

the line was in operation by 1874, but the work on constructing the remainder progressed slowly. The 

entire 40-mile line was put into operation in July 1877 (Hilton 1999). The Pennsylvania Railroad 

Company had invested over $1,800,000 in bonds to construct the Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad. 

They wanted to have a link between the Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line at Columbia and the 

Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad at Perryville. A branch line connected Port Deposit to 

12



Perryville after 1866. Upon completion, the Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad was operated as a branch 

line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. 

With the advent of the railroad, the counties within the project area began to change rapidly. Abundant 

natural resources allowed the area to continue to grow and prosper. Fisheries, agricultural products, large 

forested areas, and Cecil and York Counties’ rich wealth of mineral resources, such as chrome, granite, 

magnesium, and iron ore placed the Lower Susquehanna Region at the heart of America's early 

manufacturing and extractive industries. 

Statistics indicate the importance of milling throughout the region, primarily in the mid-nineteenth 

century, when in Martic Township there were 12 mills in 1840. By 1860, the number had dropped to three 

mills and five saw mills. In Drumore Township, milling was most important in the 1840s and 1860s, 

when there were six mills and nine sawmills in 1848, and five mills and eight sawmills in 1860 (Bridgens 

1864 and Everts & Stewart 1875). Lastly, in Lower Chanceford Township, the mid-nineteenth century 

had seven mills and seven sawmills in 1848, and only eight mills in 1860 (Nichols 1876 and Roddy 

1916). 

The commercial Susquehanna fishing industry got its start during the eighteenth century. Shad fisheries 

remained an important part of the local economy until the late nineteenth century. There was a shad 

fishery noted on the western shore of Mount Johnson Island in 1886. Fishermen also caught eels, herring, 

perch, salmon, and carp (Gibson 1886:764; Miller 1949:125; Sarudy 2001:71). 

As transportation facilities improved during the nineteenth century—in the form of canals and railroads— 

numerous industries were able to flourish in the Lower Susquehanna Valley, including tanbark mills, 

paper mills, fulling mills, sawmills, flint mills, lime kilns, canneries, creameries, and ice harvesting 

(Sarudy 2001:104–105). Mining and quarrying became the economic mainstays of Peach Bottom 

Township. Although abandoned by 1895, chrome mining at Rock Spring and Epsom salt mining had been 

notable industries in the township. 

Slate Point, a short distance below Peach Bottom Ferry, is the eastern terminus in York County of a 

valuable vein of slate that extends through Peach Bottom Township into Harford County, Maryland . The 

slate ridge continues across the Susquehanna River to Fairmount, in Little Britain Township, Lancaster 

County. A valuable slate quarry was operated near Slate Point circa 1861 (Gibson 1886:764). 

Peach Bottom slate, used as a roofing material since 1734, was known for its strength, color, toughness, 

and durability. Commercial quarrying of Peach Bottom slate began in 1785. It was used for roofs, 

foundations, tombstones, and for industrial building material. After Peach Bottom slate was exhibited at 

the London Crystal Palace Exposition of 1850 and received first prize, it was in demand all over the 

world. More uses were adopted for slate when it was granulated or pulverized. It was used as fertilizer 

and in synthetic roofing; it became an additive in paint, linoleum, and rubber (Morrow [1953]:26, 28). 

Welsh immigrants were attracted to the area because the slate was so similar to that which they had 

quarried in Wales; they built homes in a style similar to those in the slate regions they came from (Sheets 

1991:124). At the time, both the Maryland & Pennsylvania and the Baltimore & Delta Railroads served 

the Peach Bottom area. Due to the railroad depots at Peach Bottom, it became a shipping center and 

consequently, warehouses, coal yards, hotels, and mills were built there (Smeltzer 1963:54). 

13



The Civil War (1861-1865) 

During the Civil War, Confederate troops under Generals Gordon and Early entered York for a brief 

period in June 1863 just prior to the battle of Gettysburg. Also in June, General Ewell’s corps of 

Confederate raiders, coming from Carlisle, entered Dillsburg under the command of Colonel Jenkins. 

They camped about 1/4 mile south of town before moving on. Other than this, very few events directly 

related to battles and troop movements occurred in the Project area. During the Civil War, little military 

activity occurred in Lancaster County with the exception of troop movements and support facilities 

before, during and after the battle of Gettysburg. One minor incident involved an altercation in Christiana 

over the Fugitive Slave Law and was known as the “Christiana Riot” (Atlick 1991; Logan 1990; Lestz 

1998). 

