D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY & 

PREDICTIVE MODEL, SEGMENTS 

ROAFശBBHW ΈSEGMENTS 1ͳ20Ή

Rͳ17
July 14, 2015

Archaeological Background Review and   

Predictive Model  

Washington, D.C. to Richmond

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor
Archaeological Background Review and Predictive Model 

for the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia, 

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor 

by

Mike Klein, Emily Calhoun, Marco González, and Earl E. Proper 

Prepared for 

Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 

801 E. Main Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Prepared by 

DC2RVA Project Team 

600 E. Main Street, Suite 2102 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

July 2015

Kerri S. Barile, Principal Investigator July 2015
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail i Archaeological Predictive Model 

ABSTRACT 

The proposed Washington, D.C. to Richmond (DC2RVA) segment of the Southeast High Speed 

Rail project was examined through an archaeological background review and predictive model 

of archaeological site locations. This work will serve to guide subsequent Phase I cultural 

resource surveys. The proposed project is being completed under the auspice of the Federal Rail 

Administration (FRA) in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT). Because of the FRA’s involvement, the undertaking is required to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The project is being completed as Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (DHR) File Review #2014-0666. 

Previous studies throughout the region provided a basis for projection of relative probability of 

discovering terrestrial archaeological sites using standard Phase I survey techniques in the 

DC2RVA project corridor. Environmental variables included distance to major drainages, soil 

fertility as reflected in the Soil Conservation Service’s identification of soil classes, and 

disturbance evident on aerial images of the project corridor. Aspects of the built environment 

also used as variables included the georeferenced location of historic roads and National Park 

Service (NPS) historic trails that crossed the DC2RVA corridor. Documentary research provided 

information on previously identified architectural and archaeological resources, Revolutionary 

War and Civil War camps depicted on period maps, and the American Battlefield Protection 

Program-defined location of Civil War battlefields. Together, these data allowed the prediction 

of the settings characterized by a high, moderate, and low probability of discovering 

archaeological sites, as well as areas where previous disturbance, development, previous 

archaeological survey, or soil attributes indicate that archaeological sites will not be discovered 

in these areas. Those areas where previous disturbance or soil attributes indicate that 

archaeological sites will not be discovered are not given a probability ranking 

For the purposes of the predictive model, the area of potential effects (APE) was defined as a 

linear corridor that extends 50 feet (15.2 m) on both sides of the center of the existing 123-mile 

(198-km) project corridor, an area encompassing 2,109.5 acres (853.7 ha). The proposed 

DC2RVA project is expected to primarily impact near-surface resources; for this reason, the 

predictive model does not include deep testing. It is recommended that 90 percent (1,890.8 

acres [765.2 ha]) of the 2,109.5-acre (853.7-ha) APE should not be tested due to previous 

archaeological survey meeting DHR standards or its location outside of even the lowestranked probability areas. The results reflect the extensive development in Fairfax County and 

the cities of Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Richmond, as well as the construction and 

maintenance of the existing rail corridor. Of the remaining 218.7 acres (88.5 ha), 156.8 (63.4 ha) 

were classified as high probability, 46.9 acres (19 ha) as moderate probability, and 15.0 acres (6.1 

ha) as low probability. It is recommended that all of the high and moderate probability areas, 

a total of 203.7 acres (82.4 ha), and a 10 percent sample of the low probability area 

(approximately 1.5 acres [0.6 ha]) be subjected to shovel test pit and metal detector survey, 

where appropriate. The areas recommended for testing occur primarily in the less developed 
A B S T R A C T

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail ii Archaeological Predictive Model 

segments located between Fredericksburg and Richmond. Additionally, it is recommended that 

all sites within the APE previously determined eligible or potentially eligible for listing on 

the NRHP as well as those sites that have not been evaluated by the DHR should be 

reexamined regardless of their probability ranking/location within the probability model. 

After reexamination, these resources should be evaluated as necessary in coordination with 

DHR.
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iii Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abstract......................................................................................................................................................... i 

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... iii

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1-6

2. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Scale ............................................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Archaeology Survey Methods .................................................................................................. 2-2

3. BACKGROUND REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Battlefields Located Within the Study Area ........................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Civil War Occupation of the Potomac Valley and Central Virginia .................... 3-1

3.1.2 American Battlefield Protection Program Maps ..................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Revolutionary War Rochambeau Maps ................................................................... 3-6

3.2.2 Historic Roads .............................................................................................................. 3-8

3.3 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within the APE ................................................ 3-9

3.4 Previously Identified Architectural Resources .................................................................... 3-11

4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL ....................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Archaeological Settlement Models .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Precontact and Protohistoric Settlement Models .................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Historic Settlement Models ........................................................................................ 4-4

4.2 Implementation and Results of the Predictive Model .......................................................... 4-6

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 5-1

6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 6-1

APPENDIX A: PREDICTIVE MODEL MAP RESULTS ................................................................... A-1
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iv Archaeological Predictive Model 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1-1: Overview of the SEHSR Corridor. .............................................................................. 1-2

Figure 1-2: Overview of the DC2RVA Project Corridor. ............................................................. 1-4

Figure 1-3: Overview of the DC2RVA Project Segments. ........................................................... 1-5

Figure 3-1: Example Rochambeau Camp Map, Detail of Alexandria Camp 

(Rochambeau 1782a) ..................................................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3-2: Detail from Map of the northern portion of Hanover County, Va., showing 

fortifications on the South Anna River near Taylorsville Illustrating the 

Location of Railroads, Roads, Hotels, Mills, Stores, and Residents 

(Anonymous 186-) ........................................................................................................ 3-9

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3-1: Battlefields in the Project Area and ABPP-Defined Locations ............................... 3-2

Table 3-2: Georeferenced Historical Maps .................................................................................. 3-4

Table 3-3: Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Located Within the APE .................. 3-10

Table 3-4: Architectural Resources in the Project Area ............................................................ 3-12

Table 3-5: Previously Conducted cultural resource surveys adjacent to the 

DC2RVA corridor ....................................................................................................... 3-21

Table 4-1: SCS (2013) Soil Class Definitions ................................................................................ 4-4

Table 4-2: Archaeological Predictive Model Results .................................................................. 4-8

Table 4-3: Archaeological Predictive Model Results by Area ................................................... 4-9
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-1 Archaeological Predictive Model 

INTRODUCTION 

Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted an archaeological background review 

and predictive model of the Washington, D.C. to Richmond (DC2RVA) segment of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail project (SEHSR) corridor for the Virginia Department of Rail and 

Public Transportation (DRPT). The project included an archaeological background review of the 

DC2RVA corridor as well as a probability-based archaeological predictive model. The project is 

being completed as Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) File #2014-666. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and DRPT propose passenger rail service and rail 

infrastructure improvements in the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, VA. These passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are 

collectively known as the DC2RVA project. The Project will deliver higher speed passenger rail 

service, increase passenger and freight rail capacity, and improve passenger rail service 

frequency and reliability in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and 

freight rail traffic, thereby providing a competitive option for travelers going between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond and those traveling to and from adjacent connecting corridors. 

The Project is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor (Figure 1-1), which 

extends from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, VA, and from Richmond continues east to 

Hampton Roads (Norfolk), VA and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then 

continues west to Atlanta and south to Florida. The Project connects to the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) at Union Station in Washington, 

D.C. 

The purpose of the SEHSR program, as stated in the 2002 Tier I Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) completed for the full SEHSR corridor, is to provide a competitive 

transportation choice to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. The 

purpose of the current Washington, D.C. to Richmond SEHSR project described here is to fulfill 

the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within this segment of the larger SEHSR corridor. The 

Project, by increasing rail capacity and improving travel times between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, will improve passenger train performance and reliability in the corridor, enabling 

intercity passenger rail to be a competitive transportation choice for travelers between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond. 

Given FRA’s funding involvement and permitting through various other federal agencies, the 

Project is required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended, and its implementing regulations under 36CFR800. Additionally, all cultural 

resource work was designed to comply with the Virginia Antiquities Act (Code of Virginia § 

10.1-2300) and guidelines and regulations promulgated by the DHR as necessary. 

1
!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Centralia !(

Atlanta

Raleigh

Columbia

Richmond

Charlotte

Jacksonville

Washington D.C.

Cary

Jesup

Taccoa

Durham

Denmark

Savannah

Gastonia

Salisbury

Greensboro

Burlington

Petersburg

Gainesville

Spartansburg

Hampton Roads

Fredericksburg

Kannapolis

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\Dovetail Figures\Fig1-1_SEHSRCorridor_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.11.2015

Overview of the

SEHSR Corridor

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 40 80

Miles

Basemap Source: 2014

ESRI World Light Gray Base

Figure 1-1

1 inch=80 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Southeast High

Speed Rail (SEHSR)

Segment Status

Charlotte to

Atlanta

Tier I EIS

Washington

D.C. to

Richmond

Tier II EIS

Richmond to

Raleigh

Tier II EIS

Raleigh to

Charlotte

Richmond to

Hampton

Roads

Tier I EIS

SEHSR

Extended

Feasibility Studies

Complete
I N T R O D U C T I O N 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-3 Archaeological Predictive Model 

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION 

The Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor spans 123 miles (198 km) along an existing rail 

corridor owned by CSX Transportation (CSXT) between Control Point RO (milepost [MP] CFP 

110) in Arlington, VA to the CSXT A-Line and S-Line junction at MP A-11 in Centralia, VA 

(Chesterfield County) (Figure 1-2). For the purposes of engineering and environmental 

planning, the DC2RVA corridor has been subdivided into 20 segments that correspond with 

improvements and alternatives, and as such have been named and numbered from north to 

south (Figure 1-3). At the northern terminus in Arlington, VA, the Project limit ends at the 

southern approach to Long Bridge, a double-track rail bridge taking the rail corridor over the 

Potomac River; however, the northern terminus of Union Station in Washington, D.C. will be 

used for ridership and revenue forecasting, as well as service development planning within the 

Project corridor. The southern terminus in Centralia is the junction of two CSXT routes that 

begin in Richmond and rejoin approximately 11 miles (17.7 km) south of the city. 

Additional segments of the Project include the CSXT Peninsula Subdivision CA-Line from 

Beulah Road (MP CA-76.1) in Henrico County, VA to AM Junction in the City of Richmond, 

and the Buckingham Branch Railroad (BBR) from AM Junction to the Richmond, 

Fredericksburg & Potomac Railway (RF&P) Crossing (MP CA-111.8) in Doswell, VA. 

Proposed improvements are along CSXT-owned track, generally parallel to the I-95 corridor 

between northern Virginia and Richmond. From north to south, the project travels through the 

following counties and cities: 

 Arlington County 

 City of Alexandria 

 Fairfax County 

 Prince William County 

 Stafford County 

 City of Fredericksburg 

 Spotsylvania County 

 Caroline County 

 Hanover County 

 Henrico County 

 City of Richmond 

 Chesterfield County 

In Arlington, the Project connects to existing CSXT track extending across the Potomac River on 

the Long Bridge into Washington, D.C. and Union Station, the southern terminus of Amtrak’s 

NEC. At Centralia, the Project connects to both the Richmond to Raleigh segment of the SEHSR 

corridor and the Richmond to Hampton Roads segment of the SEHSR corridor. The 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment is an integral part of the overall Washington, D.C. to 

Charlotte SEHSR corridor and provides a critical link between high speed intercity passenger 

service from Boston to Washington, D.C. and the southeastern United States. 
\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\Dovetail Figures\Fig1-2_DC2RVAProjectCorridor_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.10.2015

Overview of the

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

[ 0 7 14

Miles

DC2RVA Project

Corridor

Virginia Rail Lines

1 inch=14 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

Figure 1-2

Basemap Source: 2015 Bing Maps

Road (Microsoft Corporation

and its data suppliers)

RF&P

RF&P

A-Line

Buckingham

Branch

Railroad

AM Junction

S-Line

Peninsula

Subdivision

Doswell

Centralia

Arlington

(RO)

Acca

Yard
February 2015

Overview of the

DC2RVA

Project Segments

\\cltsmain\GIS_DATA\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\Dovetail Figures\Fig1-3_ProjectSegments_8.5x11.mxd | Last Updated: 06.11.2015

Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic

State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet

North American Datum of 1983

1 inch=11 miles

@ 8.5 x 11 inches

[

0 5.5 11

Miles

Legend

Figure 1-3

Rosslyn to

Alexandria

(ROAF)

Alexandria to

Franconia (AFFR)

Franconia to

Lorton (FRLO)

Crossroads to

Guinea (XRGU)

Hamilton to

Crossroads

(HAXR)

Fredericksburg to

Hamilton (FBHA)

Dahlgren Junction

To Fredericksburg

(DJFB)

Arkendale to

Dahlgren Junction

(ARDJ)

Powell's Creek to

Arkendale (PCAR)

Buckingham

Branch (BBRR)

Rivanna Jct to

Beulah -

Peninsula Sub

(RJBE)

WAY to Centralia -

A Line (WACE)

AM Jct to

Centralia - S Line

(AMCE)

SAY/WAY to AM

Jct (Hermitage

Lead) (SAAM)

Greendale to

SAY/WAY (GNSA)

Elmont to

Greendale

(ELGN)

North Doswell to

Elmont (NDEL)

Milford to North

Doswell (MDND)

Guinea to Milford

(GUMD)

Lorton to Powells

Creek (LOPC)

Virginia Rail Lines

(VBMP)

DC2RVA Corridor
I N T R O D U C T I O N 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-6 Archaeological Predictive Model 

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and service upgrades 

intended to improve the travel time, service frequency, and on-time performance of passenger 

trains operating between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. Specific improvements to the 

existing rail infrastructure between Arlington, VA, and Centralia, VA include: 

 Corridor-wide upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating 

speeds, including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing 

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to achieve higher passenger 

train service frequency and reliability, including an additional main track along most of 

the corridor, and additional controlled sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and 

other capacity and reliability improvements at certain locations. 

 Station and platform improvements for Amtrak and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 

stations. 

Environmental studies (a Tier II Environmental Impact Statement) in support of the Project will 

assess the environmental impacts of these improvements and identify ways to avoid, minimize, 

or otherwise mitigate such impacts. 

The Project may include locations for new or replacement intercity passenger stations on the 

Project corridor, and additional rail capacity and other improvements in the Richmond area, 

including on the CSXT Peninsula Subdivision from AM Junction in Richmond, VA (just north of 

Main Street Station) east to Beulah Road in Henrico County, and on the Buckingham Branch 

Railroad from Doswell, VA south to AM Junction. 

Studies in support of the Project will address passenger and freight rail operations and service 

between Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond, but the Project does 

not include physical improvements to the Long Bridge across the Potomac River or to rail 

infrastructure within Washington, D.C. Other projects will address improvements to the rail 

infrastructure north of Arlington and south of Centralia along the SEHSR corridor. 

1.3 CURRENT STUDY 

The current study included an archaeological background review of the DC2RVA corridor and 

the creation of an archaeological predictive model. Project tasks included gathering background 

data, in terms of both previous investigations and recorded archaeological sites and historic 

architectural properties within the DC2RVA corridor, and then the use of this cultural 

information combined with environmental data to develop a model for predicting probable 

locations of yet unidentified archaeological sites. The goals of this work were to develop a 

context for the archaeological history of the corridor and to identify locations within the 

corridor which might yield additional resources. Both of these project goals will be used to 

guide further archaeological study along the DC2RVA corridor. 

The archaeological area of potential effects (APE), as defined in consultation with the DHR, 

includes the footprint of physical improvements associated with the project, inclusive of both 

the rail modifications and any associated roadwork. Engineering and design work has not yet 

been completed for the corridor, as such the APE for this study was limited to proposed 
I N T R O D U C T I O N 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-7 Archaeological Predictive Model 

improvement to the existing CSXT rail right-of-way and was specifically defined as extending 

50 feet (15.2 m) on either side of the railroad centerline. The area encompassed within this APE 

was the subject of the current investigation. 

Project work was conducted under the auspice of Senior Archaeologist Mike Klein who was 

assisted by Archaeologists Emily Calhoun and Earl Proper. Marco González, GIS Analyst and 

Archaeologist, created the GIS-based predictive model. Dr. Kerri Barile served as the Principal 

Investigator. Drs. Barile and Klein, as well as, Ms. Calhoun, meet or exceed the standards 

established for archaeologist by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI). 

For the purposes of this study, investigations included a background review to identify 

previously recorded archaeological resources within the APE and within a 1 mile (1.6 km) 

radius, a limited historic map review to note historic development along the corridor, and the 

creation of an archaeological probability predictive model. This work built on previous cultural 

resource work completed along the DC2RVA corridor, including a 2010 McCormick Taylor, Inc. 

