APPENDIX E1

SHPO, ACHP, DRPT, AND FRA MEETING 

SUMMARIES
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

DHR Project Update (DHR Project #2014-0666)

February 13, 2018; 12:00pm

Agenda & Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Marc Holma- DHR

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- HDR/Project Team

Steve Walter- Parsons/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/ Project Team

1) DEIS Update (Steve, Emily, and Kerri)

- Publication and hearings

- Summary of public comments

- Summary of consulting party comments

2) Preferred Alternative and CTB Decision (Carey and Emily)

- General description

- Fredericksburg

- Ashland

- Richmond

3) Cultural Resource Studies (Kerri)

- Summary of data presented in DEIS

- Description of 2018 studies

- Schedule

- Milestones/Deadlines

4) Next Steps (Kerri and Carey)

- Cultural resource studies

- Consulting party meetings

- FEIS (including supplemental info on F’burg, Ashland, and Shockoe)

- MOA

- ROD
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

5) Questions and Answers on Agenda Items and Project as a Whole (all)

Beyond the items listed in the agenda and described as such, the following questions/topics were 

discussed:

Marc asked about the comments received on the DEIS, in particular Ashland. Were the comments about 

the historic district or the project in general? Steve replied that most were concerned with their own 

property but a few individuals did mention cultural resources in their reply. 

Steve went on to say that the comments were as expected regarding areas of potential controversy such 

as Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond. Those who lived along the proposed bypass in Ashland 

preferred the through-town alternative and those in town preferred the bypass. No one really thought 

the Fredericksburg bypass was the way to go. In Richmond, concerns revolved around the Sacred 

Ground site near Main Street Station as well as making sure the preferred alternative fit within the 

larger city plans/initiatives.

Kerri gave everyone minutes from the consulting party meetings held in the fall of 2017 and summarized 

the main consulting party concerns: 1) Several wanted to assure that noise and vibration studies were 

included in the environmental analysis and the team confirmed that they were; 2) some asked about 

cumulative effects (i.e., if you build it, they will come; thus, the rail will bring development) and the 

team and FRA state that cumulative development is not part of the current project. She also brought up 

a few specific items that were mentioned by consulting parties that she wanted DHR to be aware of:

 Ashland Museum does not agree with the recommendations of the project team, the 

consultants hired by Ashland to do a cost share survey of the same area (Commonwealth), 

or the DHR’s determinations on eligibility. 

 Prince William County asked that the team take a look at Rippon Lodge and see if it should 

be included in the APE. Benjamin Latrobe sketched the view down Neabsco Creek during his 

visit in the early 19th century. In response to this inquiry, the team did go to Rippon Lodge 

and the project area is clearly visible. This resource is being added to the APE/list of historic 

properties even though it is outside of the 500-foot buffer.

 ABPP requested that KOKOA analysis be done on all battlefields. The team asked the DHR if 

this was required. A discussion on the project components/impacts ensued, and the DHR 

stated that KOKOA was not needed at this time due to the parameters of the undertaking 

and the fact that the rail is eligible under Criterion A.

 It was also mentioned that the ACHPO has decided that they want to be involved in this 

project despite previously signing an umbrella PA stating that they would not be involved. A 

meeting will be held in the near future, and all parties will be invited. 

The conversation then turned to Shockoe Bottom. Carey presented details on the Urban Land Institute 

project that had been completed the week before and explained both the potential impacts in this area 

because of the DC2RVA project as well as the efforts that the team has taken to assure that significant 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

resources would be avoided. One of these items is the inclusion of a special chapter in the Final EIS 

describing work done here to date, the importance of the area, and measures taken to minimize 

impacts. Marc said this sounded logical. Plans were reviewed, and Marc said that it would be wise to 

avoid bringing the Main Street Station platforms north of Broad Street as the potential to impact 

resources through the construction of additional structures as well as intrusions to visual elements 

dramatically increases in this area. 