Post-Civil War and Industrial Expansion (1865-1900) 

After the Civil War, farming resumed its importance as the primary commercial enterprise in both 

counties although some smaller industries developed as well. Industrial expansion accelerated along with 

the growth of transportation networks designed to more efficiently export products of the local economy. 

Railroad construction increased in the late 19th century to the early 20th century. 

The Peach Bottom Railway was chartered in 1868 to build a narrow-gauge rail line from Philadelphia to 

haul coal from the Broad Top coalfields in southern Pennsylvania. The Eastern Division was supposed to 

connect Philadelphia with the Susquehanna River at Peach Bottom. Instead, only a line from Peach 

Bottom to Oxford was completed in 1878. The Middle Division was built between Delta (in the slate belt) 

and York in 1876. No money was available to build the bridge over the Susquehanna that would unite the 

divisions. The Eastern Division was reorganized into the Peach Bottom Railroad in 1881 (later the 

Lancaster Oxford & Southern Railroad) and the Middle Division into the York & Peach Bottom Railway. 

The York & Peach Bottom Railway reached Peach Bottom in 1883. The Maryland Central Railroad built 

a line between Baltimore and Delta. After acquiring the York & Peach Bottom Railway, they both 

became part of the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad Company (the Ma & Pa). The line was abandoned 

south of York in 1985 (Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Historical Society 2007). 

The rains associated with the 1889 Johnstown Flood had a large impact on the Susquehanna and 

Tidewater Canal in the Project area, and was a result of a storm that began on May 30, 1889. The storm 

lasted for 36 hours in some areas, with over eight inches of rain covering a 12,000 square mile area in 

central Pennsylvania. Fourteen miles above Johnstown, the storm first swept away the South Fork Dam 

on the Conemaugh River, causing flooding in Johnstown. The city was destroyed in ten minutes and over 

2,200 people were killed. 

By May 31, the west branch of the Susquehanna was filled with logs and began to rise. Fifty people 

along this branch were killed as well (Stranahan 1993: 120). Then, the log dam at Lockhaven broke on 

June 1 st , as logs poured through the river. An estimated 73,000,000 feet of lumber traveled through the 

river as the flood waters then reached Williamsport. Here, a log boom held the logs in place for a while, 

but eventually 150,000,000 feet of logs broke through and moved toward the Susquehanna’s main branch. 

When the flood reached the junction city of Sunbury, it first rushed up into the north branch before 

flowing down the main channel of the Susquehanna. Horses, homes, mills, lumber, and crops were 

carried down the river in the flood. The flood dealt a huge blow to the canal, destroying miles of the 

canal, marking the beginning of the end of its commercial operation (Smeltzer 63:54). The canal was 

bought by the Reading Railroad in the 1890s and closed by 1900. 

14



The Modern Era (1900 to Present) 

In the early twentieth century, creameries were a significant element of Lancaster’s agricultural economy. 

In 1916 there were 40 creameries in the county. One of the biggest, Farmer’s Creamery, was located in 

Drumore Township (Roddy 1916). Agricultural land use continued into the twentieth century; in 1960, 

Lancaster County was the largest farming county in Pennsylvania with 4,650 farms (Stevens 1964:345). 

In comparison, York County had 2,700 farms, a little more than half of those in Lancaster County 

(Stevens 1964:345). 

The Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad was the principal route for moving freight between points on the 

Pennsylvania Main Line and points on the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington line. Freight trains 

were more efficiently and economically operated through the low grade of the Lower Susquehanna Valley 

rather than the heavier grades used for through passenger service (Burgess and Kennedy 1949:375). The 

Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad was relocated to higher ground from Conestoga Creek Bridge to Safe 

Harbor in 1905–1906 because of construction of the Holtwood Dam and the resulting lake. 

In 1916, the Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad and other lines consolidated into the Philadelphia, 

Baltimore, & Washington Railroad Company, a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company 

(Burgess and Kennedy 1949:375–376; 554). The railroad was relocated between Port Deposit and Fite’s 

Eddy in 1926–1928, when the Conowingo Dam was built. The railroad was electrified in 1938 and then 

de-electrified in the early 1980s. It is still in active service today and owned by the Norfolk/Southern 

Corporation (Smith 1997; Trower 2002). 