Phase I survey for the proposed addition of a third track along an 11.4 mile (18.3 km) segment 

of the existing rail corridor through the United States Marine Corps Base Quantico between 

Powells Creek and Arkendale. The previous project encompasses the Powells Creek to 

Arkendale (05) segment of the current APE and DHR determined this proposed project would 

have no effect on archaeological resources. 
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-1 Archaeological Predictive Model 

METHODOLOGY 

A GIS-based condition assessment of the DC2RVA corridor and a predictive model of the 

location of archaeological sites were created to identify areas with the potential to contain 

significant archaeological resources. A minimal suite of variables characterized the probability 

that archaeological sites exist within different settings. The probability of discovering resources 

within different areas was classified as high, moderate, low, and no possibility. Prior to 

conducting the predictive modeling, the potential of the project area to contain significant 

archaeological resources was assessed by searching the DHR site and survey file records and 

examining maps housed within DHR’s archives. 

2.1 PREDICTIVE MODELS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Predictive models accumulate and formalize prior knowledge about the location of known 

archaeological materials in a way that generates expectations about where unknown 

archaeological sites should occur. Typically, predictive models combine theoretical expectations 

with a large number of empirical generalizations based on previous archaeological work 

(Banning 2002:139). The expanding importance of GIS for modeling site location results to a 

great extent from its ability to capture and manipulate large data sets for analysis and display 

(Kvamme and Kohler 1988). The development of GIS as a tool for predictive modeling is still 

evolving and involves a variety of approaches. To avoid repetitive results, and because the 

subsequent archaeological survey will attempt to recover and assess both precontact and 

historic resources, this research relied on a minimal number of attributes drawn from existing 

data to assess the probability of encountering archaeological resources in different settings. In 

addition, because the project is not expected to disturb deeply buried resources, the work 

identified areas amenable to subsurface testing through shovel testing survey, rather than 

investigating the potential for deeply buried resources in different settings. If final design plans 

include disturbances outside the scope of this model their impacts of cultural resources will be 

assessed separately. 

2.2 DATA SOURCES 

Research included a review of known resources, cartographic sources, information on regional 

history, archaeological site settlement models pertinent to the region, and evaluation of records 

at the DHR, as well as consideration of the results of previous surveys to assess the current 

condition of the APE, to collect information on previously identified archaeological resources 

located within the project area, and to create a predictive model of archaeological site location in 

the project area. Sources included: 1) previously recorded archaeological sites in the DHR 

archives for the project area; 2) georeferenced historic maps depicting road networks and 

2
M E T H O D O L O G Y 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-2 Archaeological Predictive Model 

historic resources in northern and central Virginia, including Revolutionary War maps 

depicting the locations of camps along the Washington-Rochambeau Route; 3) maps prepared 

by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC), American Battlefield Protection 

Program (ABPP), and others (e.g., Salmon 2001); 4) recorded historic architectural resources 

within or immediately adjacent to the project area; and 5) the location of earlier archaeological 

surveys that meet the current DHR standards. In addition, attributes of the natural and built 

environment commonly associated with precontact and historic archaeological sites were 

reviewed. 

The primary sources of digital environmental data, which included aerial and soil data, current 

and historic roads and structures, and proximity to rivers, were obtained from online sources. 

Data sources included local, state, and federal government agencies. Notable sources were the 

U.S. Geological Service (USGS) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) which 

provide standard information for the entire nation. Historical background information was 

collected from various materials on file at the DHR and the Library of Virginia. Online 

resources including the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., the Library of Virginia and 

Virginia Historical Society in Richmond, and several other historical research web pages were 

also consulted. 

2.3 SCALE 

Predictive models attempt to produce computer-generated illustrations of areas stratified 

according to probability of encountering archaeological resources. GIS data layers used for this 

project either already exist or were converted for GIS use. In this case, areas disturbed, paved, 

or otherwise not amenable to Shovel Test Pit (STP) survey were identified, and the remainder of 

the project area was classified as high, moderate, and low probability. The primary source of 

digital environmental data for this region is the USGS which is the lead Federal agency for the 

collection and distribution of digital cartographic data. Typically, in archaeological studies, the 

analysis unit is the archaeological site, but, in the case of archaeological predictive modeling the 

unit of investigation is the individual parcel of land (Kvamme 1988). Historically, farmland was 

divided into acres, as such acreage has been chosen as the base unit of investigation and 

comparison for this analysis. 

Modeling used a 98.4 foot (30-m) grid cell resolution or better in order to provide sufficient 

spatial resolution to support quantitative field testing of the defined areas. Structurally, the 

archaeological site database consists of polygon shapefiles of known architectural and 

archaeological resource boundaries and previously conducted archaeological surveys, as 

obtained directly from DHR archives. The geospatial data layers were acquired from DHR and 

their online Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS) portal and are generally 

set on the 1:24,000 scale topographic maps, also known as 7.5-minute quadrangles. 

Environmental data included soil maps acquired from NRCS and are generally scaled at 

1:24,000. 

2.4 ARCHAEOLOGY SURVEY METHODS 

The proposed project is expected to impact only near-surface resources; for this reason, the 

predictive model does not include deep testing. The model instead was designed to predict 

archaeological locations based on standard Phase I archaeological surveys in the Middle 

Atlantic Region, which consist of both pedestrian survey and subsurface testing. No 
M E T H O D O L O G Y 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-3 Archaeological Predictive Model 

archaeological survey was conducted as part of the current project, but future research based on 

this modeling should follow the methods outlined below. 

Subsurface testing will involve the excavation of STPs within the defined APE. STPs will be 

excavated at 50-foot (15.2-m) intervals across the testable portions of the project APE. Following 

DHR guidelines (2011), STPs will measure approximately 15 inches (38.1 cm) in diameter and 

will be excavated to penetrate at least 0.3 feet (10.2 cm) into sterile subsoil or to the practical 

limits of excavation. In most settings, archaeological resources occur at depths potentially 

reached by STPs (i.e., no greater than one to three feet [0.3 to 0.9 m]). Because known Civil War 

resources exist within the project area, STPs will be augmented by metal-detector survey in 

undisturbed areas that have the potential for deposits resulting from historic military activity. 

Archaeologists will rely on experienced operators using Whites 9500 pro/psi and Tesoro Cibola 

metal detectors. Excavation of metal-detector hits typically approximates the depths potentially 

reached by STPs. 
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-1 Archaeological Predictive Model 

BACKGROUND REVIEW 

Background research included a review of historic documents and maps, a search of regional 

literature, an evaluation of DHR site file maps and records, and an examination of data drawn 

from systematic archaeological surveys of the project vicinity. Examination of these data 

generated expectations about the probable location of archaeological resources within the APE 

and allowed the identification of areas with high, moderate, low, and no potential for the 

preservation of undisturbed archaeological resources. 

The potential of the project area to contain significant archaeological resources was assessed by 

searching the DHR site and survey file records. The background review area encompassed the 

archaeological APE as well as a 0.5 mile (0.8 km) radius surrounding the APE, however, the 

summary tables and discussions presented in this chapter are limited to those resources 

within/adjacent to the APE. Site and survey file records were accessed at DHR in March 2015 

by Mike Klein and Earl Proper. Additionally, information on previously completed cultural 

resource surveys within or immediately adjacent to the APE was also gathered by accessing 

DHR’s archives and DHR’s cultural resource GIS dataset. 

3.1 BATTLEFIELDS LOCATED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA 

The study area for archaeology stretches south from Arlington through Richmond, ending in 

Chesterfield County. The deep-water ports of the Hampton Roads area and Richmond and 

Williamsburg, important cities in the most populous of the states, drew British attention during 

the American Revolution and again during the War of 1812. Nevertheless, none of the 

battlefields discussed by Gossett and Mitchell (2007) occur in the project area; of the Virginia 

resources discussed by Gossett and Mitchell (2007), only the Washington-Rouchambeau Route 

includes portions of the study area (cf also Selig 2009). In contrast, Federal and Confederate 

armies clashed repeatedly throughout northern and central Virginia during the Civil War. 

3.1.1 Civil War Occupation of the Potomac Valley and Central Virginia 

Situated between the Union and Confederate capitals, northern and central Virginia quickly 

became critical strategic terrain. During 1861, Confederate batteries harassed the Union’s 

Potomac River fleet from fortifications that lined the bluffs overlooking the Virginia side of the 

Potomac River. Union forces manned earthworks along the Maryland shore of the river 

opposite Confederates entrenched by the Virginia fortifications. Southern troops established 

encampments in the vicinity of present-day Route 1 to support the Potomac batteries (Balicki 

2006; McPherson 1988). 

In 1862, as Union forces advanced toward Richmond, Confederate troops abandoned the 

Potomac River batteries to defend the capital. Flooding and General McClellan’s reluctance to 

3
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-2 Archaeological Predictive Model 

attack the capital without reinforcements prevented the campaign’s success, and Union forces 

withdrew from Richmond. Although McClellan was replaced, the Federals continued to suffer 

defeats throughout much of 1862, including at Fredericksburg (McPherson 1988). 

As winter approached, both armies established winter camps on opposite sides of the 

Rappahannock River (McPherson 1988). Furthermore, from 1862 onward, Union soldiers 

camped along railroad lines between Aquia Creek and Richmond to protect supply lines from 

raiders, and southern soldiers, slaves, and workers built camps and defensive lines around 

Richmond to protect the southern capital. 

These camps, especially winter encampments, completely obliterated the landscape of a oncepristine countryside. Soldiers dug hut holes for their winter housing in agricultural fields and 

woods, and in the yards of the area’s residents. Trees were cut down for huts, firewood, and, in 

some cases, corduroy roads. Homes were looted as well to supply the soldiers, windows were 

removed, and fences were taken down. 

Spring brought renewed conflict. Major battles occurred throughout the Rappahannock River 

Valley in 1863. The Confederate victory at Chancellorsville began a campaign that culminated at 

Gettysburg. Following the bloodiest three days of the Civil War at Gettysburg, the southerners 

retreated south pursued cautiously by the Union Army. The two sides again established camps 

throughout the Rappahannock River Valley over the winter of 1863–1864 (McPherson 1988). 

Warfare again erupted during the spring of 1864, notably in the Wilderness in Spotsylvania 

County. Fighting shifted south during 1864. During the Overland Campaign, as the Union 

advance on Richmond became known, the Union and Confederate armies clashed repeatedly 

between Fredericksburg and Petersburg, culminating in siege warfare around the Confederate 

capital and the railroad hub of Petersburg. Richmond fell the following spring, and General Lee 

surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox (McPherson 1988). 

In summary, the DC2RVA corridor cuts through the contested ground of northern and central 

Virginia from Arlington to Chesterfield County. Consequently, Union and Confederate armies 

clashed repeatedly throughout the region, particularly near Fredericksburg and Richmond. 

Previously recorded archaeological sites include a number of Civil War earthworks, 

encampments, and other features. The DHR archives record many of the battlefields as 

architectural resources, generally relying on the boundaries mapped by the ABPP. 

3.1.2 American Battlefield Protection Program Maps 

Maps produced by the ABPP reveal that the DC2RVA corridor passes through portions of 25 

battlefields dating to the Civil War (Table 3-1). The boundaries for these battles were established 

by the CWSAC, aided by the ABPP, in 2009. The boundaries as currently mapped include the 

regions of direct fighting, the associated marching routes for soldiers, and the potential National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) boundaries of the battlefields. 

TABLE 3-1: BATTLEFIELDS IN THE PROJECT AREA AND ABPP-DEFINED LOCATIONS

Battle DHR ID ABPP ID County Comment

Beaver Dam Creek 042-5479 VA-016 Hanover In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Chaffan's Farm/New Market 

Heights 043-0307 VA-075 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP Boundary
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-3 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-1: BATTLEFIELDS IN THE PROJECT AREA AND ABPP-DEFINED LOCATIONS

Battle DHR ID ABPP ID County Comment

Chancellorsville 088-5180 VA-032 Spotsylvania In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Chester Station 020-5316 VA-051 Chesterfield In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Cockpit Point NA VA-100 Prince William In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP 

Boundary

Cold Harbor 042-5017 VA-062 Hanover In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Darbytown and New Market 

Roads 043-5071 VA-077 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP Boundary

Darbytown Road 043-5072 VA-078 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP 

Boundary

Drewry's Bluff 020-5320 VA-012 Chesterfield In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Fredericksburg I 111-5295 VA-028 Multiple In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Fredericksburg II 111-5296 VA-034 Multiple In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP 

Boundary

Gaines Mill 076-5168 VA-017 Hanover In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Hanover Court House 042-5019 VA-013 Hanover In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP 

Boundary

North Anna 041-0123 VA055 Hanover In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Petersburg II 123-5025 VA-063 Multiple In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Port Walthall Junction 020-5317 VA-047 Chesterfield In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Proctor's Creek 020-5320xx VA-053 Chesterfield In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP 

Boundary

Salem Church 088-5181 VA-030 Spotsylvania In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Savage Station 043-0308 VA-019 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Second Deep Bottom 043-5080 VA-071 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Seven Pines 043-5079 VA-014 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Swift Creek 020-5318 VA-050 Chesterfield In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Totopotomoy Creek 042-5022 VA-057 Hanover In ABPP-Defined Potential NRHP 

Boundary

Ware Bottom Church 020-5319 VA-054 Chesterfield In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Yellow Tavern 043-5108 VA-052 Henrico In ABPP-Defined Study Area

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Table data compiled from ABPP and DHR databases/files. 

3.2 CARTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 

A wide variety of documentary sources, including official land records, personal narratives, 

maps, photographs, and other images, potentially inform archaeological models of landscape 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-4 Archaeological Predictive Model 

use from the seventeenth century onward. John Smith’s (1624) Virginia Discovered and Discribed

ranks among the most accurate seventeenth-century representations of the river systems 

draining into the Chesapeake Bay. Despite the remarkable overall accuracy of the map, Smith’s 

depiction of areas located away from early-Colonial settlement and intensive exploration efforts 

is best viewed as a reflection of the general cultural and political landscape as perceived by his 

Algonquin informants, rather than a precise record of exact settlement locations (Gallivan 1997). 

Moreover, Smith provides little detail about Native American activities in the inter-riverine 

uplands. Nevertheless, Smith’s map depicts a number of settlements along the Potomac River in 

the vicinity of the DC2RVA corridor. 

Other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century maps, in general, depict only major landmarks and 

landowners. Maps illustrating the location of Revolutionary War camps prepared for French 

General Rochambeau are an exception. Multiple maps depict the location of camps in relation to 

the local natural and built environment. Moreover, Selig (2009) has approximated the location 

of the camps, which are recorded as archaeological sites in the DHR archives (see below). 

Nevertheless, not until the military required detailed maps during the Civil War were 

comprehensive depictions of the Virginia landscape produced. Because Virginia represented a 

major theatre of war, military engineers on both sides created accurate maps of the area, often 

including key landmarks. In addition to accurately depicting natural features such as rivers, 

creeks, swamps, agricultural fields, and woodlands, military cartographers recorded the 

location of roads, rail lines, bridges, and other elements of infrastructure. Many maps indicate 

the location of individual dwellings and associated farm structures, often named by owner or 

occupant, as well as a variety of other buildings such as mills, churches, stores, and public 

buildings. By the late-nineteenth century, the USGS began producing topographically sensitive 

quadrangle sheets that depicted entire states. Comparison of these resources with earlier maps 

helps refine the location of roads. A complete list of historic maps consulted during the 

background review is presented in Table 3-2. 

TABLE 3-2: GEOREFERENCED HISTORICAL MAPS

Map Title Date Author

Amerique campagne: Camp a Garrot’s Tavern le 14 Juilles 3 milles de Falmouth...a Peyton’s 

tavern. 

1782 Rochambeau

Caroline Co., Va 186-a Anonymous

Map of part of Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Virginia. 186-b Anonymous

Map of the northern portion of Hanover County, Virginia., showing fortifications on the South 

Anna River near Taylorsville 186-c Anonymous

Map of Louisa County and part of Hanover County, Virginia. 186-d Anonymous

Map of Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties, Virginia. 186-e Anonymous

Map of Stafford County, Va. 186-f Anonymous

Map of Richmond, Va., shewing fortifications surrounding the Confederate capital. 186- Bailey, A. M.

Reconnaissance in advance of Camp Mansfield 186- Church, B. S.