A schedule of upcoming cultural resource tasks was disseminated and discussed, and Marc agreed to 

help out as he can with expedited reviews based on the schedule as presented. This notably includes a 

preliminary review of resources being recorded at the Phase I level that would need Phase II evaluations 

and a meeting to discuss project effects followed by a concurrence letter. He asked if the MOA would be 

done prior to the FEIS, and the team said no. It would be done between the FEIS and ROD. Kerri said she 

would give Marc and the DHR as much of a heads-up as possible prior to a report landing on their desk 

for review.

In a discussion on next steps, Kerri mentioned that the six new federally recognized tribes had been 

invited to participate as consulting parties and she would let the DHR know if any accepted. Additional 

consulting party meetings will be held this summer once the additional studies are done. Future DHR 

consultation meetings will be held in June or July regarding project effects and this fall to discuss the 

MOA. 

Steve indicated that our current schedule includes publication of the Final EIS in September of this year 

and the Record of Decision (ROD) approximately two months later in November. We committed to 

keeping Marc and the DHR informed of the progress towards these dates.

The meeting ended at 1:15pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

DHR Project Effects Meeting (DHR Project #2014-0666)

June 19, 2018; 1:00 pm

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

Marc Holma- DHR

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Steve Walter- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Heather Staton- Project Team

1) Update on Current Project Status (Emily)

2) Summary of Cultural Resource Studies (Kerri)

- 2018 Technical Reports

- List of Historic Properties

3) Project Effect (Marc and Team)

4) Next Steps (Kerri, Steve, and Carey)

- Effect Letter for Signature

- Consulting Party Meetings

- MOA Production

- FEIS Completion

- ROD
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

DHR Project Update (DHR Project #2014-0666)

July 2, 2018; 9:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Marc Holma- DHR

John Winkle- FRA

Emily Stock- DRPT

Steve Walter- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Heather Staton- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

1) Consulting Party Update= Kerri Barile provided a general update of the three consulting party 

meetings held in June 2018. Marc asked questions on general tone and content.

2) Mt. Vernon Highway/Long Bridge study= Emily Stock provided an update on the two projects to start 

a dialogue on how they are connected. They are independent projects but do have connections. Long 

Bridge will be done first. DC2RVA can function without Long Bridge being done, though. 

- Discussion moved to cultural resources, and Kerri Barile mentioned overall SEHSR PA, which included 

both Long Bridge and DC2RVA. Marc Holma asked if ACHP is okay with them being done separately, and 

Kerri mentioned that they signed the PA which stated that this could occur. John Winkle said he would 

follow up with FRA Long Bridge lead to make sure communication is open. 

- Marc Holma said he received a call from Matt Virta with the GW Parkway, and he suggested we get 

Matt additional information.

3) Mason’s Hall in Richmond= Due to consulting party concerns, Mason’s Hall was added to the APE. It 

is located on the edge of the indirect APE to the east of Main Street Station. Maps were shared and a 

brief discussion ensued. Kerri Barile stated that a revised effect letter would be heading to DHR with this 

data in the coming week. 

4) Shockoe Area= Group had a long dialogue on the consulting party meetings, idea of a Traditional 

Cultural Property, and project avoidance and mitigation. Role of the City of Richmond was also 

discussed. John Winkle described FRA’s legal obligations as viewed through 106/4(f) lens. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Marc Holma suggested a more thorough dialogue with the City of Richmond on this area to understand 

what they have done and what they intend to do from a CR perspective. 

- Regarding proposed park, John Winkle stated that FRA looks at what is planned and funded. 

- Of specific interest during the call were the two sites associated with the slave trade that are near the 

project but not within the archaeological APE. Should they be included? Should they be considered 

eligible under both A and D?

- All parties agreed to continue the dialogue on all of these areas with project participants and outside 

groups. 

The meeting ended at 9:45am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

DHR Shockoe Update (DHR Project #2014-0666)

July 24, 2018; 1:30pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Marc Holma- DHR

Roger Kirchen- DHR

Sarah Stokley- ACHP

Emily Stock- DRPT

Steve Walter- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Held call regarding the ongoing dialogues regarding Shockoe Bottom. In particular, the consulting party 

meetings and National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) letter (dated July 20) were discussed. 

- DHR shared general thoughts on the Shockoe items as stated by both Marc and Roger as well 

as Julie Langan, the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

- Lumpkins Jail= All concurred it should be evaluated under Criterion A as well as D.