Hydroelectric power production facilities were developed beginning in the early 1900s to take advantage 

of the Susquehanna River’s force. In 1904, the York Haven Hydroelectric Station, located at Conewago 

Falls, was opened (Sheets 1991:210). The Holtwood Power Plant, which began operation in 1910, was the 

largest producer of electricity at the time and is still a major producer of electricity for south central 

Pennsylvania (Synder and Boyle 1984). By 1916, there were nine hydroelectric plants in Lancaster 

County (Roddy 1916). The massive Conowingo Dam was built near Darlington, Maryland a short 

distance downstream of the Project between 1926 and 1928 to provide hydroelectric power to supply 

Philadelphia and southeastern Pennsylvania with electricity. (Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway 

2006; MHT Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Form, US 1 over Susquehanna River/Conowingo Dam, 

HA-1971). 

Electricity from the Conowingo plant also powered railroad lines between New York and Washington, 

D.C., and was used for industrial and residential applications. When constructed, Conowingo Dam was 

the second largest hydroelectric development in the United Sates after Niagara Falls (Camden County 

Vocationalite, June 1930). It was and still is the single largest generation station to be built in one step, 

and used the most up-to-date technology, as well as the largest turbines and generators ever produced 

(Maryland Humanities Council 2001:259; Jefferson et al 2007). It is “apparently the first dam, of major 

size, built entirely by chuting concrete” and reportedly the longest slab dam in the United States 

(Maryland State Highway Administration 1997:463). 

Since the end of World War II, the Lancaster and York County areas have developed several residential 

communities. Farmland has declined, population has grown (and continues to grow), and the landscape 

has became more suburban in nature. A recently renewed interest in the region's past has led to physical 

and historical revitalization of the area. In the 1960s, an agreement was passed among Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and New York to begin work on clearing the Susquehanna River of sewage, coal-mining 

seepage, soil runoff, and chemical fertilizers. At the same time, a movement was also taking shape to 

clean up the Chesapeake Bay. 

15



Tourism has also grown in the area, helping to revitalize ailing economies. After World War II, increasing 

numbers of visitors flocked to the Susquehanna River to enjoy boating, fishing, hunting, and other waterrelated 

sports and activities. Because much of the area was unspoiled by development, it presented a 

haven for nature enthusiasts. The rise of the automobile contributed greatly to this tourism boom, 

allowing city dwellers to more easily reach the scenic waters of Maryland. The tourism industry has 

continued to grow to the present day as evidenced by the establishment of summer cottages along the 

Susquehanna River shorelines or on the rivers islands. The cottages were primarily built from the 1940s 

to the 1980s. The seasonal residences can be seen along the shoreline on maps from the Pennsylvania 

Department of Highways, indicated by the black triangles illustrating seasonal or summer colony 

dwellings. The islands were not surveyed for these maps. The 1962 map of Lancaster County shows that 

no waterfront cottages were within the area and the land about to be flooded by the Muddy Run reservoir 

was occupied by farms (Pennsylvania Department of Highways 1962). The 1941 map of York County 

shows a scattering of cottages at the north end of the location of the transmission line (Pennsylvania 

Department of Highways 1941). The construction of the transmission line resulted in the demolition of 

these cottages (Pennsylvania Department of Highways 1965). 

On September 21, 1964, FERC granted PECO a license to construct the Project, a pumped storage 

hydroelectric facility located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Construction commenced that year and 

commercial operation began in 1967. When completed in 1968, the Muddy Run Project was the largest 

pumped-storage facility in the world. The Muddy Run Project electrical machinery was designed by the 

noted engineer Eugene C. Whitney of Westinghouse Electric Company. (Exelon 2009). The Muddy Run 

facility encompasses many components which will be further described in the following chapter. 

16



IV. SURVEY RESULTS 

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCE IN THE PROJECT APE 

Ritchie-Robinson House (PHMC ID #118594) 

The Ritchie-Robinson House is located at 1321 Lay Road in Peach Bottom Township, York County 

(Figure 4-1), with the far southern end of the Project transmission line passing through the property 

(Figures 4-2 and 4-3).Constructed ca. 1846, the 2.5-story, 4-bay main dwelling is set on a stuccoed stone 

foundation and the exterior walls are clad with replacement asbestos shingles. The heavy timber frame 

main block has been impacted by alterations and additions, although a central stone hearth remains. The 

original chimneys have been removed and an off-peak concrete block chimney is present on the north 

elevation. The front elevation retains some early, although not original, 2/2 sash windows. The remaining 

windows have 1/1 sash, including the paired window at the south gable end. The 1-story, full-width 

replacement front porch features a concrete-block foundation, shed roof supported by wood posts and 

balustrade, and is enclosed on the ends. Also on the property are a ca. 1930 dairy barn with ca. 1960 milk 

house, a ca. 1930 chicken coop, a ca. 1930 wagon shed with corn crib addition, two ca. 1960 concrete 

stave silos, a ca. 1940 extended frame pig pen with multiple additions, and modern shed and trailer. All of 

the agricultural buildings are still in use and portions of the land are still used for crop production as well 

as dairy farming. 