Caroline County, Virginia / Eng. Office, 2d Corps, A.N.Va. Confederate States of America. Army 

of Northern Virginia 186-a

Engineer Office, 

2nd Corps
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-5 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-2: GEOREFERENCED HISTORICAL MAPS

Map Title Date Author

Sketch No. 4 of Roads between HQ 10th Army Corps and Swift Creek on the South with 

Enemy's 2nd Line of entrenchments around Drewry's Bluff on the North. 186-b

Engineers' Office, 

10th Army Corps

One hundred & fifty miles around Richmond. 10th ed. Magnus, Charles. 186- Magnus, Charles

Central Virginia showing Lieut. Gen'l. U.S. Grant's Campaign and marches of the armies under 

his command in 1864-65 Engineer Bureau, War Dept. Prepared by order of the Secretary of 

War for the officers of the U.S. Army under the command of Lieut. Gen. U.S. Grant.

186-

United States. 

Army, Corps of 

Engineers

Sketch of the seat of war in Alexandria & Fairfax Cos. 1861 Corbett, V. P.

Map of part of Fairfax County, Virginia, south of the city of Alexandria and the Orange and 

Alexandria Railroad 1861 Mead, F. F.

White House to Harrisons Landing Prepared by command of Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan 

U.S.A., commanding Army of the Potomac. 1862 Abbot, Henry L.

Approaches of A. of P. to Fredericksburg. United States. Army of the Potomac. 1862 Anonymous

Map of part of Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, July 12th, 1862 1862 Campbell, Albert 

H.

Sketch of the battles of Chancellorsville, Salem Church, and Fredericksburg, May 2, 3, and 4, 

1863 1863 Hotchkiss, Jedediah

A map of Fairfax County, and parts of Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Va., and the 

District of Columbia 1864 Hoffman

Thirty five miles around Richmond, Va. Compiled by Jed. Hotchkiss, Top. Engineer, Staunton, 

Virginia, from the surveys of the C.S. Engineers, U.S. Engineers, and the U. States Coast Survey. 1867 Hotchkiss, Jedediah

Bermuda Hundred 1864-1865 1867 Michler, Nathanel

Cold Harbor. [June 1-3, 1864] From surveys under the direction of Bvt. Brig. Gen. N. Michler, 

Maj. of Engineers, and Bvt. Lieut. Col. P. S. Michie, Capt. of Engineers, by command of Bvt. Maj. 

Genl. A. A. Humphreys, Brig. Genl. & Chief of Engineers.

1867 Michler, Nathanel

North Anna. [May 1864] From surveys under the direction of Bvt. Brig. Gen. N. Michler, Maj. of 

Engineers, by command of Bvt. Maj. Genl. A. A. Humphreys, Brig. Genl. & Chief of Engineers. 1867 Michler, Nathanel

Richmond [1862-1865] From surveys under the direction of Bvt. Brig. Gen. N., Michler, Maj. of 

Engineers and Bvt. Lieut. Col. P. S. Mitchie, Capt. of Engineers, by command Bvt. Maj. Genl. A. 

A. Humphreys, Brig. Genl. & Chief of Engineers.

1867 Michler, Nathanel

Fredericksburg 1889 USGS

Map of the vicinity of Richmond and part of the Peninsula From surveys made under the 

direction of A. H. Campbell, Capt: P.E.C.S.A. in charge Topographl. Dept., D.N.V. 1864. 

Facsimile reproduction made from the original Confederate war map owned by T. Sewell Ball, 

Publisher, Pikesville, Baltimore Co., Maryland. A. B. Graham, photolith., Washington, D.C. 

Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1891, by T. Sewell Ball . . . Campbell, Albert 

H. (Albert Henry), 1826-1899.

1891 Ball, T. Sewell

Mount Vernon 1891 USGS

Fredericksburg 1892 USGS

Bermuda Hundred 1894a USGS

Fredericksburg 1894b USGS
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-6 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-2: GEOREFERENCED HISTORICAL MAPS

Map Title Date Author

Mount Vernon 1894c USGS

Richmond 1894d USGS

Mount Vernon 1897 USGS

Map of the main battlefields, routes, camps and head qrs., in the Gettysburg, Wilderness and 

Appomattox campaigns of the Civil War in U.S. Compiled and published by Joshua Smith, 1st 

Lieut., Co. K, 20th Pa.' Cav., 2nd Brig., 1st Div., Sheridan's command. Chicago, c1899.

1899 Smith, Joshua

Maryland and Washington, D,C. 1900 USGS

Indian Head 1913 USGS

Doswell 1918a USGS

Indian Head 1918b USGS

King William 1920 USGS

Indian Head 1923 USGS

Indian Head 1925 USGS

Stafford 1926 USGS

Stafford 1931a USGS

Topographic map of Fredericksburg and vicinity, Virginia, showing battlefields Surveyed in 

cooperation with the War Department and the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County 

Battlefields Memorial Commission. Topography by G. E. Sisson, Paul Blake, and Benjamin 

Munroe. Control by U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Surveyed in 

1931

1931b USGS

Seven Pines 1938a USGS

Yellow Tavern 1938b USGS

Richmond 1943 USGS

Chester 1944a USGS

Quantico 1944b USGS

Stafford 1944c USGS

Quantico 1949 USGS

Ruther Glen 1951 USGS

Washington , DC 1957 USGS

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Table data compiled from NPS, ABPP, and DHR databases/files. 

3.2.1 Revolutionary War Rochambeau Maps 

General Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau arrived in Narragansett Bay 

on July 11, 1780. Rochambeau led an army of 450 officers and 5,300 men through the military 

campaign that culminated in the defeat of British General Charles Cornwallis at Yorktown. 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-7 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Following the victory, the French under Rochambeau established camps in the Williamsburg 

vicinity over the winter of 1781−1782. In July, the army decamped and trekked north to Boston 

following the precursor of U.S. 1, the main overland route linking the population centers of the 

fall line (Selig 2006). Maps produced during the march documented the location of camps in 

relation to the built and natural environment (Figure 3-1). Selig’s (2009) study of the Virginia 

segment of the Washington-Rochambeau trail recorded the estimated location of the camps; 

however, no archaeological testing was done during the pedestrian survey. The estimated 

location of camps reported in the DHR site files was inferred from period maps and documents. 

For this reason, rectangular blocks enclose the approximate locations, rather than precisely 

recorded site boundaries. Selig’s (2009) site forms and estimated settings were used as a guide. 

The georeferenced locations of camps depicted in the Library of Congress’ Rochambeau Map 

Collection were used to narrow the probable locations of the camps in relation to the project 

area. Three archaeological sites recorded by Selig (2009) occur within the APE. From north to 

south, the three sites record the location of camps in the City of Alexandria (44AX0207), in 

Prince William County near Marumsco Creek (44PW1843), and in Caroline County near 

Downer’s Bridge (44CE0626). These locations are further summarized in the discussion of 

known archaeological sites within the APE. 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-8 Archaeological Predictive Model 

FIGURE 3-1: EXAMPLE ROCHAMBEAU CAMP MAP, DETAIL OF ALEXANDRIA CAMP 

(ROCHAMBEAU 1782A) 

3.2.2 Historic Roads 

The expansion of transportation networks during the nineteenth century drew people who 

constructed dwellings and farmsteads along the roads and rail lines. Civil War and, 

particularly, late nineteenth-century topographic maps provide details that allow relatively 

accurate georeferenced road locations (Figure 3-2). The georeferenced location of various 

nineteenth-century roads were included in the predictive model (see Table 3-2).
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-9 Archaeological Predictive Model 

FIGURE 3-2: DETAIL FROM MAP OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF HANOVER COUNTY, VA., 

SHOWING FORTIFICATIONS ON THE SOUTH ANNA RIVER NEAR TAYLORSVILLE

ILLUSTRATING THE LOCATION OF RAILROADS, ROADS, HOTELS, MILLS, STORES, AND 

RESIDENTS (ANONYMOUS 186-) 

3.3 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE 

APE 

A review of DHR site files indicated that there are 30 previously identified archaeological sites 

located within the APE (Table 3-3) and 649 within the 0.5 mile (0.8 km) background review area. 

Artifacts recovered from eight archaeological sites identified prehistoric components. 

Diagnostic artifacts from one site document the presence of Archaic and Woodland 

components, though the assemblages from remaining precontact sites lacked temporally 

diagnostic artifacts. Although the file for site 44FX3194 refers to a Contact-era component, only 

debitage was reported in an assemblage dominated by historic material. Precontact sites were 

identified as camps. 

Twenty-five sites contained historic components. Eighteenth- through twentieth-century 

historic sites were identified, though sites date primarily to the nineteenth century. Site function 

varied widely. One site was classified as a village or town. Domestic resources included 

farmsteads and dwellings, though barns and other outbuildings were also identified. Two 

cemeteries were also noted. Infrastructure comprised railroad beds, canals and canal locks, and 

bridges. A warehouse and storage building were also identified, as were military camps, 

earthworks, and forts, most associated with the Civil War. Revolutionary War camps, however, 

were also recorded. In addition, a Civil War prison has been previously recorded in the APE. 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-10 Archaeological Predictive Model 

The DHR has not made a NRHP determination for 27 of the 30 previously identified resources. 

The DHR determined archaeological sites 44CF0680 and 44FX2542 eligible or potentially eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. Site 44HN0101 is listed on the NRHP. 

TABLE 3-3: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE APE

DHR ID Name Description Time Period NRHP Eligibility/

Comment

44AR0037 Jackson City Dwelling, 

multiple, Hotel 19th Century: 2nd half (1850−1899) Not Evaluated; Beneath Fill in Backhoe Trench

44AX0028 Alexandria 

Canal Canal 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated

44AX0207; 

000-9800-

xxxx

Campsite No. 

1 of American 

Wagon Train 

Sept. 1781

Camp, 

temporary

18th Century: 4th quarter 

(1775−1799) Not Evaluated; Visual Inspection

44CE0106

Fairfield 

Plantation/ 

Stonewall 

Jackson Shrine

Dwelling, 

single,

Grave/burial, 

Ice house, 

Lawn

18th Century: 2nd half (1750−1799), 

19th Century (1800−1899), 20th 

Century (1900−1999)

Not Evaluated; Surface Collection

44CE0626; 

000-9800-

0054

Wagon Train 

Camp No. 6 at 

Downer's 

Bridge

Camp, 

temporary

18th Century: 4th quarter 

(1775−1799) Not Evaluated; Visual Inspection

44CF0260 Camp, 

temporary

Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C.

−1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated

44CF0680 Fort Darling

Battlefield, 

Earthworks, 

Fort

19th Century: 2nd/3rd quarter 

(1825−1874), 19th Century: 3rd 

quarter (1850−1874), Prehistoric/Un

DHR Determined Eligible

44FX0453

Camp, 

temporary, 

Dwelling, 

single, 

Farmstead

19th Century: 2nd half (1850 −1899)

Not Evaluated; Beneath Building 

and Parking Lot

44FX0561 Camp, 

temporary

Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 

B.C.−1606 A.D.)

Not Evaluated; Collection from 

Road Cut and Judgmental STPs

44FX0562 Camp, 

temporary

Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 

B.C.−1606 A.D.)

Not Evaluated; Collection from 

Road Cut and Judgmental STPs

44FX2455 Camp, 

Dwelling, single

20th Century: 1st half (1900−1949), 

Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 

B.C.−1606 A.D.)

Not Evaluated

44FX2542 King's House 

Hill

18th Century (1700−1799), 

Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C.

−1606 A.D.)

DHR Determined Potentially 

Eligible

44HE0026 Archaic (8500−1201 B.C.), 

Woodland (1200 B.C. −1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated; Surface Collection
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-11 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-3: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN THE APE

DHR ID Name Description Time Period NRHP Eligibility/

Comment

44HE0328

Dwelling, 

single, Trash 

scatter

19th Century: 2nd half (1850−1899),

20th Century: 1st half (1900−1949) Not Evaluated

44HE0671 18th Century (1700−1799), 19th 

Century (1800−1899)

Not Evaluated; Backhoe Trench 

Identified Buried Features

44HE0840 Bridge 19th Century: 4th quarter 

(1875−1899) Not Evaluated; Visual Inspection 

44HE0841 Canal Not Evaluated; Visual Inspection

44HE0890 Cemetery 19th Century: 1st half (1800−1849) Not Evaluated; Visual Inspection, 

No Surface Features

44HE1092 Middle Basin Warehouse 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated; Monitoring

44HE1094

Commissary 

Warehouse 

Site

Warehouse 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated; Monitoring and 

Surface Collection

44HE1095 Hawes Storage facility 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated; Monitoring

44HE1096 Libby Prison Prison 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated; Destroyed

44HE1097 Main Street 

Station 1

Railroad, 

Warehouse 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated; Monitoring

44HE1098 Main Street 

Station 2 Railroad 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated; Surface Survey

44HN0101 Hickory Hill Farmstead 19th Century (1800−1899) NRHP Listed

44HN0282 Railroad 20th Century: 1st quarter 

(1900−1924) Not Evaluated

44PW1843; 

000-9800-

0079

French Wagon 

Train Camp 

No. 3 at 

Marumsco 

Creek

Camp, 

temporary

18th Century: 4th quarter 

(1775−1799) Not Evaluated

44SP0187 Bridge 19th Century (1800−1899) Not Evaluated

44ST0192 Camp Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 

B.C.−1606 A.D.) Not Evaluated

44ST0296 Military 

base/facility

19th Century: 3rd quarter 

(1850−1874) Not Evaluated

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Table data compiled from DHR databases and survey files. 

3.4 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

Sixty previously recorded architectural resources occur in the APE (Table 3-4) and 6,568 within 

the 0.5 mile (0.8 km) background review area. In addition to being significant resources on their 

own merit, architectural properties may help to identify locations where archaeological deposits 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-12 Archaeological Predictive Model 

could remain. Potentially significant archaeological sites appear most likely to occur within or 

near spatially extensive resources like battlefields, plantations, farmsteads, mills, and historic 

districts. Archaeological sites associated with smaller-scale resources like individual houses, 

outbuildings, and industrial sites, particularly those dating to the twentieth-century, are also 

likely along the corridor. 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

016-0007 Bridge, Route 684 (Current) Not Evaluated

016-0073 Milford Depot (Historic/Current), Milford Railroad Station (Historic) Destroyed

016-0137 Fontaine Hill (Historic) Not Evaluated

016-0331 Ruther Glen Railroad Bridge, Route 652 (Function/Location) Destroyed

016-0335 Storage building, Chesterfield Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

016-5087 Bridge #1026, Route 207 (west-bound), spanning CSX Railroad 

(Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-0022 Centralia Earthworks (Historic) Eligible

020-5320 Drewry's Bluff (2nd) (Historic), Fort Darling (Historic), Fort Drewry 

(Historic), Proctor's Creek Battlefield (Historic/Current) Eligible

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg Electric Railway (Historic) Eligible

020-5392 Motiva Enterprises (Current), Terminal Office, 5801 Jefferson Davis 

Highway (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5397 Blue Rhino (Current), Commercial, 8102 Shell Road (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5410 Industrial Chemicals Incorporated (Current) Not Eligible

020-5413 Ferguson House (Historic/Current), House, 8524 Chester Road 

(Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5474 DuPont Spruance (Historic/Current), DuPont Spruance Factory Complex 

Historic District (Current) Potentially Eligible

020-5475 Bridge, Jefferson Davis Highway (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5476 Railroad Bridge, Kingsland Creek (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

020-5578 DuPont Pedestrian Underpass (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5613 Centralia Historic District (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5623 Chippenham Parkway Bridge over SAL (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5624 SAL Railroad Bridge over Falling Creek (Historic/Location) Not Eligible

020-5625 Elliham Avenue Bridge over SAL (Function/Location) Not Eligible

020-5626 Dupont Vehicular Bridge over SAL (Function/Location) Not Eligible

029-0218 George Washington Memorial Highway (portion) (Historic), Mount Vernon 

Memorial Highway (Historic/Current) Listed

029-5470 Washington and Virginia Railway Company (Historic), Washington, 

Arlington and Falls Church Electric Not Evaluated
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-13 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

042-0093 Doswell Train Station (Historic/Current), Train Station, Route 668 

(Function/Location) Not Evaluated

042-0100 Hickory Hill (Historic) Listed

042-0106 Gwathmey Baptist Church (Historic) Destroyed

042-0117 Gwathmey Historic District (Historic/Current) Not Eligible

042-0123 Battle of North Anna River (Historic), North Anna Battlefield (Historic)

042-0205 Verlander House, 9252 Cool Spring Rd (Rt 652) (Historic/Location) Not Eligible