- APE should not be expanded but rather dialogue on resources and eligibility will cover this 

issue.

- Dialogue on Memorial Park and City plans

- Additional consultation with NTHP and other consulting parties should occur.

- An on-site meeting would be helpful to understand scope.

- Should this area be considered a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP)? Under debate. 

Dialogue included discussions on mitigation for effects. Preliminary concepts were floated around but it 

was agreed to hold off on more thorough conversations until after additional consultation. 

The meeting ended at 2:00pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

DHR Shockoe Update (DHR Project #2014-0666)

July 26, 2018; 1:30pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Marc Holma- DHR

John Winkle- FRA

Emily Stock- DRPT

Nick Ruiz- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Steve Walter- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Held additional call regarding the ongoing dialogues regarding Shockoe Bottom including more on the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) letter (dated July 20).

DHR confirmed that there is no recorded archaeological district in Shockoe regarding the slave trade at 

this time. In addition, archaeology done to date on burial site has not revealed any burials. Archaeology 

has been done on Lumpkins Jail, but it was never evaluated for the NRHP. If it was evaluated, it would 

likely be eligible under A and D. As such, DHR suggests adding Lumpkins to the indirect APE but not 

adding the burial ground.

John Winkle stated that the FRA will assure that the process is followed but is letting DHR take the lead 

on eligibility and APE. 

Regarding Lumpkins, DHR suggested evaluating its setting and feeling to determine effects. DHR and FRA 

discussed induced impacts and its potential place (or not) in the process. This is particularly true for 4(f). 

A long dialogue on the project and 4(f) ensued. 

DHR reiterated that the APE should not be expanded (here or elsewhere) unless it is justified but to be 

sure that all criteria are evaluated. 

All concurred that consultation should be ongoing with all MOA signatories as well as all consulting 

parties and vested groups. A broad conversation is imperative. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

DHR stated that a second amendment to the project effects should be submitted once the roster of 

historic properties is finalized. 

The meeting ended at 2:00pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

ACHP Shockoe Update 

July 27, 2018; 8:30am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Sarah Stokely- ACHP

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Held additional call regarding the ongoing dialogues regarding Shockoe Bottom including more on the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) letter (dated July 20).

Sarah discussed the Memorial Park and Shockoe in general. Kerri Barile answered questions on various 

groups, ongoing consultation, and the history of the area. It was agreed that the NTHP may help 

facilitate dialogues with various groups in this area. The ACHP wants to continue to be involved in any 

future dialogues. 

APE was discussed including how it was defined, modifications over time due to project changes and 

consulting party comments, and where it currently stands. ACHP concurs with DHR that the APE was 

done accurately and has been modified appropriately. It is possible that resources may be considered in 

the APE for various criteria, so will keep an eye out for that. 

Sarah asked for additional information on the identification-level studies. Kerri Barile provided this data. 

The topic commenced as a general dialogue but then narrowed to Shockoe. ACHP concurred that the 

level of effort is commiserate with the undertaking. They emphasized the importance of this area. 

Project team concurs. 

It was discussed that future meetings should include additional dialogues on Traditional Cultural 

Properties, memorialization, and, importantly, the City of Richmond’s plans for the area. 

Sarah asked if any comparable TCPs had been found. Kerri said not to date. 

A dialogue followed on indirect v. cumulative effects including the nature and scale of the undertaking 

and what is a reasonable and foreseeable impact based on this. 

The meeting ended at 9:00am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

FRA TCP Update 

July 31, 2018; 2:00pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Held call with FRA to discuss the definition of a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and how this concept 

may or may not relate to the Shockoe area and the slave trade. 

Kerri Barile provided an update on the various calls with DHR and ACHP over the past few weeks as well 

as summarizing the issues at hand. John Winkle asked if the project would be physically impacting the 

sites, and Kerri said no. A dialogue on expanding eligibility to include Criterion A ensued. The discussion 

included TCPs, existing districts in Shockoe and how various sites fit/don’t fit in the districts. 