NRHP Evaluation: The Ritchie-Robinson House was evaluated by the PHMC in 2001 and determined 

ineligible for NRHP listing. In a letter dated January 6, 2011, the PHMC requested re-evaluating its 

NRHP eligibility based on its current conditions and integrity and utilizing the recently completed York- 

Adams County Diversified Field Crops, Cannery Crops, And Livestock, C. 1750-1960 Multiple Property 

Documentation (MPD) Form (McMurry 2011) to assess its eligibility as part of a possible historic 

agricultural district. 

According to the MPD documentation form, York County developed a farming system focused on small 

farms with greater emphasis than elsewhere on field crops and truck or cannery crops. Four historical 

systems characterized farming in the region. After settlement, came a period of diversified small-scale 

production that lasted from the mid-eighteenth century until about 1830. Between about 1830 and 1885, 

during which the Ritchie-Robinson farm was settled, highly mechanized small farms combined livestock 

and crop production for new, mainly local and regional markets. Between about 1885 and 1940, the 

system reoriented to emphasize cannery crops, orchard products, and poultry farming. Between 1940 and 

1960, more specialized, capital intensive and larger scale farming was accompanied by rapid loss of farms 

and greater reliance on off-farm income (McMurry 2011: 6). 

William Ritchie was born in Lancaster County in 1844 and moved with his family to Peach Bottom in 

1846 where they located on a farm of 46 acres. Ritchie bought the homestead in 1866 upon his father’s 

death and added about 45 acres where he was known to be a successful farmer and also worked in fruit 

canning (Gibson 1886: 168). According to the 1880 US Agricultural Census, William Ritchie owned 98 

acres of land mostly dedicated to raising pigs and poultry and a small number of cattle as well. The main 

crops harvested were corn and wheat, although a small amount of other grains were grown as well. Two 

acres of land were dedicated to an apple orchard and one acre to tobacco production (US Agricultural 

Census 1880: York County, Peach Bottom Township, Page 3, Line 1). 

While renting the farm in 1927, Michael Robinson worked 130 acres and focused primarily on hog 

raising, although there were some chickens and an apple orchard (US Agricultural Census 1927: York 

County, Peach Bottom Township, Page 6, Line 12). The historic aerial images show that this orchard was 

17



reduced in size by 1957 and altogether removed by 1971, when the transmission line was in place 

(Pennsylvania Geological Society 1937-71). 

According to the York-Adams County Diversified Field Crops, Cannery Crops, And Livestock, C. 1750- 

1960 Multiple Property Documentation (MPD) Form, to be considered significant for the period of 

“Diversified Small Scale Farming, Poultry Raising, and Cannery Crops, c. 1885-1940,” a “farmstead 

should include a house typical of the time and place or an older house showing period modifications; an 

older barn showing 20th century adaptations, or a new type such as a stable barn; at least one subsistence 

outbuilding dating from the period or modified during the period; at least one outbuilding showing 

poultry raising, hog raising, dairying, or truck farming; and architectural accommodation for farm 

machinery. The more outbuildings there are which illustrate agricultural diversification, the better. If the 

farm has a history of specializations such as tobacco growing, the buildings should reflect that. A farm 

should have cropland. Remnant field boundaries such as tree lines or fencing are a plus. Landscape 

evidence for truck farming or orcharding is a plus because of its rarity. A historic agricultural district 

should have a more or less contiguous collection of farms representing these features (McMurry 2011: 

120).” 

TRC recommends that the Ritchie-Robinson Farm is not eligible for the NRHP. As most of the buildings 

date from 1930-40, the farm does not possess a strong representation of a range of typical buildings and 

landscape features that illustrate important changes over time in the region’s agricultural history. 

Although the farm and farmstead do include components necessary to be considered significant for the ca. 