042-0215 Butler House (Historic), Spring Valley Farm (Current) Not Evaluated

042-0341 Cobb Store (Historic) Not Eligible

042-0465 Pottomoi (Historic), Windy Knoll Farm (Historic/Current)

042-0467 Daniel Campbell House (Historic) Not Evaluated

042-0470 Darnell Store (Historic), Squashapenny Junction (Current) Not Evaluated

042-0475 Daniel Campbell House (Historic), House, Railroad Avenue 

(Function/Location) Not Evaluated

042-0477 Billy Wright House (Historic/Current), Fathead Farm (Current), House, 

10617 Doswell Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

042-0708 Trench near Atlee High School (Historic) Not Evaluated

042-0731 RF&P North Anna Crossing (Current) Not Evaluated

042-0777 Route 646 (Historic) Not Evaluated

042-5017 Cold Harbor Battlefield (Historic), Second Cold Harbor (Historic) Eligible

042-5019 Hanover Court House Battlefield (Historic), Hanover Court House Park, 

US 301 (Historic/Location) Eligible

042-5022 Totopotomoy Creek Battlefield (Historic) Eligible

042-5048 Elmont Historic District (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

042-5279 House, 8054 Track Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

042-5306 RF&P Bridge over Rt. 689 (Function/Location) Not Eligible

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic District (Function/Location) Eligible

042-5313 House, 9320 Atlee Station Road (Function/Location) Not Eligible

042-5448 Doswell Historic District (Current) Eligible

042-5463 Little River Railroad Bridge (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

042-5466 Doswell Train Station Switch Tower (Historic), Switch House (Current) Not Evaluated

042-5468 House, 9945 Cool Springs Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

042-5469 Culvert, Atlee Station Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-14 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

042-5479 Beaver Dam Creek Battlefield (Historic/Current) Not Eligible

043-0289 Laurel Crossroads Historic District (Descriptive), Laurel Historic District 

Expansion (Current) Not Eligible

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm, New Market Road (Historic/Location), New 

Market Heights Battlefield (Historic/Location) Eligible

043-0308 Savage Station Battlefield (Historic/Current) Eligible

043-0436 CSX Fulton Yards (Historic/Current) Not Eligible

043-0440 Airco (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

043-0441 Railroad Bridge (Descriptive) Not Evaluated

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District (Current) Proposed Eligible

043-0742 Woodland Cemetery (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

043-0756

Air Junction (Historic), Richard E. Byrd Air Field (Historic), Richmond 

Army Air Base Historic District (Historic), Richmond International Airport 

(Current)

Proposed Eligible

043-5071 Darbytown & New Market Roads Battlefield (Historic), Fourmile Creek 

(Historic) Eligible

043-5072 Alms House (Historic), Darbytown Road Battlefield (Historic) Eligible

043-5073 Fair Oaks & Darbytown Road Battlefield (Historic) Eligible

043-5079 French's Field (Historic), King's School House (Historic), Oak Grove 

Battlefield (Historic) Not Eligible

043-5080 Bailey's Creek (Historic), Fussell's Mill (Historic), Second Deep Bottom 

Battlefield (Historic) Eligible

043-5081 Fair Oaks (Historic), Seven Pines Battlefield (Historic) Not Eligible

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield (Historic) Not Eligible

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield (Historic) Not Eligible

076-0301 RF&P (Historic) Eligible

076-5031 Bridge #5006 (Current), Quantico Bridge #1760 (Current) Not Eligible

076-5094 Haynes (No. 2) House, 1538 Cherry Hill Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

076-5095 Hall House, 1538 Cherry Hill Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

076-5096 Ebert House, 1508 Cherry Hill Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

076-5098 Bauckman House (No.2), 1510 Cherry Hill Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

076-5126 Dent House (No. 3), 1504 Cherry Hill Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

076-5130 Cockpit Point Reduction Plant Complex (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

076-5132 Bauckman House (No.1), 1536 Cherry Hill Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

076-5206 Bridge, Railroad Avenue (Function/Location) Not Eligible
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-15 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

076-5219 Woodbridge Auto Sales, 13611 Jefferson Davis Highway 

(Function/Location) Not Eligible

088-0039 La Vue (NRHP Listing), Prospect View (Historic) Listed

088-5181 Bank's Ford (Historic), Salem Church Battlefield (Historic) Eligible

088-5413 CSX Railroad Corridor (Current), RF&P (Historic) Potentially Eligible

089-0045 RF&P Railroad Bridge (Current) Not Evaluated

089-0080 Bridge #6075 (Current), RFP Tunnel Bridge (Current) Not Evaluated

089-0106 Brown Field (Current) Not Evaluated

089-0148 RF&P Railroad Bridge (Current) Not Evaluated

089-0194 RF&P Railroad Bridge (Current) Not Evaluated

089-5010 Bridge #6020 (Current) Not Eligible

100-0124 Alexandria Depot (Descriptive), Alexandria Union Station (NRHP Listing) Listed

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District (Current) Listed

100-0161 RF&P Railroad Bridge, spanning Braddock Road (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

100-0163 Bridge, RF&P over Braddock Road (Descriptive) Not Evaluated

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic District Extension (Descriptive) Proposed Eligible

111-0009-0691 Walker-Grant School (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

111-0009-0797 Commercial Building, 500 Lafayette Boulevard (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

111-0009-0798 Commercial Building, 512 Lafayette Boulevard (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic District (NRHP Listing) Listed

111-0132-0052 Commercial Building, 419 Sophia Street (Function/Location), The Pool 

Table Store (Current) Not Evaluated

111-0132-0704 Claiborne's Restaurant (Current), Fredericksburg Train Station (Historic), 

Rail-related, 200 Lafayette Boulevard (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

111-0132-0742 400 Prince Edward (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

111-0147 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania Battlefields National Military Park 

(Historic/Current), Listed

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I (Historic) Eligible

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II (Historic) Eligible

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg (Historic), Petersburg Battlefield II (Historic) Eligible

127-0009 Geographic Distributing Services, Inc. (Historic), Wortham-McGruder 

Warehouse, 23 S 15th Street (Historic) Destroyed

127-0117 Commercial Building, 1523 East Cary Street (Function/Location), Whitlock,

Charles, Store (Historic) Destroyed
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-16 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

127-0171 James River and Kanawha Canal Historic District (Historic) Listed

127-0172

Main Street Station and Train Shed (NRHP Listing), New Union Station 

(Historic), Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot

(Historic)

Listed

127-0183 Railroad Bridge, east of 14th Street (Function/Location), Seaboard Railroad 

Bridge (Historic) Not Eligible

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic District (NRHP Listing), Shockoe Slip Historic 

District and Expansions (Historic/Current)

Listed

127-0219-0096 Commercial Building, 11 South 15th Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0219-0098 Commercial Building, 15 South 15th Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0219-0099 Hawkeye Building (Historic), Manufacturing Facility, 101 South 15th Street 

(Function/Location), Philip Morris Building (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-0237-0745 House, 706 North Fourth Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (NRHP Listing) Listed

127-0344-0007 Commercial Building, 1604 East Broad Street (Function/Location), 

Hungerford Coal and Oil Corp. (Current) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0012 Gas Station, 1615 East Broad Street (Function/Location), Spur Gas Station 

(Current) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0030

Carwich Marine Showroom (Historic), Factory, 1545-1549 East Cary Street 

(Function/Location), Kemmerer Manufacturing Company (Historic), Old 

Dominion Hide and Fur Company (Historic), The Canal Club, 1545 East 

Cary Street (Current)

Not Evaluated

127-0344-0051 Bottoms Up Pizza (Current), Taylor and Jesse Used Parts (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0116 Parking Lot, 1511-1537 East Main Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0120 Commercial Building, 1547-1549 East Main Street (Function/Location), 

Well Laid Carpets (Current) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0227 Commercial Building, 1600 East Marshall Street (Function/Location), 

Hungerford Coal and Oil Corporate (Current) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0237 Commercial Building, 100-104 Pear Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0279 A.D. Jackson and Sons, Inc. (Historic/Current), Jackson Warehouse 

(Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

127-0344-0282 Knox Bottle Company (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-0360 Fifth Street Bridge (Current) Destroyed

127-0397-0149 Vacant Lot, 1521 W. Cary (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse & Industrial Historic District (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

127-0818 Newtowne Area Historic District (Descriptive) Proposed Eligible

127-0823 Curtis Holt, Sr. Bridge #8066 (Current), First Street Viaduct 

(Historic/Location), J.E.B. Stuart Mem Eligible
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-17 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

127-0831 Highland Park Plaza Historic District (Historic/Current) Listed

127-0831-0416 Frame House, 3615 Enslow Avenue (Function/Location), Leake, Thomas S., 

House (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-0831-0417 Frame House, 3617 Enslow Avenue (Function/Location), Tucker, Harry W., 

House (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-0831-0418 Eads, Harry M., House (Historic), Frame House, 3619 Enslow Avenue 

(Function/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0831-0419 Frame House, 3621 Enslow Avenue (Function/Location), Schmus, Henry L., 

House (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-0831-0497 Frame Duplex (3504-3506 2nd Ave) (Historic/Location) Not Evaluated

127-0852 South Jefferson Davis Area (Descriptive) Not Eligible

127-0854 Bridge #1850 (Current), Bridge, East Main Street, spanning Southern 

Railway (Descriptive) Eligible

127-0861 CSX Bridge No. 867 (Descriptive) Not Evaluated

127-5662 C&O Viaduct on James River (Historic) Not Evaluated

127-6075 Academy Hill Historic District (Historic/Current) Proposed Eligible

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic District (Historic/Current) Listed

127-6136-0283 Riverside Brick & Supply Company (Current), Southern Brick Company Inc.

(Historic) Not Evaluated

127-6145 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco (Historic), Southern Stove Works 

(Historic/Current), Virginia Binding Co. ( Listed

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery (Historic/Current) Listed

127-6188 American Locomotive Company (Historic), Richmond Locomotive & 

Machine Works (Historic/Current), Rich Listed

127-6211 MG Industries (Current) Not Eligible

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic District (Current) Potentially Eligible

127-6236 Zeller+Gmelin Corp. (Current) Not Eligible

127-6243 Warehouse, Mayo Island (Current) Not Eligible

127-6249 Sonoco (Historic/Current) Not Eligible

127-6250 Railroad Bridge, E. 4th Street and Gordon Avenue (Function/Location) Not Eligible

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Corridor (Current), Richmond and Petersburg 

Railroad (Historic) Eligible

127-6254 Quonset Hut, East Main Street (Function/Location) Not Eligible

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works (Current), Richmond Gas Works (Historic) Eligible

127-6257 CSX Bridge, Orleans Street (Function/Location) Not Eligible
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-18 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

127-6258 CSX Bridge, North of Orleans Street (Function/Location) Not Eligible

127-6259 CSX Bridge, Nicholson Street (Function/Location) Not Eligible

127-6260 CSX Building, Intersection of East Main Street and Orleans Street 

(Function/Location) Not Eligible

127-6261 CSX Bridge, East Main Street (Function/Location) Not Eligible

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad Corridor (Current) Eligible

127-6273 Bridge #2838 (Current) Not Eligible

127-6396 Coxon House (Current) Not Eligible

127-6397 Muse House (Current) Not Eligible

127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood Historic District (Current) Eligible

127-6658 Reco Biotechnology (Current) Not Eligible

127-6732

Maury Street Interchange (I-95) Bridge Over CSX Railroad 

(Function/Location), Maury Street Interchange (I-95) Bridge Over CSX 

Railroad (Descriptive)

Not Eligible

166-0001 Ashland Historic District (Current) Listed

166-0001-0020 House, 500 North Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0023 House, 506 North Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0041 House, 403 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0045 House, 501 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0047 House, 505 Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0049 House, 600 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0050 House, 601 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0051 House, 603 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0052 House, 604 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0054 House, 700 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0055 Gray, Ms. Emily, House (Historic), House, 702 South Center Street 

(Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0056 House, 703 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0057 House, 705 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0058 House, 706 South Center Street (Function/Location), Lost Lenore House 

(Historic) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0059 House, 707 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0060 Fox, Fleming M., House (Historic), House, 708 South Center Street 

(Function/Location) Not Evaluated
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-19 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-4: ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

DHR ID Resource Name NRHP Eligibility

166-0001-0061 House, 709 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0062 House, 712 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0063 MacMurdo, John, House (Historic) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0064 House, 714 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0065 House, 718 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0066 House, 801 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0067 Fox, Fleming House (Historic) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0068 House, 803 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0069 House, 804 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0070 House, 805 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0071 House, 807 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0073 House, 904 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0078 House, 1006 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0079 House, 1008 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0080 House, 1010 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0081 House, 1013 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0082 House, 1014 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0001-0083 House, 1017 South Center Street (Function/Location) Not Evaluated

166-0039 Blair House (Historic/Current) Not Evaluated

287-0010 Marine Corps Base Quantico (Current), Quantico Marine Corps Base 

Historic District (NRHP Listing) Listed

287-0011 Quantico Station (Current Name), Quantico Station, RF&P Railroad 

(Descriptive) Not Evaluated

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Table data compiled from DHR databases and survey files. 

3.5 PREVIOUS SURVEYS 

Seventy-four previous cultural resource surveys are located within or immediately adjacent to 

the archaeological APE (an area defined as 50 feet [15.2 m] from the centerline of the rail 

corridor) (Table 3-5). Surveys were identified in 17 of the 20 project segments; only in project 

segments Fredericksburg to Hamilton (08), Guinea to Milford (11), and Elmont to Greendale 

(14) were no previous cultural resource surveys encountered within or immediately adjacent to 

the APE. A selection of these surveys, which are particularly relevant to the current project 

based on their similarity in scope and location, are detailed below. All 74 are summarized in 

Table 3-5. 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-20 Archaeological Predictive Model 

In October 2012, AECOM Transportation conducted a Phase I archaeological survey for the 

proposed Potomac Yard Metrorail Station (PYMS) project in the City of Alexandria, VA. Three 

areas of archaeological potential were identified and were labeled Test Areas A, B, and C. Test 

Areas A and B were located on the grounds of the George Washington Memorial Parkway 

(GWMP), administered by the NPS. These Test Areas were examined using regularly space 

shovel test pits. Test Area C, on property of the City of Alexandria, was tested with a 6.5 x 6.5 

foot (2 x 2 m) test unit in an attempt to reach intact soils beneath a thick layer of combustion 

waste and unconsolidated ballast encountered during other archaeological studies in the area. 

The test unit in Test Area C did encounter this same layer of material to a depth of 7.9 feet (2.4 

m) below the surface covering sterile subsoil. However, no further work was recommended in 

Test Area C. Three previously unrecorded archaeological sites were identified (44AX0220 in 

Test Area A; and 44AX0221, and 44AX0222 in Test Area B). If the sites could not be avoided, 

Phase II NRHP eligibility evaluation was recommended (Albright et al. 2013). According to 

DHR site files, these sites were never formally evaluated for the NRHP and as such are all 

denoted as unevaluated in the state archives. 

The Soil Systems Division of Professional Service Industries, Inc. conducted a Phase I 

archaeological investigation along the approximately 3.6-mile (5.8-km) long segment J2 of the 

Franconia-Springfield Metrorail line in Fairfax County and the City of Alexandria, VA in 1982. 

The project area followed the existing corridor for the RF&P. One well preserved possible 

Confederate earthwork with an associated potential winter hut depression (44AX0054) in the 

proposed Van Dorn Street Station parking lot was identified. Phase II investigations were 

recommended for this site because of its potential to provide important information regarding 

Confederate military strategy (Gerlach et al. 1983). However, it appears no formal NRHP 

determination was made for the site, as it is marked as unevaluated in DHR’s site files. 

In early 2010, McCormick Taylor, Inc. completed a Phase I archaeological identification survey 

for the VRE proposed addition of a third track along an 11.4 mile (18.3 km) segment of the 

existing rail corridor which passes through the United States Marine Corps Base Quantico 

between Powell’s Creek and Arkendale. As previously mentioned, this project encompasses the 

Powells Creek to Arkendale (05) segment of the current APE. The majority of the project area 

extended 25 feet (7.6 m) from the center line of the existing track and remained inside the 

previously disturbed right-of-way (ROW). However, a small percentage of the project area 

extended as much as 100 feet (30.5 m) beyond the existing track center line and was tested using 

shovel tests placed at 50-foot (15.2-m) intervals. Two previously recorded archaeological sites 

(44ST0192 and 44ST0380) were mapped inside of the project area. However the locations of 

these sites had been severely disturbed and the sites likely destroyed. No prehistoric artifacts 

were recovered, and historic materials were all the result of twentieth century discard and were 

not collected. Therefore, no new archaeological sites were recorded and no further work was 

recommended (McCormick Taylor 2010). 