All agreed that an on-site meeting would help answer questions. Consulting parties and other vested 

groups should be invited. A discussion on the previous calls and meetings and future calls and meetings 

were discussed to assure appropriate and thorough public outreach. 

The meeting ended at 2:30pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

FRA Shockoe Update 

August 3, 2018; 2:00pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Marc Holma- DHR

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Held call with DHR to discuss ACHP and FRA calls on Shockoe Bottom. 

DHR and ACHP held a call as well to assure process is followed, and they both concur that it has. 

Marc and Kerri discussed next steps with eligibility and effect based on feedback, including what sites to 

add to the APE, which ones to not include, the area as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), and role of 

FRA, ACHP, DHR and consulting parties. 

Marc stated that the DHR is having additional meetings on the TCP concern and would have an answer 

for the team next week. 

The DHR concurred that Lumpkins Jail should be considered to be eligible under A and D. 

Paths forward were discussed including a multitude of scenarios. Kerri also provided an update on the 

various meetings in the works, including a meeting with the City of Richmond and the on-site consulting 

party meeting.

The meeting ended at 2:30pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Virginia Secretary of Transportation Update 

September 5, 2018; 8:30am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Secretary Valentine

Julie Langan- DHR

Jennifer Mitchell- DRPT

Mayor Stony- City of Richmond

1 ) Introductions

2) DC2RVA Section 106 Background

3) Joint Response to National Trust’s Consulting Party Comment

4) Nex Steps- DC2RVA On-Site Consulting Party Meeting at Shockoe Bottom

The meeting ended at 9:30am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Signtories Update 

October 2, 2018; 9am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Sarah Stokely- ACHP

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Absent= Marc Holma- DHR

Kerri Barile provided an overview of the three upcoming consulting party meetings- one in DC, one in 

Fredericksburg, and one in Richmond. The Richmond meeting has an on-site component. Sarah Stokely

asked if she should attend the DC meeting; Kerri stated that the Richmond meeting was likely more 

crucial given the issues there.

Kerri Barile provided an update on various issues as provided to her by Marc Holma at the DHR (since he 

couldn’t be on the call). She also provided some preliminary thoughts on the cadence of the meeting in 

Richmond. Team concurred with agenda organization and suggested sending the agenda out in advance. 

All agreed that there are two goals of the meeting: to provide data on the project including a visual 

reference for the minimal project impacts and to gather feedback from consulting parties on historic 

properties, effects, and significance. It is important that invitees can voice their thoughts. Consultation 

allows all parties to bring up issues.

John Winkle stated that he will be in attendance and help answer questions from a FRA perspective but 

he was going to let the cultural resource team take priority.

The dialogue also included information on a response to the National Trust’s letter. Emily Stock stated 

that it is in progress and the City’s letter on preservation in the area is forthcoming. The group discussed 

several items presented in their letter, including APE, Traditional Cultural Properties, and indirect v. 

cumulative effects. 

Sarah Stokely stated that work to date has included all reasonable and foreseeable impacts and has met 

106. The team should continue good will efforts to understand all impacts outside of the current project 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

for context. Emily Stock concurred and said that continuing a good dialogue with the City is very 

important as well as hearing from VDOT and local groups on their plans for the area. 

Sarah Stokely followed up by asking information on other projects that we know of that are slated for 

the area. Emily Stock and Carey Burch provided data. The team also specifically discussed the status of 

the Memorial Park project so we can be aware of the parameters prior to our meeting. 

Kerri Barile said she will provide copies of handouts and agenda to signatories before the 

Shockoe/Richmond meeting.

The meeting ended at 9:45am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Signatories Update (DHR, ACHP, FRA, DRPT)

October 23, 2018; 2:00pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Marc Holma- DHR

Sarah Stokley- ACHP

Jaime Lochinger- ACHP

(absent John Winkle- FRA)

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

- Held call to provide a summary on the consulting party meetings held in October, including in-person 

meetings and conference calls, and finalize determinations on several key issues. 