1885-1940 time period, the buildings themselves are altered with modern siding and additions and do not 

possess a strong representation of typical buildings from the 1930-1960 time period. Although some of 

the farm remains under cultivation, the farm has been greatly reduced in size compromising the integrity 

of the landscape features. The orchards and most of the fields are no longer extant as they are no longer 

under cultivation and are now part of properties containing modern dwellings. Additionally, upon review 

of the US Agricultural Census, its individual production system does not reflect the average or above 

average production levels in Peach Bottom Township. For these reasons the resource is not eligible under 

Criterion A. 

Neither William Ritchie nor Michael Robinson were persons of historical significance on the local, state, 

or national level, thus the resource is not eligible under Criterion B. The house and/or the outbuildings are 

not eligible under Criterion C, either individually nor as part of any potential historic district. 

Architecturally, the house’s integrity of design, materials, and workmanship have been compromised by 

modern siding and windows, an altered front porch, removal of the chimney, and the large 1920-30 

addition. In May 2011, TRC conducted a windshield survey surrounding the farm to assess the existence 

of a rural historic district according to the guidelines in the National Register Bulletin 30-Guidelines of 

Evaluating and Documenting Rural Landscapes (National Park Service 1989, rev. 1999). Although still 

rural, the house’s vicinity is marked by altered 19 th century dwellings that have lost most of their historic 

outbuildings as well as numerous 20 th century houses (Figures 4-4 and 4-5) replacing the farms and 

houses which appear on the 1860 Schearer and Lake Map and the 1876 Nichols Map of Peach Bottom 

Township. 

18



Figure 4-1. Location of the Muddy Run Project Area and surveyed architectural resources. (USGS 

Topographic Quadrangle, Holtwood 1955, revised 1990) 

19 

Muddy Run Facility 

Ritchie-Robinson Farm 

(PHMC #118594)



Figure 4-2. View of Ritchie-Robinson House, looking southwest. (Source: TRC 2010) 

Figure 4-3. View of Ritchie-Robinson Farm, looking southwest. (Source: TRC 2010) 

20



Figure 4-4. View of ca. 1850 house on Slateville Road, looking southeast. (Source: TRC 2011) 

Figure 4-5. View of modern house and outbuildings on Flintville Road, looking southeast. (Source: 

TRC 2011) 

21



NEWLY RECORDED RESOURCE 

Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility 

On September 21, 1964, FERC granted PECO a license to construct the Muddy Run Project, a pumped 

storage hydroelectric facility located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Commercial operation at Muddy 

Run began on April 10, 1967 when Units 1 and 2 were first commissioned. Units 3 and 4 were brought 

on-line on June 1, 1967. Units 5 and 6 began commercial operation on October 11, 1967. Units 7 and 8 

were placed into commercial operation on February 10, 1968. The Muddy Run powerhouse construction 

was completed in 1968. At its completion, the Muddy Run Project was the largest pumped-storage facility 

in the world. The Muddy Run Project electrical machinery was designed by the noted engineer Eugene C. 

Whitney of Westinghouse Electric Company. (Exelon 2009). The general plant configuration remains the 

same as the original construction. The components of the turbines and generators, however, have been 

replaced or overhauled at various times since 1983. The trash racks in the cylinder gates were replaced in 

2002. 

The Muddy Run Facility encompasses the following major components and the full descriptions can be 

found in the Muddy Run Pre-Application Document for The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project (Exelon 

2009): 

Muddy Run Reservoir (Figure 4-6) 

The upper reservoir is a 1,000-acre body of water impounding approximately 60,000 acres of water at an 

average depth of 60 feet. The upper 50 feet are available for power generation. The maximum elevation 

of the reservoir is 520 feet, which is 410 feet above the normal elevation of Conowingo Pond. 

Main Dam (Figure 4-7) 

Muddy Run reservoir was created by building a rock filled dam with a central impervious core across the 

Muddy Run ravine, approximately 2,500 feet from the Muddy Run Powerhouse. The dam is 4,800 feet 

long and has a maximum height of 260 feet. The crest of the dam has an elevation of 533 feet, is 30 feet 

wide, and is traversed by a 20-foot-wide roadway. 

East Dike 

The east dike is approximately 800 feet long, has a maximum height of about 12 feet, and has a crest 

width of 20 feet. It is a zoned earth and rock fill embankment with an impervious core. 