R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates Inc., on behalf of the VRE, conducted a Phase I 

archaeological survey for the 1.25-mile (2-km) Quantico Creek Railroad Bridge Project in Prince 

William County, Virginia in September 2001. The corridor was defined as the preferred 

alternative on the west side of the existing line and began within the Dominion Power Possum 

Point Power Station facility on the north side of Quantico Creek and continues southwest to the 

Town of Quantico’s passenger rail station south of the creek. No archaeological cultural 

materials or features were encountered within the project area. One shovel test pit excavated 

outside of the project ROW contained prehistoric artifacts and was recorded as newly identified 
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-21 Archaeological Predictive Model 

site 44PW1252. Since this area will not be impacted by the proposed project, no further 

archaeological investigations were recommended except in the case of future planned 

disturbance in the area where the prehistoric artifacts were recovered (Goodwin et al. 2001) 

In 2009, AECOM Transportation completed Phase I archaeological testing of two areas under 

consideration for expansion of parking facilities at VRE’s Leeland Station in Stafford County, 

VA. Both areas were tested using STPs. No significant archaeological cultural remains or 

features were encountered, and no further archaeological investigations were recommended 

(AECOM Transportation 2009). 

The majority of the remaining previous cultural resource investigations within or immediately 

adjacent to the APE are linear surveys which cross a small portion of the current study area. 

These surveys include investigations of gas line corridors, sewer line corridors, power line 

corridors, road improvement corridors, and bridge replacement projects (i.e., Baicy et al. 2005; 

Cultural Resources, Inc. 2001; Galke et al. 1993; González et al. 2007; Mouer 1989). The 

remainder of the previous projects are typically larger, less linear studies related to 

development, assessment of the presence of cultural resources in a large study area, and 

cultural resource investigations of large facilities such as Marine Corps Base Quantico or the 

Richmond International Airport (i.e., Barse and Gardner 1982; Brady et al. 2005; Clark 1977; 

Espey, Huston & Associates 1996; Geier et al. 2004; Huston and Downing 1994). Typically, only 

a small portion of these larger project areas fall within or adjacent to the current study area. 

TABLE 3-5: PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS IN OR ADJACENT TO 

THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR

Project Segment County/City DHR Survey 

Report Number Reference

1

City of Alexandria and Arlington 

County AX-143 Albright et al. 2013

1 City of Alexandria AX-139 Rose 2011

1 City of Alexandria AX-144 Mullen and Barse 2008

1 City of Alexandria AX-037 Simpson 1992

1 City of Alexandria AX-020 Mouer and Harbury 1989

1 City of Alexandria AX-056 Williams et al. 2003

1 City of Alexandria AX-105 Petraglia et al. 1993

2

City of Alexandria and Fairfax 

County FX-081 Gerlach et al. 1983

2

City of Alexandria and Fairfax 

County AX-026 Louis Berger and Associates Inc. (LBA) 1991

2 City of Alexandria AX-084 Gardner et al. 2002

2, 3 Fairfax County FX-073 Holt et al. 1983

2, 3 Fairfax County FX-191 Hunter and Robinson 1989

3 Fairfax County FX-572 Bryant and Carroll 2011

3 Fairfax County FX-067 Karell Archaeological Services 1983
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-22 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-5: PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS IN OR ADJACENT TO 

THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR

Project Segment County/City DHR Survey 

Report Number Reference

3 Fairfax County FX-032

Federal Highway Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Virginia 

Department of Highways and Transportation 

1982

3, 4 Fairfax and Prince William 

Counties FX-158 Koski-Karell and Ortiz 1987

3

City of Alexandria; Arlington, 

Fairfax, Prince William, and 

Stafford Counties

ST-153 Buchanan et al. 2007

3 Fairfax County FX-344 Eddins and Griffitts 1998

4 Fairfax County FX-176 Hunter and Cromwell 1989

4 Fairfax County FX-354 Fiedel 1996

4

Prince William and Fairfax 

Counties PW-143 Cooke et al. 2001

4 Fairfax County FX-133 Johnson 1980

4 Prince William County PW-142 Hall et al. 2001

4 Prince William County PW-016 Barse and Gardner 1982

4 Prince William County PW-294 Poplar-Jeffers and Ward 2006

5 Prince William County PW-207 Pfanstiehl et al. 1998

5, 6 Prince William and Stafford 

Counties ST-212 McCormick Taylor 2010

5 Prince William County PW-049 Stevens et al. 1990

5 Prince William County PW-344 Dutton + Associates, LLC 2009

5

Prince William and Fairfax 

Counties PW-169 Cultural Resources, Inc. (CRI) 2001

5 Prince William County PW-166 Godwin et al. 2001

5

Fauquier, Prince William, and 

Stafford Counties ST-250 Huston and Downing 1994

6 Stafford County ST-084 Underwood 2003

6 Stafford County ST-057 Higgins III 2001

6 Stafford County ST-184 AECOM Transportation 2009

6 Stafford County ST-069 Kiser et al. 1996

6, 7, 10

City of Fredericksburg; 

Spotsylvania and Caroline 

Counties

SP-159 Geier et al. 2004

6, 7 Stafford County ST-032 McLearen et al. 1992
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-23 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-5: PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS IN OR ADJACENT TO 

THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR

Project Segment County/City DHR Survey 

Report Number Reference

7 City of Fredericksburg SP-101 Sanford et al. 1992

7 City of Fredericksburg SP-176 Mullen et al. 2011

7 City of Fredericksburg SP-135 Cooke et al. 2004

7

Stafford County and City of 

Fredericksburg ST-003 Clark 1976

9 Spotsylvania County SP-106 Baicy et al. 2005

9 Spotsylvania County SP-190 Carmody et al. 2012

12 Caroline County CE-027 Outlaw et al. 1992

13 Hanover County HN-028 Peterson et al. 1994

13 King Williams, Hanover, and 

Louisa Counties KW-028 LaBudde 2011

13 Town of Ashland HN-018 McLearen and Binns 1992

15, 19, 20 Henrico County HE-13 Mouer et al.1978

16 City of Richmond HE-247 Hardegan and Kimberley 2006

16 City of Richmond HE-246 Ferland and Magoon 2007

16 City of Richmond HE-076 McFaden 1990

16 City of Richmond HE-071 Mouer 1989

17 Chesterfield County CF-094 Higgins III et al. 1995

17, 18 Chesterfield County CF-021 McIver 1985

18 City of Richmond CF-222 Bradley et al. 2009

18 City of Richmond CF-227 Opperman et al. 1987

19 City of Richmond HE-252 Rodgers 1996

19 City of Richmond HE-242 James et al. 2007

19 Hanover, Chesterfield, and 

Henrico Counties HE-073 Hunter Jr. and Blanton 1990

19 Henrico County HE-286 González et al. 2007

19 Henrico County HE-138 Espey, Huston, & Associates, Inc. 1996

19 Henrico County HE-145 Mclearen and Egghart 1996

19 Henrico County HE-090 Luccketti and McCartney 1993

20 Caroline and Hanover Counties CE-043 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2005

20 Hanover County HN-001 Clark 1977

20 Hanover and Henrico Counties HN-048 Galke et al. 1993
B A C K G R O U N D R E V I E W 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-24 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 3-5: PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEYS IN OR ADJACENT TO 

THE DC2RVA CORRIDOR

Project Segment County/City DHR Survey 

Report Number Reference

20 Hanover County HN-062 McDonald 2000

20 Hanover County HN-112 Frost and Tyrer 2011

20 Hanover County HN-037 Egghart 1995

20 Hanover County HN-080 Brady et al. 2005

20 Hanover and Henrico Counties HN-039 Browning and Taylor 1992

20 Henrico County HE-196 O’Donnell 2004

20 Henrico and Hanover Counties HE-125 Weed and Clarke 1999

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Table data compiled from DHR databases and survey files. 
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-1 Archaeological Predictive Model 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL 

Background research provided a basis for expectations about the probable location of 

archaeological resources within the APE and allowed the identification of areas with high, 

moderate, low, and no potential for the preservation of undisturbed archaeological resources. 

The following section provides an overview of the environmental parameters commonly 

associated with precontact and historic archaeological sites in northern and central Virginia, 

followed by the presentation of the hierarchical predictive model. The model produced is 

similar in size and scope to the archaeological model used to predict archaeological site 

locations along the Richmond to Raleigh segment of the SEHSR (Rupnik et al. 2007), however, 

the current analysis incorporated additional levels of background review and complexity. The 

Richmond to Raleigh predictive model was validated via subsequent Phase I and II testing, as 

such the same approach to validation will be adopted for the current model and the Richmond 

to Raleigh project, itself, is also used as a test case to validate the current methodology. 

4.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTLEMENT MODELS 

Archaeological settlement models and previously conducted surveys in Virginia and 

surrounding areas provide a range of environmental attributes that typically characterize 

landforms by the probability of encountering undisturbed archaeological resources. The models 

imply that soil properties, distance to rivers and smaller tributaries, topography, and the 

diversity of microenvironments in a particular setting allow evaluation of the probability of 

encountering archaeological sites. Dwellings and many other buildings increasingly clustered 

near roads as infrastructure improved over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth 

centuries. Despite the value of attributes of the natural and built environments for projecting the 

probable location of archaeological sites, the siting of unique resources like ceremonial sites, 

mills, and battlefields often responded to functional requirements or events that diverge from 

the known settlement patterns. Consequently, archaeological resources may occur in areas the 

models consider to have a low probability of containing archaeological sites. 

4.1.1 Precontact and Protohistoric Settlement Models 

The archaeological record demonstrates the presence of Native Americans in the Chesapeake 

Region for over 10,000 years. John Smith’s map illustrates a number of settlements, named and 

unnamed, lining the major rivers in the Chesapeake Region. These data, therefore, imply that a 

high probability exists for Native American archaeological sites to occur in the vicinity of the 

larger rivers, the Potomac, Rappahannock, Pamunkey, James, and Appomattox. 

Precontact settlement pattern studies in the Middle Atlantic Region commonly rely on a suite of 

environmental variables to characterize the probable location of archaeological sites. Location 

4
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-2 Archaeological Predictive Model 

near a major river appears particularly important, not only on the floodplain but atop the bluffs 

overlooking rivers. Additional variables relevant for projecting the probable location of 

precontact archaeological resources in the APE include: aspect; elevation; slope; landform type; 

soil attributes; and distance to a water source, not necessarily a major river (e.g., Hantman 1985; 

Kellogg 1987; Klein 1995). Aspect and elevation above mean sea level (amsl) appear unlikely to 

have exerted a major influence on past settlement in the project area. In addition, Klein (1995) 

found the ubiquity of smaller streams in Virginia’s Northern Neck diluted the value of the 

attribute for predictive modeling, a result that likely applies to at least the northern sections of 

the project area. The three variables that appear consistently associated with a high density of 

potentially significant precontact archaeological resources are locations near major rivers, 

presences of well-drained and fertile soils, and level to gently sloping landforms (cf. Klein et al. 

2012:31–32; Potter 1993). 

The rich and varied resources and the critical importance of riverine transportation drew 

humans and animals to riverine settings for millennia. Three of the four major rivers that empty 

into the Chesapeake Bay influenced pre- and post-contact settlement in the project vicinity. The 

DC2RVA corridor passes through the inner Coastal Plain of the Potomac River parallel to and 

less than 1 mile (1.6 km) from the river from approximately from the Occoquan River in Prince 

William County to Aquia Creek in Stafford County, then crosses the Rappahannock and James 

Rivers. The archaeological remnants of the villages illustrated by Smith (1624) along the 

Potomac, Rappahannock, and James Rivers from the Chesapeake Bay to the falls; the remains of 

earlier settlements identified archaeologically also occur along rivers throughout the Middle 

Atlantic Region. Moreover, flooding over millennia resulted in the preservation of vertically 

stacked, or stratified, deposits of sediments that preserve archaeological sites that provide 

evidence of social evolution over millenia (Custer 1989, 1996; Dent 1995; Potter 1993). As 

distance from the major rivers increases, the probability of discovering large semi-permanent 

settlements and dense palimpsests produced by repeated settlement in the same setting over 

millennia decreases. People ranged out from riverine settlements to harvest the resources of the 

surrounding landscape, producing a range of archaeological site types. Viewed from a regional 

scale, significant precontact and contact-era archaeological sites of all types cluster near and in 

the landscape surrounding rivers. The probability of discovering archaeological sites, therefore, 

peaks in the undisturbed portions of the project area located within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the 

Potomac, Rappahannock, and James. 

Slope, as noted earlier, constitutes an important aspect of descriptions of past settlement 

patterns. The effects of erosion on side-slopes along the streams potentially destroyed or altered 

archaeological contexts, particularly steep, abrupt slopes along deeply incised streambeds. 

Therefore, even if occupation of side-slopes had occurred, the effects of erosion undoubtedly 

altered or destroyed the remnants of such activity. Consequently, slopes greater than 15 percent 

are considered low probability areas. Nevertheless, the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service’s classification of soil types relies, in part, on slope (Soil Conservation Service [SCS] 

Survey Staff 2013). Therefore, soil was used in the predictive model rather than slope. 

Soils susceptible to erosion reduce both the agricultural value of the soil and the potential for 

preservation of material remains of past activities; as slope increases, so too does susceptibility 

to erosion. Moreover, wild herbs and grasses exploited by precontact peoples likely flourished 

in the same environments that favor descendent species like domesticated corn, wheat, and 

barley, suggesting that soil fertility influenced past land use. In addition, even occupations 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-3 Archaeological Predictive Model 

unrelated to gathering or hunting probably favored well-drained settings, and soil 

classifications include the tendency to flood or pond. 

Descriptions of individual soils rely on a wide range of attributes, some irrelevant to the 

identification of landforms selected by past people for settlement. Moreover, a plethora of soil 

types have been defined, with names often differing across county boundaries. Fortunately, the 

SCS (2013) classifies individual soils types into broader categories based on attributes like 

fertility and the tendency to erode or flood (Table 4-1). Although geared to the needs of modern 

farmers and builders, archaeologists have found soil class valuable (e.g., Potter 1993). 

Archaeological studies indicate that Class I soils, which exhibit few limitations on use and 

support a wide range of vegetation types, attracted human settlement prior to and after the 

arrival of European settlers, as did many Class II soils (e.g., Lukezic 1990; Potter 1993:34–39). 

Potter (1993:37) also suggests less well-drained Class II soils may exceed the prime agricultural 

Class I soils in productivity during periods of drought. Since survival during lean years caused 

by, for example, drought or excessive rainfall is critical for societies, (Potter 1993) believes past 

peoples chose site locations that maximized access to both fertile Class I and somewhat less 

well-drained, but still fertile, Class II soils. Therefore, the potential presence of archaeological 

sites appears highest on Class I and II soils, followed by the less productive Class III and IV 

soils. Far fewer, if any, precontact and protohistoric sites are expected to occur on Class V 

through VII soils. The limitations of Class VIII soils include attributes like very steep slopes and 

disturbance from mining, cutting and filling by humans, and extensive construction that 

preclude the preservation of undisturbed archaeological sites; nevertheless, given the scale at 

which soils are mapped, examination of segments characterized as Class VIII soils was 

conducted, unless obviously disturbed on aerial maps. 

The topography, the proximity and type of water resources, and the attributes of soils directly 

affect the type and variety of flora in different settings. The quantity and variety of both plants 

and animals in an area has a direct influence on human habitation. A wide variety of native 

wildlife species inhabit riverine settings in the region (Shelford 1963:19-56). Rivers and the 

associated tributaries incised the surrounding landform, creating variation in elevation, soils, 

and drainage that creates microenvironmental variation in the plant and animal species, 

particularly near the falls of the rivers and the mouth of tidal streams. The evolution of drainage 

systems also exposed the cobbles used to manufacture many precontact tools. Thus, from large 

and small settlements on well-drained soils, humans were able to harvest a wide range of 

resources within relatively small areas. 