- Kerri Barile provided a summary of the issues at hand and meetings. She included a summary that all 

dialogues held to date suggest including Lumpkins Jail and the Graveyard for Free People of Color and 

Slaves (off Hospital Street) in the list of historic properties and assuming eligibility of both resources 

under Criteria A and D. The Burial Ground for Negros (located NW of Main Street Station) is not being 

included as there is no evidence of the site. Marc Holma asked for a clarification on the DHR’s eligibility 

position regarding the Graveyard for Free People of Color and Slaves, and Kerri Barile stated that it was 

recorded during the archaeological study for the project in 2018 and the team stated that the resource 

is potentially eligible but the portion of the site within the APE does not contribute to the overall 

eligibility. Regardless, the team has elected to assume eligibility for the whole site at the request of the 

consulting parties. The DHR concurred. Sarah Stokley confirmed that both sites would be eligible under 

A as well as D and said that this approach sounded outstanding. Jaime Lochinger said she was happy to 

hear this outcome and it makes sense.

- Sarah Stokley followed with additional questions on how the integrity of Lumpkins Jail was evaluated. 

Kerri Barile outlined the archaeological work to date and the viewshed images collected. Kerri Barile and 

Marc Holma also brought up NPS archaeological Bulletin and how it was carefully examined for sites 

eligible under criteria other than D.

- Marc Holma brought up the Burial Ground for Negros again and asked if the ACHP concurred that it 

should not be included in the APE. Jaime Lochinger stated that if there is a rational backing for this 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

decision and it was made in good faith, which it sounds like it was, then they are good with it. Sarah 

Stokley asked for a reminder on whether or not the piers are visible from this resource. Marc Holma said 

they are not. Sarah Stokley suggested that we provide a map showing the site, APE and info on visuals 

on why this site was not included as it is not visible from the project limits of disturbance. 

- Kerri Barile followed up with additional data beyond viewshed, stating again that there is no physical 

evidence of the Burial Ground despite numerous attempts to locate it. Marc Holma concurred and said 

that VDOT has specifically looked for it at least three times and has found no evidence. 

- To summarize dialogue on APE, Kerri Barile asked if the ACHP and DHR are good with the APE as 

defined. Both stated that they are as it sounds like it was determined reasonably and with good faith.

- Sarah Stokley asked if there would be a conference call with the NTHP. Kerri Barile said yes. Once a 

reply letter goes to the NTHP, would have a call with them, Preservation Virginia, and HRF as they have a 

stake in Shockoe. Kerri has reached out to all other consulting parties individually to talk about the 

mitigation.

- Regarding Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), Jaime Lochinger said that the team is already looking 

at this area as a historic district, as it is part of the Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row HD and all sites are 

being assumed to contribute to the eligibility of the district. If the area is not being defined as a TCP, just 

need to be sure to state this and why not clearly to all consulting parties. Sarah Stokley followed up that 

this is one of many comments brought up by consulting parties and we should handle it like other 

comments. Present info on why it was considered and the outcome of the analysis with a determination. 

- Marc Holma stated that the DHR still believed that it does not qualify.

- Sarah Stokley said that considering sites under Criterion A and assuming that they contribute to the 

existing district makes sure that they are considered in the dialogue and 106 process and addresses 

concerns raised by consulting parties. This is a good faith effort. Both she and Marc Holma said it is up to 

FRA and DRPT at this point to craft their argument and present it for their concurrence. But this issue 

needs to be decided now; it cannot be mitigation. 

- Sarah Stokley then asked for a broader dialogue on indirect and cumulative effects. Emily Stock and 

Kerri Barile discussed the City’s letter and their projects in this area. Jaime Lochinger said all dialogues 

should be documented in an administrative record to show due diligence. 

- Kerri Barile summarized next steps= letter to National Trust as a reply, conference call regarding 

Shockoe, information on final list of historic properties to all consulting parties, revised effect to DHR. 

Jaime Lochinger asked if consulting parties have received any effect documents to date, and Kerri Barile 

said yes. They received the original letter sent in June and the addendum sent in July. They will also get 

this second addendum. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Regarding effects, Jaime asked if we are doing an overall project effect or property by property. Kerri 

Barile and Marc Holma said both and described the process they have been using for Virginia rail. Jaime 

said she is relieved and thankful for the extensive and ongoing consultation between the team and the 

DHR. 

The meeting ended at 3pm.