Recreation Pond Dike 

The recreation pond dike, located in the drainage for the upper reservoir, about two miles upstream of the 

main dam, is a zoned earth and rock fill embankment that forms an 100-acre constant level recreation 

reservoir. The dam is approximately 750 feet long, has a maximum height of about 90 feet, and a crest 

width of 34 feet. 

Canal Embankment 

The canal embankment forms the upper part of the intake channel leading from the upper reservoir to the 

intake structure. The lower part of the channel is excavated in rock. The embankment has a maximum 

height of about 35 feet and a crest width of 30 feet. The upstream face of the embankment and the rock 

cut channel are lined with a 9-inch-thick reinforced concrete slab, extending about 1,000 feet upstream on 

22



both sides of the canal from the cylinder gates. The upstream portion of the canal is an unlined soil and 

rock cut. River Road Bridge crosses this section of the canal. 

Main Spillway 

The spillway for the power reservoir is located on the west side of the intake canal. It is a non-gated, 

concrete, ogee-type structure that is 200 feet long, 20 feet high, has a crest elevation of 521 feet, and 

discharges into a vegetated natural ravine. 

Vehicular Tunnel 

Constructed in 1968 as part of the recreational use plan, a concrete vehicular tunnel is located underneath 

the former Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad line and provides vehicular access to the powerhouse. The 

single-lane tunnel is barrel-shaped with octagon-shaped portal ends and has a clearance of 12-feet. 

The Recreation Pond Spillway 

This consists of a nearly level rock-cut channel approximately 140 feet wide. The spillway is traversed by 

a steel and concrete bridge used for pedestrian traffic and recreation area maintenance vehicles. 

Intake Structure (Figure 4-8) 

The intakes, which admit water for power generation, consist of four cylinder gates with trash racks. Each 

intake supplies two units. Each intake includes a cylindrical tower that leads to a 430-foot-deep vertical 

shaft. The vertical shafts and horizontal power tunnels are concrete lined with a diameter of 24.5 feet. The 

concrete-lined power tunnels bifurcate approximately 500 feet upstream of the powerhouse. Beginning 

approximately 400 feet upstream of the powerhouse, the tunnels transition to 14-foot-diameter steel 

penstocks that continue downstream to connect to one of eight pump turbine units in the powerhouse. 

Powerhouse (Figure 4-9) 

The powerhouse has plan dimensions of approximately 600 feet long by 133 feet wide and is constructed 

entirely of concrete. A gantry crane travels the length of the powerhouse and service bay. The 

powerhouse turbines each have a hydraulic capacity of 4000 cfs, for a total discharge capacity from the 

powerhouse of 32,000 cfs. The pumping capacity of the pump turbines is 3,500 cfs, each from a total 

powerhouse pumping capability of 28,000 cfs. The draft tubes discharge directly to the Susquehanna 

River, adjacent to the powerhouse. The units are equipped with trash racks between the draft tube outlet 

and the river. The electrical generating equipment consists of eight motor-generated units (Exelon 2009). 

Recommendation: The National Register Bulletin 22-Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating 

Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years provides guidance for evaluating 

properties that may be eligible under Criterion Consideration G (properties less than 50 years old):“ the 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation excludes properties that achieved significance within the past 

fifty years unless they are of exceptional importance. Fifty years is a general estimate of the time needed 

to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This consideration guards against the listing 

of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National Register is a list of truly 

historic places. The phrase ‘exceptional importance’ may be applied to the extraordinary importance of an 

event or to an entire category of resources of any age that are unusual. The phrase "exceptional 

importance" does not require that the property be of national significance. It is a measure of a property's 

importance within the appropriate historic context, whether the scale of that context is local, state, or 

National (National Park Service 1979, rev. 1990, 1996, 1998).” 

23



Although it has since been eclipsed in size by other projects, at its completion, the Muddy Run Facility 

was the largest pumped-storage facility in the world. The electrical machinery was designed by the noted 

engineer Eugene C. Whitney of Westinghouse Electric Company, although at this time it is not known if 

the design was unique to the facility or how this facility stands in relationship to Mr. Whitney’s career. 

These two factors suggest that the facility needs further research in order to assess whether the facility is 

of exceptional importance and to assess its eligibility under National Register Criteria A (energy 

production) and C (engineering), Criteria Consideration G, which recognizes significant architectural 

resources less than 50 years old. In accordance with the comments of the PHMC, TRC recommends 

further research and field survey to complete the PHMC Historic Structures Resource (HSR) form for the 

Muddy Run facility and to evaluate its eligibility for the NRHP. 

Figure 4-6. View of Muddy Run Reservoir, looking east. (Source: TRC 2010) 

24



Figure 4-7. View of Muddy Run Main Dam, looking northeast. (Source: TRC 2010) 

Figure 4-8. View of Muddy Run Intake Structures, looking south. (Source: TRC 2010) 

25



Figure 4-9. View of Muddy Run Powerhouse, looking north. (Source: TRC 2010) 

26



REFERENCES CITED 

Atlick, R.D. 1991. Of a Place and Time: Remembering Lancaster. First Published as an Archon Book, an 

imprint of the Shoestring Press, Hamden, CT. 

Bridgens, H. F. 1864. Bridgens’Atlas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. D. S. Bare, Lancaster. 

Burgess and Kennedy. 1949. Centennial History of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Pennsylvania Railroad 

Company, Philadelphia. 

Clare, Israel Smith. 1892. Brief History of Lancaster County: With Special Reference to the Growth and 

Development of its Institutions. Lancaster, PA: Argus Publishing Company. 

Everts & Stewart. 1875. Combination Atlas Map of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Everts & Stewart, 

Philadelphia. 

Exelon. 2009. Muddy Run Pre-Application Document for The Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project. 


Fortenbaugh, R. 1950. Highlights in the Growth of Adams County, in Souvenir Program Commemorating 

the 150th Anniversary of the Founding of Adams County. York County Historical Society. 

Gibson, J. 1886. A Biographical History of York County Pennsylvania. F.A. Battery Publishing Company, 

Chicago. 

Hershner, Ronald L. 1977. The Fertile Barrens: Land and Property in Eighteenth-Century Southeastern 

York County. Paper submitted to Dickinson College Dept. of History. MS on file at Martin 

Memorial Library, York, Pennsylvania. 

Hilton, G.W. 1963. The Ma and Pa: A History of the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad. Berkeley, 

California: Howell-North. 

Jefferson, K., A. McNichol, Z. Wolf, and I. Wuebber. 2007. Cultural Resource Surveys for Exelon’s 

FERC Relicensing of Conowingo and Muddy Run Pumped Storage Facility, Lancaster and York 

Counties, Pennsylvania, Cecil and Harford Counties, Maryland. URS Corporation, Burlington, 

New Jersey. Report submitted to Exelon, Inc. 

Kessler,C.H. 1975. Lancaster in the Revolution. Sutler House, Lititz, Pennsylvania. 

Lestz, G. 1998. A Brief History of Lancaster County. John Baer’s Sons. 

Logan, E. 1990. History of Southern Lancaster County: 1729-1991. Devon, Pennsylvania, William T. 

Cooke. 

Loose, J.W. 1976. Revolutionary Lancaster: The Military Market Basket, edited by Joseph E. Walker, 

Lancaster County Bicentennial Committee, Inc. Lancaster. 

Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway. 2006. History of the Lower Susquehanna Region. Electronic 

Document. URL: http://www.hitourtrails.com/history.html. Accessed November 11, 2010. 

27



Maryland Historical Society. 2011. J. Gilman D'arcy Paul Collection. Electronic files, 

http://archive.mdhs.org/library/fotofind/PP0078lnk.html, accessed September 2011. 

Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad Historical Society. 2007. About the Maryland and Pennsylvania 

Railroad. Web site devoted to the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad. Electronic document, 

www.maparailroadhist.org, accessed November 1, 2010. 

McMurry, Sally. 2011. York-Adams County Diversified Field Crops, Cannery Crops, And Livestock, C. 

1750-1960 Multiple Property Documentation Form. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission, Harrisburg. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1975. National Register Bulletin 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis 

for Preservation Planning. Washington, D.C. Revised 1985. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1979. National Register Bulletin 22, Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. Washington, 

D.C. Revised 1990, 1996, 1998. 

National Park Service (NPS). 1999. National Register Bulletin 30, Guidelines of Evaluating and 

Documenting Rural Landscapes. Washington, D.C. Revised 1999. 

Nichols, Beach. 1876. Atlas of York County, Pennsylvania. Pomeroy, Whitman and Company, 

Philadelphia. 

Pennsylvania Department of Highways. 1941. Highway Map of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Department of Highways. 1962. Highway Map of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Department of Highways. 1965. Highway Map of York County, Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania Geological Society. 1937-71. Historic Aerial Photographs of Pennsylvania. Electronic files, 

http://www.pennpilot.psu.edu/, accessed September 1, 2011. 

Prowell, G.R. 1907. History of York County 2 vols., J.H. Beers and Co., Chicago. 

Roddy, H. J. 1916. Physical and Industrial Geography of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Electronic 

document, www.heritagequestonline.com, accessed May 24, 2010. 

Rupp, D.I. 1845. History of York County. Gilbert Hills, proprietor and publisher, Lancaster City, PA. 

Sara, T., E. Jenkins, G. Henry, J. Mundt, P. Walters, and R. Wall. 2011. Phase IA Archaeological Study 

and Preliminary Historic Structures Assessment Report for the Muddy Run Pumped Storage 

Relicensing Application Project. Submitted to Exelon Generation Company, LLC. 

Shank, W.H. 1988. The History of the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal. Available at Maryland Historic 

Trust- Harford County files. 

Sheets, G.R. 1991. To the Setting of the Sun: The Story of York. Windsor Publications. 

Smeltzer, G. 1963. Canals Along the Lower Susquehanna (1796 to 1900). York: Historical Society of 

York County, Pennsylvania. 

28



Smith, B.F. 1997.The Columbia and Port Deposit Branch aka “The Port Road.” Electronic document, 

http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/BFSpages/PRR/C&PD.html, accessed November 1, 

2010. 

Snyder, J. J., Jr., and E. F.Boyle. 1984. PHMC Historic Resources Survey Form, Holtwood Power Plant, 

July 1984. 

Stevens, S. K. 1964. Pennsylvania: Birthplace of a Nation. Random House, New York. 

Stranahan, S. Q. 1993. Susquehannna River of Dreams. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, 

Maryland. 

Trower, J. 2002. History of the Columbia & Port Deposit Railroad. Penny Under the Wires. Electronic 

document, http://www.chescweb.com/prr/cpd.html, accessed November 1, 2010. 

United States Agricultural Census. 1880. Federal Decennial Census: York County, Peach Bottom 

Township. National Archives, Washington; Record Group 029, National Archives and Records 

Service, General Services Administration. 

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/agricultural_census_information/2586, 

accessed September 1, 2011 

United States Agricultural Census. 1927 . Farm Census Returns: York County, Peach Bottom Township. 

Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg; record Group 1, Records of the Department of 

Agriculture; Division of Crop Reporting. 

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/agricultural_census_information/2586, 

accessed September 1, 2011 

United States Geological Survey. 1955 Holtwood Quadrangle, revised 1990 

Wilner, A.M. 1984. The Maryland Board of Public Works: A History. (Annapolis: Hall of Records 

Commission). From Archives of Maryland Online . Accessed December 19, 2006. 

Wood, J.H., Jr. 1979. Conestoga Crossroads: Lancaster, Pennsylvania 1730-1790. Pennsylvania 

Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 

29



APPENDIX A - PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION 

CORRESPONDENCE


Lancaster and York Counties, Pennsylvania

















APPENDIX B: QUALIFICATIONS OF THE RESEARCHERS



Geoffrey B. Henry, M.A.(Architectural Historian) has over 25 years of experience in the fields of cultural 

resources, architectural history, and historic preservation. His responsibilities have included managing 

and directing large-scale architectural identification and evaluation surveys; producing eligibility and 

effect determinations; mitigation of adverse effects; and Section 106 compliance documentation. 

Additionally he has compiled HABS/HAER documentation; written National Register nominations for 

individual resources and historic districts; researched and written historic contexts, and prepared historic 

architectural guidelines on projects throughout the Mid-Atlantic. 

Ellen Jenkins, B.S. (Preservation Planner and Archeologist) possesses an academic background from the 

University of Virginia in both archaeology and architectural history. She has for the past seven years 

conducted large-scale architectural surveys; producing eligibility and effect determinations; mitigation of 

adverse effects; and Section 106/110 and 4(f) Compliance-Related Surveys and Evaluations. Additionally 

she has compiled HABS/HAER documentation; written National Register nominations including historic 

districts in Washington DC, New York, and Virginia; researched and written historic contexts for both 

architectural and archaeological resources; and is proficient with all phases of database management for 

cultural resource projects. Ms. Jenkins has worked on projects across the East Coast. These projects 

involved work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Pennsylvania, the Maryland State 

Highway Administration in Maryland, and large scale architectural surveys for municipalities and privatesector 

clients in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

Final Report Historical Structures Assessment Report for the Muddy ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?