The precontact and protohistoric predictive model, therefore, identified areas within 1 mile (1.6 

km) of the major rivers as high probability. Areas underlain by Class I and II soils located more 

than 1 mile (1.6 km) from the major rivers were also considered high probability. The moderate 

probability zone in areas removed from the large rivers consisted of Class III and IV soils; Class 

V through VIII soils in such settings were defined as low probability. Within the river-based 

high probability areas, this approach produces a gradation in the expected density of sites from 

highest to lowest, but since different site types likely occur in different settings, undisturbed 

portions of the entire areas were considered high probability. The attributes applied to 

precontact and protohistoric sites appear relevant to early historic resources as well. Social and 

technological developments produced a different set of expectations for later historic resources. 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-4 Archaeological Predictive Model 

4.1.2 Historic Settlement Models 

The tobacco boom of the seventeenth century fueled immigration and expansion of colonial 

settlement. Tobacco plants grow best on gentle slopes (2–6 percent) with well-drained, loosely 

structured fine sands or sandy loams. Ponding impedes oxygen intake by the plants roots, 

which in turn prevents the plant from maturing. Therefore, the importance of tobacco in the 

Anglo-Virginian economy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries led settlers to favor 

locations characterized by fertile, well-drained soils and gentle slopes (Lukezic 1990). Soil class, 

which incorporates drainage and slope, as well as fertility, identifies soils valuable to early 

tobacco farmers. 

TABLE 4-1: SCS (2013) SOIL CLASS DEFINITIONS

Soil Class and 

Subclass Definition

1 Soils have slight limitations that restrict their use

2

Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation 

practices.

3

Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or require special conservation practices, 

or both.

4

Soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or require very careful management, 

or both.

5

Soils have little or no hazard of erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that limit 

their use mainly to pasture, range, forestland, or wildlife food and cover. 

6

Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and that limit their use 

mainly to pasture, range, forestland, or wildlife food and cover. 

7

Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use 

mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife. 

8

Soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plant production 

and limit their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply or for esthetic purposes. 

E

Soils for which the susceptibility to erosion is the dominant problem or hazard affecting their use. 

Erosion susceptibility and past erosion damage are the major soil factors that affect soils in this 

subclass.

W

Soils for which excess water is the dominant hazard or limitation affecting their use. Poor soil drainage, 

wetness, a high water table, and overflow are the factors that affect soils in this subclass.

S

Soils that have soil limitations within the rooting zone, such as shallowness of the rooting zone, stones, 

low moisture-holding capacity, low fertility that is difficult to correct, and salinity or sodium content. 

C

Soils for which the climate (the temperature or lack of moisture) is the major hazard or limitation 

affecting their use.

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Table data compiled from SCS’s online database. 

Initially, access to deep water harbors was essential, given the absence of well-developed 

transportation routes. As a result, early plantations and farms clustered along the major rivers 

and bays in the Coastal Plain, but soon colonial farms spread upstream along the major rivers. 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-5 Archaeological Predictive Model 

In sum, early colonists sought the same settings favored by earlier peoples: well-drained, fertile 

soils near the major rivers. The predictive model incorporates both variables. 

Tobacco prices fluctuated widely and tobacco farming depleted the soils of essential nutrients 

and deep plowing caused erosion. The price of wheat on the world market surpassed tobacco 

between the 1740s and the 1770s (Siener 1985:42). Although the American Revolution disrupted 

wheat shipments, farmers shifted to wheat, corn, and other grains and livestock by the 

beginning of the nineteenth century (Siener 985:414–415). 

Grains spurred the growth of associated industries and infrastructure. Grains required milling, 

and distilling enhanced preservation. New grain mills were constructed along the streams 

falling from the Piedmont throughout the region, and distillers appeared in port towns like 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Alexandria. Millers and distillers required coopers, 

manufacturers of milling equipment, and warehouses for storage. The unique requirements of 

mills ensured location in atypical settings; the requirement for a secure water source to drive 

the equipment led millers to accept locations on poorly drained soils and moderately sized 

floodplains unacceptable for other types of structures. Fortunately, the construction of mill 

races, stone foundations, and other attributes of mills tended to create distinctive, highly visible 

landscapes. The construction of mills often left surface features visible to today, which can be 

identified during pedestrian survey (cf. Winter 1994). Moreover, late-eighteenth- and 

nineteenth-century maps often depict the approximate location of mills. 

The introduction of new crops, and advances in farm management and fertilization, opened 

marginal land to agriculture, a process accelerated by the division of family farms through 

inheritance. Equally important, the development of transportation networks exerted a strong 

influence over domestic site location in the mid-nineteenth century, and many rural towns 

emerged at crossroads and along railroad lines. Proximity to roads, particularly major roads 

and crossroads, along with railroad stations, define the expected locations for nineteenthcentury settlements and farms. By the 1860s, roads and railroad lines crossed Virginia’s 

northern Piedmont. 

By the 1920s and 1930s, the state and counties improved the network of roads. As roads 

improved and automotive transportation became more widely available to rural residents, 

proximity to roads increasingly influenced settlement patterns. 

In sum, the probability of encountering late-eighteenth- through twentieth-century 

archaeological sites peaks near transportation routes. During the seventeenth century, 

settlement clustered around well-drained soils near rivers, identified as high-probability 

locations for both precontact and historic archaeological sites. During the nineteenth century, 

transportation networks expanded drawing settlers, soldiers, laborers, and taverns to major 

crossroads and rail lines. To address the influence of travel routes on settlement, the predictive 

model includes information on crossroads, major roads, and railroad stations on the RF&P line. 

Architectural resources, particularly extensive architectural resources like battlefields, military 

camps, forts, plantations, and farmsteads often possess archaeological components. Therefore, 

the georeferenced location of road networks, the ABPP defined potentially eligible portions of 

battlefield, military camps, and previously identified architectural resources were included in 

the predictive model. 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-6 Archaeological Predictive Model 

4.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS OF THE PREDICTIVE MODEL 

Modeling that reflects cumulative archaeological knowledge about the expected location and 

attributes of resources constitute a critical step in the design of efficient and effective cultural 

resource management (CRM) surveys (Banning 2002:183; Sebastian and Judge 1988:1). An 

archaeological predictive model is a “simplified set of testable hypotheses, based either on 

behavioral assumptions or on empirical correlations, which at a minimum attempts to predict 

the loci of past human activities resulting in the deposition of artifacts or alteration of the 

landscape” (Kohler 1988:33). Models based on theoretical propositions, Sebastian and Judge 

(1988:6–9) argue, not only predict the location of prehistoric sites, but also explain the 

underlying causation, making them superior to empirically derived models. In CRM, however, 

the overall process that begins with predictive modeling and moves through survey, evaluation, 

and, if necessary, mitigation evaluates the effectiveness of the predictive model in a particular 

setting and addresses the underlying causes of the patterns observed in the archaeological 

record. In addition, the regional literature mined to generate a predictive model for a particular 

region generally addresses social and environmental influences on the patterns observed in the 

archaeological record. 

Previous studies throughout the region provided a basis for projection of relative probability of 

discovering intact terrestrial archaeological sites in the archaeological APE. Environmental 

variables encompassed within the model included distance to major streams, soil fertility as 

reflected in the SCS’s identification of soil classes, and disturbance evident on aerial images of 

the project corridor. Aspects of the built environment included the georeferenced location of 

historic roads and NPS trails that crossed the APE. Documentary research provided information 

on previously identified architectural and archaeological resources, Revolutionary War and 

Civil War camps depicted on period maps, and the ABPP and CWSAC-defined location of Civil 

War battlefields. These data allowed the prediction of the settings characterized by a high, 

moderate, and low probability of discovering archaeological sites, as well as areas where 

previous disturbance, development, or soil attributes, and areas of previously completed 

archaeological survey that meet current DHR survey standards, indicate that archaeological 

sites will not be discovered through STP survey or metal detecting. 

High probability settings consist of: 1) undisturbed landforms within 1 mile (1.6 km) of a major 

river or bay (i.e., the Potomac, Rappahannock, and James and the lower stretches of the 

Occoquan River and the larger streams emptying into the Potomac River); 2) broad stretches of 

undisturbed, well-drained, fertile soils (Class I and II soils); 3) areas within the boundaries of 

known architectural resources, including the NRHP-eligible boundaries defined by the ABPP 

and CWSAC for the region’s Civil War Battlefields and the projected location of Revolutionary 

War camps identified by Selig (2009); and 4) a 75-foot (22.9-m) area around the location of 

historic roads based on georeferenced historic maps. It is recommended that STPs spaced at 50-

foot (15.2-m) intervals will be excavated within the high probability areas. In addition, it is 

recommended that metal-detector survey be conducted within the high probability areas of 

ABPP-defined boundary of Civil War battlefields and the projected location of Civil War and 

Revolutionary War camps. 

Moderate probability settings consist of undisturbed Class III and IV soils that do not meet high 

probability criteria 1, 3, and 4. It is recommended that STPs spaced at 50-foot (15.2-m) intervals 

be excavated within the moderate probability areas. In addition, it is recommended that metaldetector survey be conducted within moderate probability areas of the ABPP-defined boundary 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-7 Archaeological Predictive Model 

of Civil War battlefields and the projected location of Civil War and Revolutionary War camps. 

Testing of both high and moderate probability areas is recommended based on previous 

archaeological predictive modeling within the SEHSR corridor (Rupnik et al. 2007). 

Low probability areas were identified by the presence of undisturbed Class V through VIII soils 

that do not meet high probability criteria 1, 3, and 4. It is recommended that the low probability 

areas be visually inspected and 10 percent of the least disturbed low probability be subjected to 

systematic subsurface survey. The low probability sample will rely on STPs spaced at 50-foot 

(15.2-m) intervals and judgmental STPs. 

Areas heavily impacted by modern development, including paved areas, industrial and other 

large-scale developments, inundated soils, and soils classified as Urban Land constitute the 

areas with no probability of locating archaeological resources within the APE. These areas of no 

probability were determined via soil mapping and a close inspection of aerial imagery, and 

totaled 1,866.5 acres (755 ha), mostly concentrated around the urban centers in Northern and 

Central Virginia. In addition, the no probability areas encompass previously surveyed areas 

where the survey methodology meets the current DHR (2011) standards. For example, the 

entirety of the Powell’s Creek to Arkendale (05) segment was subjected to Phase I 

archaeological study in 2010 and therefore this segment was classified as an area of no 

probability. These previously surveyed areas of no probability encompass 316 acres (127.8 ha). 

Areas subjected to previous archaeological survey that did not meet the current DHR standards 

were subjected the probability screening process. The previously recorded archaeological sites 

within the APE (see Table 3-1) were not included within the model results. Instead, all sites 

previously determined eligible and potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP as well as 

those sites that have not been evaluated by the DHR should be reexamined regardless of 

their location within the probability model and if necessary evaluated. The current condition 

of all sites determined eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP will be assessed 

and those that are unevaluated should be evaluated. The goal is to assure that each site retains 

the characteristics that rendered it eligible for the NRHP. This will be accomplished through a 

pedestrian survey with photodocumentation and limited subsurface testing. Judgemental 

shovel testing will be employed to verify intact soils but extensive subsurface studies will not be 

completed on these resources to avoid any unnecessary impacts. Any site that was previously 

determined to be not eligible for the NRHP will not be revisited during this work as an 

eligibility determination has been rendered and no additional work is required. 

Given the above outlined criteria, the APE was divided into areas of high, medium, low, and no 

probability as depicted in the results maps presented in Appendix A. Based on the findings of 

the predictive model, it is recommended that 90 percent (1,890.8 acres [765.2 ha]) of the 2,109.5-

acre (853.7-ha) project corridor should not be tested due to previous disturbance or 

archaeological survey. The results reflect the extensive development in Fairfax County and the 

cities of Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Richmond. Of the remaining 218.7 acres (88.5 ha), 

156.8 (63.4 ha) were classified as high probability, 46.9 acres (19 ha) as moderate probability, 

and 15.0 acres (6.1 ha) as low probability. It is recommended that the all of the high and 

moderate probability areas, a total of 203.7 acres (82.4 ha), and a 10 percent sample of the low 

probability area (approximately 1.5 acres [0.6 ha]) be subjected to STP and metal detector 

survey, where appropriate. Areas recommended for testing occur primarily in the less 

developed segments located between Fredericksburg and Richmond. The detailed results of the 

model by project segment are outlined in Tables 4-2 to 4-3. 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-8 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 4-2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL RESULTS

High 

Probability Moderate Low No Probability Total

Acreage 156.8 46.9 15.0 1,890.8 2,109.5

Percentage 7% 2% 1% 90% 100%

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Archaeological Predictive Model Results. 
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-9 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 4-3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL RESULTS BY AREA

Project Segment High Moderate Low No Probability Total

01 Rosslyn to Alexandria

Acreage 0 0 0 78.1 78.1

Percentage 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

02 Alexandria to 

Franconia

Acreage 0 0 0 58.1 58.1

Percentage 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

03 Franconia to Lorton

Acreage 7.1 0.9 0 69.4 77.4

Percentage 9% 1% 0% 90% 100%

04 Lorton to Powells 

Creek

Acreage 8.6 0.1 0 102.4 111.1

Percentage 8% Less than 1% 0% 92% 100%

05 Powells Creek to 

Arkendale

Acreage 0 0 0 127.5 127.5

Percentage 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%

06 Arkendale to Dahlgren

Acreage 4.7 4.6 0.6 137.5 147.4

Percentage 3% 3% Less than 1% 93% 100%

07 Dahlgren to 

Fredericksburg

Acreage 1.5 0 0 29 30.5

Percentage 5% 0% 0% 95% 100%

08 Fredericksburg to 

Hamilton

Acreage 2.5 0 0 29.5 32.1

Percentage 8% 0% 0% 92% 100%

09 Hamilton to 

Crossroad

Acreage 4.6 0 0 25.3 29.9

Percentage 15% 0% 0% 85% 100%

10 Crossroads to Guinea

Acreage 8 1.1 0.1 66.1 75.3

Percentage 11% 2% Less than 1% 73% 100%

11 Guinea to Milford

Acreage 16.7 11.8 1.3 80.1 110.1

Percentage 15% 11% 1% 73% 100%

12 Milford to North 

Doswell

Acreage 25.4 15.8 8.2 126.6 176

Percentage 14% 9% 5% 72% 100%

13 North Doswell to 

Elmont

Acreage 10.2 2.1 0.5 143.3 156.1

Percentage 7% 1% Less than 1% 92% 100%

14 Elmont to Greendale

Acreage 1.6 2.7 0.3 52.3 56.9

Percentage 3% 5% 1% 92% 100%

15 Greendale to 

SAY/WAY

Acreage 0.2 0.4 0 66.4 67

Percentage Less than 1% 1% 0% 99% 100%

16 SAY to AM Junction- Acreage 0.02 0 0.03 40.1 40.2
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L P R E D I C T I V E M O D E L 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-10 Archaeological Predictive Model 

TABLE 4-3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODEL RESULTS BY AREA

Project Segment High Moderate Low No Probability Total

Hermitage Lead Percentage Less than 1% 0% Less than 1% Greater than 99% 100%

17 AM Junctions to 

Centralia

Acreage 11.6 0 0 147.5 159.1

Percentage 7% 0% 0% 93% 100%

18 WAY to Centralia

Acreage 9.3 1.5 0 164.7 175.5

Percentage 5% 1% 0% 94% 100%

19 Rivanna Junction to 

Beulah

Acreage 5.7 0 0 88 93.7

Percentage 6% 0% 0% 94% 100%

20 Buckingham Branch

Acreage 38.7 5.9 4 258.8 307.4

Percentage 13% 2% 1% 84% 100%

Source: Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 2015. 

Table Notes: Archaeological Predictive Model Results. 
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-1 Archaeological Predictive Model 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The DC2RVA Project Team conducted an archaeological background review and produced a 

predictive model of archaeological site locations to guide a Phase I cultural resource survey of 

the proposed DC2RVA segment of the SEHSR project. The proposed Project is being completed 

under the auspice of the FRA in conjunction with the DRPT. Because of the FRA’s involvement, 

the undertaking is required to comply with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The project is being completed as DHR File Review 

#2014-0666. 

Previous studies throughout the region provided a basis for projection of relative probability of 

discovering terrestrial archaeological sites using standard Phase I survey techniques in the 

DC2RVA project corridor. Environmental variables included distance to major drainages, soil 

fertility as reflected in the Soil Conservation Service’s identification of soil classes, and 

disturbance evident on aerial images of the project corridor. Aspects of the built environment 

included the georeferenced location of historic roads and NPS historic trails that crossed the 

DC2RVA corridor. Documentary research provided information on previously identified 

architectural and archaeological resources, Revolutionary War and Civil War camps depicted 

on period maps, and the ABPP-defined location of Civil War battlefields. These data allowed 

the prediction of the settings characterized by a high, moderate, and low probability of 

discovering archaeological sites, as well as areas where previous disturbance, development, 

previous archaeological survey, or soil attributes indicate that archaeological sites will not be 

discovered through shovel test survey or metal detecting. 

For the purposes of the predictive model, the APE was defined as a corridor that extends 50 feet 

(15.2 m) on both sides of the center of the existing rail lines, an area encompassing 2,109.5 acres 

(853.7 ha). The proposed DC2RVA project impacts only near-surface resources; for this reason, 

the predictive model does not include deep testing. It is recommended that 90 percent (1,890.8 

acres [765.2 ha]) of the 2,109.5-acre (853.7-ha) APE should not be tested due to lack of defined 

probability or previous archaeological survey that meets DHR standards. The results reflect 

the extensive development in Fairfax County and the cities of Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and 

Richmond, as well as the construction and maintenance of the existing rail corridor. Of the 

remaining 218.7 acres (88.5 ha), 156.8 (63.4 ha) were classified as high probability, 46.9 acres (19 

ha) as moderate probability, and 15.0 acres (6.1 ha) as low probability. It is recommended that 

the all of the high and moderate probability areas, a total of 203.7 acres (82.4 ha), and a 10 

percent sample of the low probability area (approximately 1.5 acres [0.6 ha]) be subjected to 

STP and metal detector survey, where appropriate. Testable areas occur primarily in the less 

developed segments located between Fredericksburg and Richmond. Additionally, it is 

recommended that all sites previously determined eligible and potentially eligible for listing 

on the NRHP as well as those sites that have not been evaluated by the DHR should be 

reexamined regardless of their location within the probability model and if necessary 

5
S U M M A R Y A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 

DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-2 Archaeological Predictive Model 

evaluated. The current condition of all sites determined eligible or potentially eligible for listing 

on the NRHP will be assessed and those that are unevaluated will be formally evaluated. The 

goal is to assure that each site retains the characteristics that rendered it eligible for the NRHP. 

This will be accomplished through a pedestrian survey with photodocumentation and limited 

subsurface testing. Judgemental shovel testing will be employed to verify intact soils but 

extensive subsurface studies will not be completed on these resources to avoid any unnecessary 

impacts. Any site that was previously determined to be not eligible for the NRHP will not be 

revisited during this work as an eligibility determination has been rendered and no additional 

work is required. 
DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-1 Archaeological Predictive Model 

REFERENCES 

Abbot, Henry L. 

1862 White House to Harrisons Landing Prepared by command of Maj. Gen. George B. 

McClellan U.S.A., commanding Army of the Potomac. Compilation under the 

direction of Brig. Gen. A. A. Humphreys, by Capt. H. L. Abbot, Top Engrs. Engraved 

by W. H. Dougal. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, 

D.C. Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883h.cw0594000, accessed 

March 2015. 

AECOM Transportation 

2009 VRE Leeland Station Phase I Archaeological Report. AECOM Transportation, Trenton, 

New Jersey. 

Albright, Brian M., Paul W. Schopp, Vanessa Zeoli, and Frank G. Mikolic III 

2013 Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, Potomac Yard Metrorail Station Project, City of 

Alexandria, Virginia and Arlington County, Virginia. AECOM Transportation, Trenton, 

New Jersey. 

Anonymous 

186-a Caroline County, Virginia. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883c.cwh00026, accessed March 2015. 

186-b Map of part of Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Virginia. Library of Congress, 

Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883f.cw0536300, accessed March 2015. 

186-c Map of the northern portion of Hanover County, Va., showing fortifications on the South 

Anna River near Taylorsville. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883h.cwh00038, accessed March 2015. 

186-d Map of Louisa County and part of Hanover County, Va. Library of Congress, 

Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883l.cwh00045, accessed March 2015. 

6
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-2 Archaeological Predictive Model 

186-e Map of Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties, Virginia. Library of Congress, Geography 

and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883s.cwh00062 

186-f Map of Stafford County, Va. From the surveys of B.L. Blackford, Asst. Engr. Made under the 

direction of Capt. A.H. Campbell, Provl. Engrs. in charge Topog. Dept. D.N.V. Library of 

Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883s.cwh00063, accessed March 2015. 

Army of Northern Virginia, Engineer’s Office, 2nd Corps 

186- Caroline County, Virginia / Eng. Office, 2d Corps, A.N.Va. Library of Congress, 

Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883c.cwh00024, accessed March 2015. 

Army of the Potomac 

1862 Approaches of A. of P. to Fredericksburg. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps 

Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884f.cw0555000, accessed March 2015. 

Baicy, Dan, Keith Heinrich, and Loretta Lautzenheiser 

2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Massaponax Gravity Sewer Interceptor Pipeline 

Replacement, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, 

North Carolina. 

Bailey, A. N. 

186- Map of Richmond, Va., shewing fortifications surrounding the Confederate capital. From the 

latest government surveys. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd 

/g3884r.cw0622000, accessed March 2015. 

Balicki, Joseph 

2006 “Masterly Inactivity”: The Confederate Cantonment Supporting the 1861-1862 

Blockade of the Potomac River, Evansport, Virginia. In Huts and History: The 

Historical Archaeology of Military Encampment During the American Civil War, edited by 

Clarence R. Geier, David G. Orr, and Matthew B. Reeves, pp. 97–136. University 

Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

Banning, E. B. 

2002 Archaeological Survey. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique, 

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. 

Barse, William P, and William M. Gardner 

1982 A Prehistoric Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Neabsco and Powells Creek, Prince 

William County, Virginia. Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-3 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Bradley, Dawn M., Jennifer Stewart, Bill Hall, and Robert Patterson 

2009 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Proposed Improvements to Jahnke Road, Richmond, 

Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina. 

Brady, Ellen M., Darby O’Donnell, and John P. Cooke 

2005 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the 197-Acre Proposed Rutland Development Project 

Area, Hanover County, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia. 

Browning, Lyle E., and Michael V. Taylor 

1992 Phase I Intensive Cultural Resources Survey; Elmont-Old Church 230 kV Transmission 

Line Hanover & Henrico Counties, Virginia. Browning and Associates, Ltd., Midlothian, 

Virginia. 

Bryant, Tammy, and David Carroll 

2011 Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Loisdale Road Properties, Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Thunderbird Archeology, a Division of Wetland Studies and Solution, Inc., 

Gainesville, Virginia. 

Buchanan, Brian, Christopher Shephard, David Carroll, Curt Breckenridge, Johnna Flahive, 

Christine Jirikowic, Tammy Bryant, and William P. Barse 

2007 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the I-95/395 HOV/Bus/HOT Lanes Project, 

Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William and Stafford Counties and the City of Alexandria, 

Virginia. Thunderbird Archeology, a Division of Wetland Studies and Solution, Inc., 

Gainesville, Virginia. 

Carmody, Michael, Earl E. Proper, Aubrey Von Lindern, and Mike Klein 

2012 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Crossroads Parkway Virginia Railway Express 

Station, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Research Group, 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

Campbell, Albert H. 

1862 Map of part of Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, July 12th, 1862 / Albert H. Campbell 

Capt. P. Engrs., & Chf. Top. Dept. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, 

D.C. Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883h.cwh00040, accessed 

March 2015. 

1891 Map of the vicinity of Richmond and part of the Peninsula From surveys made under the 

direction of A. H. Campbell, Capt: P.E.C.S.A. in charge Topographl. Dept., D.N.V. 1864. 

Facsimile reproduction made from the original Confederate war map owned by T. Sewell Ball, 

Publisher, Pikesville, Baltimore Co., Maryland. A. B. Graham, photolith., Washington, D.C. 

Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1891, by T. Sewell Ball . Library of 

Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884r.cw0626000, accessed March 2015. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-4 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) 

2009 Update to the Civil War Advisory Commission’s Report on the Nation’s Civil War 

Battlefields. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American 

Battlefield Protection Program, Washington, D.C. 

Church, Benjamin Silliman 

186- Reconnaissance in advance of Camp Mansfield. Library of Congress, Geography and 

Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883a.cw0521000, accessed March 2015. 

Clark, Wayne E. 

1976 An Initial Archaeological Survey of the Route 3 East-West Connector in the Fall Line Zone 

of the Rappahannock River, Virginia. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia. 

1977 Archaeological Resources of the Bear Island Farm, Little River, Hanover County, Virginia.

The Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, College of William and Mary, 

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Cooke, John P., Lily A. Richards, and Taft Keiser 

2004 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cobblestone Square Apartments, City of 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

Cooke, John P., Mary Ann Holm, Bill W. Hall, N. Carolyn McCollum, and Loretta Lautzenheiser 

2001 Cultural Resources Identification Survey (Phase I) Improvements to U.S. Route 1 from 

Route 123 to Route 611 (Telegraph Road) Prince William and Fairfax Counties, Virginia, 

Project B. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina. 

Corbett, V. P. 

1861 Sketch of the seat of war in Alexandria & Fairfax Cos., by V. P. Corbett. Library of 

Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883a.cw0522000, accessed March 2015 

Cultural Resources, Inc. 

2001 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Proposed 14-Mile Natural Gas Pipeline between the 

Possum Point Power Station in Prince William County to the Cove Point Pipeline in Fairfax 

County, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.

Custer, Jay F. 

1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study. The University 

of Delaware Press, Newark. 

1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission, Harrisburg. 

Dent, Richard J., Jr. 

1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-5 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Dutton + Associates, LLC 

2009 Management Summary: Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Relocated Line 571 

and the Possum Point-PEPCO Interconnection Transmission Lines. Dutton + Associates, 

LLC, Richmond, Virginia. 

Eddins, John T., and Eric F. Griffitts 

1998 Cultural Resource Evaluation on the Grounds of the Former Medium Security Facility, 

District of Columbia Detention Center, Lorton, Virginia. The Cultural Resource Group, 

Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

Egghart, Christopher P. 

1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Highway Improvements to Rt. 637, Hanover 

County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research 

Center, Richmond, Virginia. 

Engineers’ Office, 10th Army Corps 

186-a Caroline County, Virginia / Eng. Office, 2d Corps, A.N.Va. Confederate States of America. 

Army of Northern Virginia. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883c.cw0536000, accessed March 2015. 

186-b Sketch No. 4 of Roads between HQ 10th Army Corps and Swift Creek on the South with 

Enemy's 2nd Line of entrenchments around Drewry's Bluff on the North. Library of 

Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883c.cw0536000, accessed March 2015. 

Espey, Huston & Associates 

1996 Results of a Facility-Wide Cultural Resources Survey, Richmond International Airport, 

Henrico County, Virginia. Espey, Huston & Associates, Newport News, Virginia. 

Federal Highway Administration, U.S Department of Transportation, and Virginia Department 

of Highways and Transportation 

1981 Springfield Bypass and Extension, Fairfax County, Virginia. Technical Report: Cultural 

Resources. Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia. 

Ferland, Sara C., and Dane Magoon 

2007 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Battery Park Emergency Overflow Relief 

Pipeline Alignment, City of Richmond, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc., Richmond, 

Virginia. 

Fiedel, Stuart J. 

1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Lorton Pumpover Project, Fairfax County, 

Virginia. John Milner Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia. 

Frost, David M., and Carol D. Tyer 

2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Atlee Road Extended, Hanover County, Virginia. 

Circa~Cultural Resource Management, LLC, Williamsburg, Virginia. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-6 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Galke, Laura J., J. Mark Wittkofski, Sue Ellen Kozarek, Ruth G. Myers, Orloff G. Miller, W. 

Kevin Pape, E. Jeanne Harris, Douglas J. Harnsberger, Catherine Farmer, and Paulette Roberts 

1993 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of Proposed 15.8-Mile Elmont to Old Church 

Overhead Transmission Line, Hanover and Henrico Counties, Virginia. Gray and Pape, 

Inc., Richmond, Virginia. 

Gallivan, Martin D. 

1997 Spatial Analysis of John Smith’s 1612 Map of Virginia. Journal of the Middle Atlantic 

Archaeology 13:145–160. 

Gardner, William M., Gwen J. Hurst, and John P. Mullen 

2002 Phase I-III Archaeological Investigations of 4840 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia.

Thunderbird Archeological Associates, Inc, Woodstock, Virginia. 

Geier, Clarence R., Stephen Lotts, Eric Mink, and Karen Early 

2004 An Overview and Assessment of Archaeological Resources and Landscapes within Lands 

Managed by Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park: Volume II: the 

Battlefields of Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg And the Associated National Park 

Properties of "Stonewall" Jackson Shrine and Chatham. Department of Sociology and 

Anthropology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Gerlach, Jonathan, Cheryl A. Holt, Susan A. Lebo, and Teresa E. Ossim 

1983 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of Segment J2 of the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail 

Line, City of Alexandria and Fairfax County, Virginia. Soil Systems Division, 

Professional Service Industries, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia. 

Godwin, Peter, Joshua Roth, Michael Hornum, and Scott Meacham 

2001 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Quantico Creek Railroad Bridge Project, 

Prince William County, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 

Frederick, Maryland. 

González, Marco A., Andrew H. Deci, Melissa L. Celii, Erik F. Nelson, and Michael L. Carmody 

2007 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Charles City Road Widening Project, Henrico 

County, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Research Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

Gossett, Tanya M., and H. Bryan Mitchell 

2007 Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites 

in the United States. American Battlefield Protection Program, National Park Service, 

United States Department 

Hall, Bill W., Loretta Lautzenheiser, John P. Cooke, Mary Ann Holm, and N. Carolyn McCollum 

2001 Cultural Resources Identification Survey (Phase I) Improvements to US 1 from Stafford 

County Line to Route 123, Prince William County, Virginia, Project A. Coastal Carolina 

Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-7 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Hantman, Jeffrey L. 

1985 The Archaeology of Albemarle County. University of Virginia, Department of 

Anthropology, Archaeological Survey Monograph No. 2. Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Hardegan, Steven E., and Ryan Kimberley 

2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey Battery Park Trunk Sewer Project, City of Richmond, 

Virginia. FEMA Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Higgins, Thomas F. III 

2001 Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed Route 677 Project, Stafford County, 

Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, 

Virginia. 

Higgins, Thomas F. III, Charles M. Downing, Donald W. Linebaugh, Antony F. Opperman, E. 

Randolph Turner, III 

1995 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44CF7, Falling Creek Ironworks, and Vicinity, 

Chesterfield County, Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, 

Williamsburg, Virginia. 

Hoffman, Paul J. 

1864 A map of Fairfax County, and parts of Loudoun and Prince William Counties, Va., and the 

District of Columbia. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3851s.cwh00030, accessed March 2015. 

Holt, Cheryl A., Teresa E. Ossim, Susan E. Lebo 

1983 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the H-1 Route of the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail 

Line, Fairfax County, Virginia. Soil Systems, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia. 

Hotchkiss, Jedediah 

1867 Thirty five miles around Richmond, Va. / compiled by Jed. Hotchkiss, Top. Engineer, 

Staunton, Virginia, from the surveys of the C.S. Engineers, U.S. Engineers, and the U. 

States Coast Survey. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884r.cw06310001, accessed March 2015. 

1891–1893 Sketch of the battles of Chancellorsville, Salem Church, and Fredericksburg, May 2, 

3, and 4, 1863 / prepared by order of General R. E. Lee, by Jed. Hotchkiss, Topogl. Engr. 2d 

Corps, A.N.V. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, 

D.C. Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.ndlpcoop/glva01.lva00054, 

accessed March 2015. 

Hunter, Bruce, A., and James R. Cromwell 

1989 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Widening of Route 642, Fairfax County, 

Virginia. James Madison University Archaeological Research Center, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-8 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Hunter, Robert R., Jr., and Dennis B. Blanton 

1990 A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Eastern Henrico Lateral Pipeline, 

Hanover, Chesterfield & Henrico Counties, Virginia. William and Mary Archaeological 

Project Center, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Hunter, Robert R., Jr., and Gary G. Robinson 

1989 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Route 613 Project, Fairfax County, 

Virginia. William and Mary Archaeological Project Center, The College of William 

and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

Huston, Clifton A., and Charles M. Downing 

1994 An Archaeological Assessment and Survey of Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Fauquier, 

Prince William, & Stafford Counties, Virginia. William and Mary Center for 

Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

James, Tiffany A., Jennifer Stewart, Bill Hall, and Loretta Lautzenheiser 

2007 A Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Improvements to Route 5 in the City of Richmond, 

Virginia. Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, North Carolina.

Johnson, Mike 

1980 Preliminary Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report, Route 1-Occoquan River Bridge, 

Fairfax County, Virginia. Fairfax County, Virginia. 

Karell Archaeological Services 

1983 Springfield Bypass & Extension Fairfax, County, Virginia. Technical Report: Cultural 

Resources Phase II Investigation. Arlington, Virginia. 

Kellogg, Douglas C. 

1987 Statistical Relevance and Site Locational Data. American Antiquity 52 (1):143–150. 

Kiser, R. Taft, Robin L. Ryder, Lynwood Barhurst, Mary Ellen, Bushy, and Douglas C. McLearen 

1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Mount Pleasant Subdivision South in Stafford County, 

Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, 

Richmond, Virginia.

Klein, Michael 

1995 Predicting Prehistoric Settlement in the Northern Neck of Virginia: The Richmond 

County Assessment Survey Methodology. North American Archaeology 16(4):317–342. 

Klein, Mike, Marco A. González, and Michael L. Carmody 

2012 Archaeological Assessment of the I-64 Peninsula Study Area from I-664 in Hampton to I-95 

in Richmond, Virginia. Report prepared by Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Inc., 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-9 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Kohler, Timothy A. 

1988 Predictive Locational Modeling: History and Current Practice. In Quantifying the 

Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological 

Predictive Modeling, ed. by W. J. Judge and L. Sebastian, pp. 19–59. USDI Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 

Koski-Karell, Daniel, and Louis Ortiz 

1987 Phase I Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey for the Interstate-95 HOV Lane Project, 

Fairfax and Prince William Counties, Virginia. Karell Archaeological Services, 

Arlington, Virginia. 

Kvamme, Kenneth L. 

1988 Using Existing Archaeological Survey Data for Model Building. In Quantifying the 

Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of Archaeological 

Predictive Modeling, edited by W. James Judge and Lynne Sebastian, pp. 301–323. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 

Kvamme, Kenneth L. and Kohler, Timothy A.

1988 Geographic Information Systems: Technical Aids for Data Collection, Analysis, and 

Display. In Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and 

Application of Archaeological Predictive Modeling, edited by W. James Judge and Lynne 

Sebastian, pp. 493–547. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 

LaBudde, Gregory 

2011 Terrestrial and Underwater Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Large Component 

Transport Route, King William, Hanover, and Louisa Counties, Virginia. The Louis Berger 

Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. 

Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. 

1991 Phase IB Cultural Resource Survey of the Clermont Avenue Interchange, City of Alexandria, 

Fairfax County, Virginia. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, 

Inc., East Orange, New Jersey. 

2005 Cultural Resource Survey of Route 30 (Kings Dominion Boulevard/Dawn Boulevard) State 

Fair Project, Caroline and Hanover Counties, Virginia. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 

Richmond, Virginia. 

Luccketti, Nicholas M., and Martha W. McCartney 

1993 Cultural Resources Overview for Virginia Army National Guard Army Aviation Support 

Facility, Henrico County, Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., 

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Lukezic, Craig 

1990 Soils and Settlement Location in 18th Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia. Historical 

Archaeology 24(1):1–17. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-10 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Magnus, Charles 

186- One hundred & fifty miles around Richmond. 10th ed. Library of Congress, Geography 

and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884r.cw06324001, accessed March 2015. 

McCormick Taylor 

2010 Phase I Archaeological Identification Survey for the Virginia Railway Express Cherry Hill 

Third Track Project from Arkendale (CFP 72.0) to Powell's Creek (CFP 83.4) Prince William 

and Stafford Counties, Virginia. McCormick Taylor, Glen Allen, Virginia. 

McDonald, Bradley 

2000 Phase I Archaeological Investigations Along a Sewer Line Connecting P.S. Number 5 to the 

Proposed Totopotomoy Wastewater Treatment Plant, Hanover County, Virginia. Gray and 

Pape, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. 

McFaden, Leslie D. 

1990 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed First Street Bridge Replacement, City of 

Richmond, Virginia. William and Mary Archaeological Project Center, Department of 

Anthropology, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

McIver, Robert D. 

1985 A Phase I Archeological Evaluation of the Proposed Construction Right-Of –Way for Route 

288, Chesterfield County, Virginia. James Madison University Archeological Research 

Center, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 

McLearen, Douglas C., and Beverly J. Binns 

1992 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Carter Park, Town of Ashland, Virginia. Virginia 

Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.

McLearen, Douglas C., Mary Ellen Bushy, and Beverly J. Binns 

1992 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Highway Improvements to Route 218, 

Stafford County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological 

Research Center, Richmond, Virginia. 

McLearen, Douglas C., and Christopher P. Egghart 

1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a Gravity Sewer Line, Force Main and Pump Station 

Location in Eastern Henrico County, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University 

Archaeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.

McPherson, James M. 

1988 Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press, New York, New 

York. 

Mead, F. F. 

1861 Map of part of Fairfax County, Virginia, south of the city 

of Alexandria and the Orange and Alexandria Railroad] / F. F. Mead, Lt. Co. I, 16th N.Y.V. 

Del., Aug. 30th 1861. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-11 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

ttp://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883f.cw0536400, accessed March 2015. 

Michler, Nathaniel 

1867a Bermuda Hundred. [1864-1865] / From surveys under the direction of Bvt. Brig. Gen. N. 

Michler, Maj. of Engineers and Bvt. Lieut. Col. P. S. Michie, Capt. of Engineers, by 

command of Bvt. Maj. Genl. A. A. Humphreys, Brig. Genl. & Chief of Engineers. 1867. 

Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic 

document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884b.cw0525b40, accessed March 2015. 

1867b Cold Harbor. [June 1-3, 1864] From surveys under the direction of B'v't. Brig.-Gen. N. 

Michler, Maj. of Engineers, and B'v't. Lieut.-Col. P. S. Michie, Capt. of Engineers. 1867. 

Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic 

document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884o.cw0531000, accessed March 2015. 

1867c North Anna. [May 1864] From surveys under the direction of Bvt. Brig. Gen. N. Michler, 

Maj. of Engineers, by command of Bvt. Maj. Genl. A. A. Humphreys, Brig. Genl. & Chief of 

Engineers. Surveyed and drawn by Maj: J. E. Weyss, assisted by F. Theilkuhl, J. Strasser & 

G. Thompson. Photolith. by the N.Y. Lithographing, Engraving & Printing Co., Julius Bien, 

Supt. 1867. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. 

Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3882n.cw0590100, accessed 

March 2015. 

1867d Richmond [1862-1865] / from surveys under the direction of Bvt. Brig. Gen. N., Michler, 

Maj. of Engineers and Bvt. Lieut. Col. P. S. Mitchie, Capt. of Engineers, by command Bvt. 

Maj. Genl. A. A. Humphreys, Brig. Genl. & Chief of Engineers. Surveyed & drawn by Maj: 

J. E. Weyss, assisted by F. Theilkuhl, J. Strasser & G. Thompson. Photolith. by the N.Y. 

Lithographing, Engraving & Printing Co., Julius Bien, Supt. Library of Congress, 

Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884r.cw0632800, accessed March 2015. 

Mouer, L. Daniel 

1989 Phase I Cultural Resource Study of the Proposed Replacement of the Stonewall Jackson 

Bridge, City of Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological 

Research Center, Richmond, Virginia. 

Mouer, L. Daniel, and Katharine C. Harbury 

1989 Further Archaeological Investigations of Proposed Improvements to King Street, Route 7, 

City of Alexandria, Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological 

Research Center, Richmond, Virginia. 

Mouer, L. Daniel, Robert R. Hunter, Elizabeth G. Johnson, Lawrence W. Lindberg, and John 

Saunders 

1978 Archeology in Henrico, Volume 1: Identification and Evaluation of Archaeological and 

Historic Resources for the Henrico County, Virginia Regional Wastewater System. Virginia 

Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-12 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Mullen, John P., and William P. Barse 

2008 Archeological Investigations Within a Portion of Potomac Avenue and Associated East/West 

Roads and of 44AX0204, Potomac Yard Property, City of Alexandria, Virginia.

Thunderbird Archeology, a Division of Wetland Studies and Solution, Inc., 

Gainesville, Virginia. 

Mullen, John P., Kathryn Gettings Smith, Evelyn D. Causey, Julia Claypool, and Erik Nelson 

2011 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigations of the ±3.5 Mile Virginia Central Railroad Trail 

Project, City of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Thunderbird Archeology, a Division of 

Wetland Studies and Solution, Inc., Gainesville, Virginia. 

O’Donnell, Darby

2004 A Phase I Archaeological Survey Along the Proposed Lakeside to Strawberry Hill Pipeline, 

Henrico County, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc. Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Opperman, Antony, Jacqueline Hernigle, and Judith Jobrack 

1987 Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, Warwick Road Improvement, City of Richmond, 

Virginia. MAAR Associates, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Outlaw, Alain C., Martha W. McCartney, and Carol Tyrer 

1992 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of Spratt Recycling, Inc. Property, (Schwab Tract), 

Swans Corner, Caroline County, Virginia. Espey, Huston, & Associates, Inc., 

Williamsburg, Virginia.

Peterson, Jane, Kenneth E. Stuck, and Anne S. Beckett 

1994 A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Route 609 Project, Hanover County, 

Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, 

Virginia. 

Petraglia, Michael D., Catharine B. Toulmin, and Madeleine Pappas 

1993 An Archaeological Survey at the Alexandria Business Center, Alexandria, Virginia. 

Engineering-Science, Washington, D.C.

Pfanstiel, Cynthia, Heather Crowl, Rachel Grant, Janet Friedman, and Kevin Mock 

1998 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Legend Properties, Southbridge Community, Cherry Hill, 

Prince William County, Virginia. Dames and Moore, Bethesda, Maryland.

Poplar-Jeffers, Ira, and Ryan Ward 

2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the EZ Cruz Marina, Woodbridge, Prince William County, 

Virginia. Virginia Waters and Wetlands, Inc., Warrenton, Virginia. 

Potter, Stephen 

1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac 

Valley. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-13 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Rochambeau, Jean-Baptiste-Donatien de Vimeur, compte de 

1782a Amerique campagne: Camp a Alexandrie le 17 Juilles es 19 milles de Clochester. Library of 

Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D. C. Electronic resource, 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/rochambeau-maps/index.html, 

accessed April 2015. 

1782b Amerique campagne: Camp a Garrot’s Tavern le 14 Juilles 3 milles de Falmouth...a Peyton’s 

tavern. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D. C. 

Electronic resource, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/rochambeaumaps/index.html, accessed April 2015. 

Rodgers, Bradley A. 

1996 The 1996 Richmond Ship Dock Archaeological Survey. Maritime Studies Program, East 

Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.

Rose, Craig 

2011 Potomac Yard Property, City Of Alexandria: Geoarcheological Investigations of a Portion of 

Landbay G. Thunderbird Archeology, a Division of Wetland Studies and Solution, 

Inc., Gainesville, Virginia. 

Rupnik, Megan, Kristie Baynard, Stephanie Jacobe, Patti Kuhn, Brad Duplantis, and Eric Voigt 

2007 Archaeological, Architectural and Battlefield Surveys, Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, 

Cities of Colonial Heights, Petersburg, and Richmond, and Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and 

Henrico Counties, Virginia. Louis Berger Group, Richmond. The Louis Berger 

Group, Inc. Richmond, Virginia. 

Sebastian, L., and W.J. Judge (editors) 

1988 Quantifying the Present and Predicting the Past: Theory, Method, and Application of 

Archaeological Predictive Modeling. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management, Denver. 

Salmon, John S. 

2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsville, 

Pennsylvania. 

Sanford, Douglas W., Gary N. Stanton, Karen France, and Carter L. Hudgins 

1992 Archaeological and Historical Assessment of Blocks 48 and 49 in Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

Center for Historic Preservation, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, 

Virginia.

Selig, Robert A 

2006 Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. Electronic resource, 

http://www.nps.gov/waro/learn/historyculture/washington-rochambeaurevolutionary-route.htm, accessed March, 2015. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-14 Archaeological Predictive Model 

2009 Revolutionary War Route and Transportation Survey in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

1781-1782: An Historical and Architectural Study. Report sponsored by the Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. 

Siener, W. H. 

1985 Charles Yates, The Grain Trade, and Economic Development in Fredericksburg, Virginia, 

1750–1810. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 93 (4):409–426. 

Shelford, Victor E. 

1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. 

Simpson, Kay 

1992 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Braddock Road Improvement in the City of 

Alexandria, Virginia. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., 

Richmond, Virginia. 

Smith, John 

1624 Virginia discovered and discribed by Captayn John Smith, 1606. Library of Congress 

Geography and Map Division Washington, D.C. (g3880 ct000377). Electronic 

document, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/gmd:@field%28 

NUMBER+@band%28g3880+ct000377%29%29, accessed March 2015. 

Smith, Joshua 

1889 Map of the main battlefields, routes, camps and head qrs., in the Gettysburg, Wilderness and 

Appomattox campaigns of the Civil War in U.S. Compiled and published by JoshuaSmith, 

1st Lieut., Co. K, 20th Pa.' Cav., 2nd Brig., 1st Div., Sheridan's command. Chicago, c1899. 

Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. Electronic 

document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3824g.cw0512000, accessed March 2015. 

Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Survey Staff 

2013 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Soil Series Classification Database. Electronic document, 

http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/scfile/index.html, accessed 

March 2015. 

Stevens, J. Sanderson, Donna Seifert, and Joseph Balicki 

1990 Phase I Archaeological Investigation at the Site of the Proposed Robinson Marine Terminal 

Warehouse Possum Nose, Prince William County, Virginia. John Milner Associates, Inc., 

Alexandria, Virginia. 

Underwood, John R. 

2003 An Archaeological Identification Survey of the Proposed Route 629 Project, Stafford County, 

Virginia. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, 

Virginia. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-15 Archaeological Predictive Model 

United States Army, Corps of Engineers 

186-a Central Virginia showing Lieut. Gen'l. U.S. Grant's Campaign and marches of the armies 

under his command in 1864-65 Engineer Bureau, War Dept. Prepared by order of the 

Secretary of War for the officers of the U.S. Army under the command of Lieut. Gen. U.S. 

Grant. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. 

Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3881s.cw0515000, accessed 

March 2015. 

186-b Detailed map of part of Virginia From Alexandria to the Potomac River above Washington, 

D.C. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. 

Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3883a.cw0523000, accessed 

March 2015. 

United States Geological Survey 

1889 Fredericksburg, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1891 Mount Vernon, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1892 Fredericksburg Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1894a Bermuda Hundred, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1894b Fredericksburg, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1894c Mount Vernon, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1894d Richmond, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1897 Mount Vernon, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-16 Archaeological Predictive Model 

1900 Maryland and Washington, D.C. 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1913 Indian Head, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1918a Doswell, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1918b Indian Head, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1920 King William, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1923 Indian Head, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1925 Doswell, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1926 Stafford, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1931a Stafford, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1931b Topographic map of Fredericksburg and vicinity, Virginia, showing battlefields Surveyed in 

cooperation with the War Department and the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County 

Battlefields Memorial Commission. Topography by G. E. Sisson, Paul Blake, and Benjamin 

Munroe. Control by U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Surveyed 

in 1931. Library of Congress, Geography and Maps Division, Washington, D.C. 

Electronic document, http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3884f.cw0556000 , accessed 

March 2015. 

1938a Seven Pines, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-17 Archaeological Predictive Model 

1938b Yellow Tavern, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1943 Richmond, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1944a Chester, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1944b Quantico, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1944c Stafford, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1949 Quantico, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1951 Ruther Glen, Virginia 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: 

Historical Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

1957 Washington, D.C. 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. The National Map: Historical 

Topographic Map Collection. Electronic document, 

http://nationalmap.gov/historical/, accessed March 2015. 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 

2011 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. Virginia Department of 

Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. 

Weed, Carol S., and Robert D. Clarke 

1999 Archaeological Survey of Three Pre-Designated Segments along Route 627 (Meadowbridge 

Road), Henrico and Hanover Counties, Virginia. Gray and Pape, Inc., Richmond, 

Virginia. 

Williams, Martha R., David Soldo, and Katherine Grandine 

2003 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the United States Postal Service Memorial Station 

Branch Property, Alexandria, Virginia. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., 

Frederick, Maryland. 
R E F E R E N C E S 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-18 Archaeological Predictive Model 

Winter, Susan E. 

1994 Mill Settlement Patterns Along the Antietam Creek Drainage, Washington County, 

Maryland. In Settlement Patterning in Historical Archaeology: Selected Studies of 

Settlement, edited by Donald W. Linebaugh and Gary G. Robinson, pp. 65–90. 

Occasional Papers in Archaeology No. 2, William and Mary Center for 

Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia.