APPENDIX E6

CONSULTING PARTY AND PUBLIC

MEETING SUMMARIES
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- NPS Fredericksburg CP Meeting

June 8, 2017; 10:00am

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees: 

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- HDR/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Kirsten Talken-Spaulding- NPS Fredericksburg

John Hennessy- NPS Fredericksburg

Eric Mink- NPS Fredericksburg

Greg Mertz- NPS Fredericksburg

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (Emily S. and Carey B.)

- Discussion of project goals

- Publication of DEIS

- What is high-speed rail

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri B.)

- Initiation and APE

- Technical studies to date (including different methodologies for bypass and main line)

- Coordination with the DHR to date

- List of historic properties to date

4) Questions and Answers on Resources and Project (all)

- Kirsten Talken-Spaulding asked where grade separations are planned, as the team 

heard that several may be installed. Carey B. showed them one location where a 

separation is planned, at Lansdowne Road. There will not be a grade separation at their 

other areas of concern- Benchmark/Mine Road and Guinea Station. Details of the 

Lansdowne overpass were discussed.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Kirsten asked if any bridges in Fredericksburg are closing. Team discussed replacement 

of Naomi Road bridge and construction of additional bridge across the Rappahannock.

- John Hennessy inquired about the noise and vibration analysis and the potential 

impacts from increased quantity of train traffic. Areas of concern were Mead’s Pyramid, 

Slaughter Pen Farm, and several buildings in downtown Fredericksburg including the 

Purina Tower. Carey B. addressed the concerns and said that noise and vibration studies 

had been conducted and the team will note the areas of concern and follow up on 

those, especially Mead’s Pyramid.

- Related to this, John H. stated that his concerns that increased frequency may have 

operational impacts on the park and interpretation (noise, people getting to the park, 

etc.). This includes both passenger trains and CSX trains. Carey B. said that increased 

freight traffic is discussed in the DEIS under the No Build alternative, which shows that 

the increase will occur with or without the current project. 

- Kirsten and John reiterated their concerns that this project will lead to growth in this 

area and thus have potential impacts on the park and both Civil War-era and 

commemorative resources. Emily S. and Carey B. both discussed that there will be 

additional trains but that the improvements would mean a more fluid system, less 

backups, quieter trains because of use of sidings, and more. They understood the parks 

concerns and would continue to monitor the analysis in this area.

- Returning to the topic of Mead’s Pyramid, NPS discussed its location on the non-public 

side of the tracks. The group then discussed potential ways to have the public safely get 

over the tracks to see the pyramid including a pedestrian bridge or underpass.

- Plans near Slaughter Pen were discussed, and Carey B. went over the design in this 

area, noting that very minimal changes to the existing track may be required in the 

existing ROW to lessen a curve.

- Beyond Fredericksburg, NPS had concerns with potential impacts to the Jackson Shrine 

in Guinea Station. In viewing the plans, Carey B. highlighted that the third rail/track 

improvements would be made to the opposite side of the tracks from the historic 

property. The rail would maintain its same grade and actually will use remnant of an old 

third track in this area to minimize impacts. Kerri B. also noted that the resource had not 

been recorded with the DHR and that through the DC2RVA efforts, it is now listed as an 

eligible property. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- One remaining issue that was discussed is the accessibility to this resource if the track 

modifications required any changes to the roadway. The team said they would follow up 

on this issue and talk to the roadway engineers to note any changes in this area.

- The final topic revolved around schedule. Kirsten T. asked for a general timeframe for 

the process and construction. Emily S. stated that the project will go to the DEIS at the 

end of the year with preliminary engineering occurring next year and the FEIS being 

published at the end of 2018. Construction is at least two years out from that and is 

completely contingent on funding.

The meeting ended at 11:00am
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- National Park Service Richmond CP Meeting

August 14, 2017; 11:00am

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees: 

Randy Selleck- DRPT

John Morton- HDR/Project Team

Steve Walter- Parsons/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Dave Ruth- NPS Richmond

Bob Krick- NPS Richmond

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (Randy S. and John M.)

- Project Goals

- Location

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri B.)

4) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Steve W.)

- Results of Analysis

- Current Status

5) Next Steps (Randy S. and John M.)

- Release of DEIS

- Future Cultural Resource Studies

- FEIS

- Public Meetings

6) General Comments and Questions

- Dave R. asked if Buckingham Branch is still being considered as an option as 

part of the project. John M. said that it was part of the original alternatives 

analysis but was not brought forth to the DEIS because of numerous issues. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Dave R. then asked if station locations had been selected. John M. and Randy S. 

both described the selection process for stations and where the DEIS alternatives 

analysis is suggesting stations be located to date.

- Regarding Richmond, Bob K. asked if any notable road changes would be 

required as part of this work in Richmond. Randy S. and Kerri B. described the 

differences in the philosophies behind this project and Richmond-to-Raleigh 

wherein all at-grade crossings were proposed for removal and replaced with 

overpasses or underpasses. This caused several additional impacts to historic 

properties. Here, many fewer at-grade crossings are being eliminated thus 

reducing impacts to historic areas. 

- Dave R. asked when the public hearings will be. John M. stated that they would 

likely be the week of October 14th. Kerri B. said that all consulting parties would 

get notification of the hearing dates as well as the publication of the DEIS. 

- Dave R. and Bob K. said they had no additional comments and that their 

questions had been answered. They had no notable concerns with the project as 

planned at this time. 

The meeting ended at 11:45am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- National Park Service/Northern Virginia and DC

August 29, 2017; 11:00am

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Wilson- HDR/Project Team

Becky Wilk- HDR/Project Team (phone)

Wayne Hyatt- Moffatt Nichol/Project Team

Steve Walter- Parsons/Project Team

Rachael Mangum- Parsons/Project Team

Michelle Fall- Parsons/Project Team (phone)

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Laurel Hammig- NPS National Capital Region

Tammy Stidham- NPS National Capital Region (phone)

Simone Monteleone - NPS GW Parkway (phone)

Brenda Wasler- NPS GW Parkway (phone)

Rick Nau- Kimley Horn

Paul Elman- Kimley Horn (phone)

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (Randy)

- Project Goals

- Location

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri)

- Initiation & APE

- Phase I/Reconnaissance Studies

- Preliminary Effects

- DEIS (106 and 4(f))

- Consulting Party Communication
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

4) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Steve)

- Results of Analysis

- Current Status

5) Next Steps (Randy and Steve)

- Release of DEIS

- Future Cultural Resource Studies

- FEIS

- Public Meetings

6) Questions and Answers on Resources and Project (all)

- Simone Monteleone asked if the project studies included both the permanent and 

temporary construction limits. Randy said that they included both. 

- Simone then asked if the NPS is a cooperating agency. Randy said they are a 

participating agency . Kerri also confirmed that multiple branches of the NPS are Section 

106 consulting parties.

- Simone asked for a clarification on the publication date of the DEIS. Steve said they 

believe it will go public on September 8, 2017.

- Laurel Hammig asked for a general description of the temporary impacts. Randy and 

Wayne described some of the construction access that would need to be required. They 

clarified that if any utility needed to be moved, this would be a permanent impact. 

- Several members asked if the maps could be pulled out and there could be a walk 

through of the project corridor in Northern Virginia. 

- Simone asked if temporary impact areas would be revegetated, if appropriate. The 

team confirmed they would. 

- Simone asked if CSX had been consulted and, if so, if they have any issues with the 

plans in Northern Virginia. Randy said that yes, the team has been in repeated contact 

with CSX and, to date, they have no immediate concerns on the plans in this area.

- Laurel brought up the VRE Crystal City station and asked if the team is working with 

VRE on interconnectivity. Randy, Wayne, and other team members described the 

continual communication with VRE to assure that all concerns are addressed. 

Communication includes biweekly meetings, calls, etc. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Laurel asked about the general timing of this project (construction), as well as how this 

project fits within the Atlantic Gateway study. Randy and Wayne provided data on both 

topics, including a potential build year of 2025 (pending funding). Long Bridge was also 

discussed in this answer to described the two projects and how they are working 

together at the intersection point. DDOT is doing the environmental study for Long 

Bridge, and Virginia will be funding final design. 

- Rick Nau asked if train traffic will be maintained during construction. Wayne stated 

that yes it will.

- The participants asked if the DEIS will be available electronically. Steve said yes and 

that it will all be posted on the project webpage. Kerri said she would let all consulting 

parties know when it is posted so they can download the document. 

The meeting ended at 12:00pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- Ashland Area Consulting Parties

October 11, 2017; 1:00pm

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees: 

Randy Selleck- DRPT

John Morton- HDR/Project Team

Stephen Walter- Parsons/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Claudia Cheely- Hanover Conty

Josh Farrar- Town of Ashland

Garett Pryor- Town of Ashland

Rosanne Shalf- Ashland Museum

Betsy Hodges- Ashland Museum

John Hodges- Ashland Museum

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (Randy S.)

- Discussion of project goals

- Publication of DEIS

- Update on public hearings

- Discussion of FEIS briefly

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri B.)

- Initiation and APE

- Technical studies to date (including different methodologies for bypass and main line)

- Coordination with the DHR to date

- Comparison of DC2RVA project to recent DHR cost share study results (conducted by 

Commonwealth)

- Information presented in DEIS

- General contents of the upcoming FEIS cultural section (recomm pref alt)
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

4) Questions and Answers on Resources and Project (all)

- John Morton with the team clarified that the DEIS does not include the tunnel option 

through Ashland so all documents and materials presented here are absent that 

alternative as it was developed by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), brought 

together to discuss Ashland. It was not one of the team’s original alternatives. 

- Garet Pryor with Ashland commented on the parallel findings of the Commonwealth 

cost share survey and the DC2RVA project results. He also had a question on how 

secondary impacts were evaluated. Team discussed the APE and how it encompasses 

roads, etc. to assure that secondary impacts and visual impacts are taken into 

consideration. 

- Rosie Shalf presented historical data on several resources described in the technical 

reports. She believes 706 S. Center Street is eligible for the NRHP (both DC2RVA and 

Commonwealth cost share recommended it was not eligible and DHR concurred). 

Similar resources included 1014 Early Street (corner of Early and Center), 407 Myrtle 

(corner of Myrtle and Railroad Ave), and 904 S. Center Street. She believes all three are 

eligible. DC2RVA/Commonwealth/DHR disagree. Discussed reasonings for findings and 

team collected information on all resources.

- John Farrar asked if all alternatives under consideration (including the tunnel) would 

be in the FEIS in some fashion. Team said yes, as well as all comments on the DEIS.

- Garet Pryor asked how effect is determined. Team quoted language from Section 106 

and described examples. They also discussed the difference between a resource that is 

individually eligible and one that is not individually eligible but contributes to an eligible 

historic district. 

- Rosie Shalf asked for clarification on the western bypass option. Data on the design 

was presented by the team. She then asked if fences would be required downtown 

along the rail line. John Morton clarified that a fence could be needed near the station 

but it all depending on the selected alternative and design. As such, the need for a fence 

is unknown right now.

- Josh Farrar asked if noise and vibration were taken into consideration when 

determining effect. The team stated that yes, they were, as well as both permanent and 

temporary impacts. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Betsy Hodges inquired on the installation of a third rail in Ashland if this alternative is 

selected. Would this constitute an adverse effect? The team replied that it could be an 

adverse effect depending on final design. For example, if secondary changes were made 

(alternations to historic road patters, moving sidewalks, notable vegetation changes), 

those could be an adverse effect depending on the eligibility criteria of the resource. 

- Rosie Shalf asked about property values and if there is a history that values decrease in 

these situations. The team, as well as Garet Pryor, said no.

- The team suggested looking at a few cross-roads towns along the Richmond to Raleigh 

segment as comparisons, including La Cross, McKinney, and Alberta. 

- The team wrapped up with a brief discussion of the next steps including future 

technical studies, effect determination, MOA, and additional consulting party meetings. 

The meeting ended at 2:30pm
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- Northern Virginia/DC Area Consulting Parties

October 20, 2017; 1:00pm

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees: 

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Stephen Walter- Parsons/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Eleanor Breen- City of Alexandria/Alexandria Archaeology

Al Cox- City of Alexandria/Alexandria Archaeology

Catherine Miliaris- - City of Alexandria/Dept of Planning

Ben Scolack- City of Alexandria/Dept of Planning

Rebeccah Ballo- Arlington County Dept of Planning

Sharee Williamson- National Trust for Historic Preservation

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (Randy S.)

- Project Goals

- Location

- DEIS to FEIS process 

3) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Steve W.)

- Results of Analysis

- Comment Deadline

4) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri B.)

- Agency coordination

- Phase I survey to date

- Commencing Phase II architectural studies

- Info as presented in the DEIS

- Preliminary effect dialogues

- Consulting party meetings
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

5) Next Steps (Randy S., Steve W., and Kerri B.)

- Future Cultural Resource Studies

- FEIS

6) Questions and Answers (all)

- Sharee W. asked for the defined APE. Kerri B. presented this data as approved by the 

DHR. She also discussed that the original survey was conducted on the APE based on the 

centerline of the alternatives as presented in the DEIS and additional studies are 

ongoing in areas where the LOD now extends beyond the original study area and in 

places where additional data was needed in areas where the APE was expanded due to 

cultural resource concerns. Steve W. reiterated this fact.

- Catherine M. asked if the team had decided where the new rail would be in relation to 

the existing tracks. Randy S. walked the attendees through a set of maps showing the 

alignment from Long Bridge to Fairfax County.

- Eleanor B. asked if any areas requiring modifications, such as new walls, would be the 

subject of filling or removal of soils. Steve W. stated that any areas of modifications in 

Northern Virginia would be raising the ground level to meet the raised rail, thus filling 

would occur as needed but there were no plans to remove any intact soils.

- Catherine M. asked how tall retaining walls would be. She inquired whether or not 

they would resemble sound walls. Randy S. and Steve W. confirmed that they would be 

short, knee-tall retaining walls for ballast but no taller. 

- Rebeccah B. asked if the National Park Service had been contacted. Kerri B. discussed 

the eight branches of the NPS that are consulting parties to the project and ongoing 

dialogues with each group, including a basic summary of comments received to date.

- Rebeccah B. then asked if the project would have a Programmatic Agreement or a 

Memorandum of Agreement? Randy S. and Kerri B. described the PA that was created 

for the whole Southeast High Speed Rail corridor for cultural resources and that this is 

one of three segments that falls under the PA. As such, an MOA will be produced for this 

segment rather than a PA.

- Rebeccah B. mentioned that National Airport is planning to do several projects that 

require environmental compliance. She asked about the recordation of buildings along 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

the tracks and in the APE to not “double up” on efforts. Kerri B. said she would look into 

the studies in this location and coordinate with Rebeccah on this issue. 

- Al C. asked if any of the bridges in the Alexandria/Arlington area would be rebuilt as 

part of the project. Randy S. and Steve W. said that only the bridge over Backlick Road 

needed to be rebuilt. The rest can use existing structures.

- Catherine M. asked for a clarification on work conducted in the Rosemont Historic 

District. Kerri B. will follow up with her on this.

- Sharee W. asked what resources would be adversely effected by the project based on 

the preliminary analysis. Kerri B. and Steve W. provided data that is presented in the 

DEIS. They also stated that studies are ongoing and final effect determinations will be 

presented in the FEIS based on extensive coordination with the Virginia SHPO and 

consulting parties, among others.

- Sharee W. then asked if we could examine the Shockoe area of Richmond, and a map 

inspection was completed by the attendees. In addition, Kerri B. presented overlays of 

several historic Richmond maps and plans for Memorial Park in Shockoe. A discussion on 

project plans in this area ensued, including potential noise impacts from the trains.

- Sharee W. then asked if a 4(f) analysis is part of the DEIS. Steve W. said it was.

The meeting concluded at 2:00pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- ABPP/CWT Consulting Party Meeting (w ACHP)

October 24, 2017; 10:00am

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Sarah Stokely- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Kristen McMasters- American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP)

Meredith Gorres- ABPP 

Eleanor Cox- ABPP

Mark Coombs- Civil War Trust (CWT)

Adam Gillenwater- CWT

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (John and Randy)

- Larger SEHSR Project Overview

- DC2RVA Project Goals

- Current Status of DEIS

- Update on public hearings

- Discussion of FEIS briefly

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri)

- Initiation & APE

- Phase I/Reconnaissance Studies

- Preliminary Effects

- DEIS (106 and 4(f))

- Consulting Party Communication

4) Summary of Next Steps (Randy and Kerri)

- Continue Cultural Resource Studies

- Acquire Final Effect Determination
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- ACHP Notification of Adverse Effect 

- MOA Production

- FEIS

- Continued Consulting Party Communication

5) Questions and Answers on Resources and Project (all)

- Kristen McMasters asked if the ABPP was involved in the Richmond to Raleigh segment 

of the SEHSR project. John and Kerri confirmed that they were and offered to send 

documentation of their participation. 

- Kristen asked for a definition of “high speed”, and Randy and John provided this to the 

group.

- Kristen stated that KOKOA analysis (Key Terrain, Observation and Fields of Fire, Cover 

and Concealment, Obstacles, Avenues of Approach) is often fruitful when examining 

battlefields as it reveals information on not only fighting but also areas used for visual 

observation, preparation, travel, etc. She stated that KOKOA analysis along the rail is a 

must for this project.

- Kristen also asked what boundaries we were using for battlefields. Kerri replied that 

the DHR has adopted the ABPP recommended boundaries (versus the older core and 

study area model), and those are being used in the project. 

- Eleanor Cox asked what an APE is. Kerri first provided info using details from Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 on the general definition of APE 

and following with additional information on the DC2RVA APE.

- Kristen asked if the impacts of additional train traffic as well as associated noise and 

vibration were being taken into consideration both on cultural resources and along the 

corridor in general. Randy discussed the environmental studies that had been 

conducted, including noise and vibration, along the route. Kerri mentioned dialogues 

that the team had with the Fredericksburg NPS to hear their concerns on this same 

issue. 

- Kristen asked if there would be any new maintenance facilities along the line? Randy 

said no.

- The ABPP requested that they receive updated shapefiles showing the recommended 

preferred alternative so they can compare them to their records on battlefields in the 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

project area. The other participants requested the same data. The team committed to 

disseminating this material.

- Meredith Gorres asked about Cockpit Point Battlefield, stating that it is not on our list 

of historic properties and wondering why. Kerri explained that the battlefield is in what 

was originally called Area 5 and now part of Area 2—the segment between Arkendale 

and Powell’s Creek that was part of a different project several years ago. The work was 

coordinated with the DHR at that time. The current project will not involve any 

modifications in this segment and thus the APE does not extend over this area. For this 

reason, Cockpit Point Battlefield is not listed as a historic property in the APE. Kerri said 

she would triple check this, though, and let the group know of the findings. (Note: After 

examining this again after the meeting, this info proved correct.)

- Mark Coombs asked what the goal is in terms of train schedule. Randy said the goal is 

to increase the Amtrak round trips in this corridor to nine. The exact time of these trips 

has not yet been determined. A discussion ensued on speed restrictions and station

stops. Information was also shared regarding the difference between passenger and 

freight schedules.

- Kristen asked about plans in Ashland. Randy discussed the alternatives under 

consideration in the DEIS as well as the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) and their 

recommendation of the “3-2-3” where a third track would not be built in downtown 

Ashalnd. Sarah Stokes asked which alternative is being supported, and Randy and John 

discussed the outcome of the DEIS and CAC and where the decision may go. They 

reiterated that they were waiting on the Commonwealth Transportation Board to give 

their recommendations before moving forward.

- Sarah also asked about plans at Main Street Station. Randy described proposed service 

in this area, and Kerri followed with a discussion of recorded resources. Information on 

avoidance to historic properties was discussed. 

The meeting ended at 12:15pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- Prince William to Caroline Area Consulting Party Meeting

October 27, 2017; 10:00am

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- HDR/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Justin Patton- Prince William County

Craig Pennington- Caroline County

Erik Nelson- City of Fredericksburg

Kate Schwartz- City of Fredericksburg

Peter Kolakowski – Central Virginia Battlefield Trust

Ed Santner- Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc.

1) Introductions

2) General Project Overview (Randy, John, and Carey)

- Summary of Larger SEHSR Project

- Project Goals

- Publication of DEIS

- Update on Public Hearings

- Discussion of FEIS briefly

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri and Carey)

- Initiation & APE

- Phase I/Reconnaissance Studies

- Preliminary Effects

- DEIS (106 and 4(f))

- Consulting Party Communication

- Detailed Review of Maps Showing Plans in Fredericksburg
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

4) Next Steps (Randy and John)

- Continue Cultural Resource Studies

- Acquire Final Effect Determination

- ACHP Notification of Adverse Effect (if applicable)

- MOA Production

- FEIS

- Continued Consulting Party Communication

5) Questions and Answers on Resources and Project (all)

- Erik Nelson asked if 106 must be completed before the Record of Decision (ROD) was 

issued. John replied yes. It is ok to not have 106 completed prior to the FEIS, though. 

- Erik then asked about the proposed parking deck and whether or not the team has 

discussed it with the VRE, as VRE is planning their own parking deck in Fredericksburg. 

Carey said that yes, discussions with VRE are ongoing and they are aware of the plans. 

- Erik asked if placing the station on the south side of the tracks (near the Janney 

Marshall building) is an option. Randy and Carey said they looked in several places as 

part of the DEIS and alternatives considerations but that the preferred location that 

would aid in operations is North of the tracks between Caroline and Princess Anne. 

- Ed Santner asked who will control the design of the parking deck. Carey discussed the 

purpose and need of the deck and that the size/arrangement would be worked out with 

multiple groups including FRA, DRPT, VRE, City of Fredericksburg, etc. Kerri mentioned 

that the deck is located in the historic district, so ARB review would also be part of the 

process. Also, as stated in the DEIS, the construction of the deck would be an adverse 

effect to the Fredericksburg Historic District, and a condition in the MOA to mitigate the 

adverse effects will likely include design review by the DHR.

- Justin Patton asked if the project’s adverse effects would be stipulated in a PA or an 

MOA. John described the larger SEHSR process PA, and he and Kerri then described the 

MOA that will be part of the DC2RVA project. 

- Craig Pennignton said there weren’t too many concerns from a cultural resource 

standpoint in Caroline County. A discussion on the crossroads community of Milford 

ensued so he could confirm plans. There are some discussions for area improvements 

there.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Justin mentioned that the County is working on a small area plan for a section located 

in North Woodbridge and the team may want to look at this. He also asked about 

connectivity between this project and the new VRE station that is being constructed. 

The team said that they are working with VRE to assure seamless connectivity. 

- Justin then brought up the houses along Railroad Avenue. They are on the County’s 

historical register. Kerri said that the DHR found them to be not individually eligible but 

that specific attention is being paid to these resources to assure that they are taken into 

consideration during design. Carey discussed specific concerns of area residents on 

accessibility for these houses and assured that this issue is being addressed in the design 

plans. 

- Justin stated that the County does not have concerns regarding archaeological 

resources in the northern portion of the project area located in the county. He did ask if 

the project is evaluating noise and vibration in this area, though, as it is very residential. 

Carey and Randy confirmed that noise and vibration studies have been completed, and 

the results can be found in the DEIS. 

- Justin then mentioned concerns about the viewshed looking from Rippon Lodge to the 

Neabsco Creek Bridge. This vista was sketched by Benjamin Latrobe in the earlynineteenth century and it is an important viewshed. He asked if improvements to the 

bridge would be on the west (side closest to Rippon Lodge) or east (side away from the 

Lodge). Carey confirmed that they will be done on the west. Justin stated his concerns 

with modifications to the viewshed. Kerri said she would assure that Rippon Lodge is 

included in the architectural APE and that the team would document the vista looking 

down Neabsco Creek to evaluate effect. 

- Lastly Justin asked about Cockpit Point Battlefield. He first wanted to know why it 

wasn’t on the list of historic properties in the APE. Kerri explained that the battlefield is 

in what was originally called Area 5 and now part of Area 2—the segment between 

Arkendale and Powell’s Creek that was part of a different project several years ago. The 

work was coordinated with the DHR at that time. The current project will not involve 

any modifications in this segment and thus the APE does not extend over this area. For 

this reason, Cockpit Point Battlefield is not listed as a historic property in the APE. Kerri 

said she would triple check this, though, and let the group know of the findings. (Note: 

After examining this again after the meeting, this info proved correct.) As a follow up, 

Justin asked about access to the east side of the rail leading to a small County park. 

Carey and Randy stated that no modifications to the existing pedestrian access are 

planned as part of this project. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Erik stated that future plans include making Lansdowne Road a four-lane corridor. He 

wanted to make sure the team is aware of this and asked if an overpass is scheduled for 

this spot. The team confirmed that it is. 

- Kate Schwartz asked if she could examine a zoomed-in view of the plans in the 

downtown Fredericksburg historic district. Maps were shown and inspected.

- Ed inquired on the existing superstructure in downtown Fredericksburg, noting that it 

has evidence of either structural failure or cosmetic decomposition. He asked if the 

superstructure will be replaced as part of this project. Randy and Carey stated that the 

majority of the superstructure will be retained and repaired. John W. pointed out that it 

is really up to CSX to provide data on the condition of the superstructure since it is their 

property, and CSX has stated that this area is in good repair. John said he will inquire on 

the current status with CSX.

- Related to this, Pete Kolakowski asked how often structures are inspected. John said 

that all safety is handled by the owner of the rail tracks, in this case CSX. They submit 

plans to FRA for review. They are also required to submit bridge safety data.

The meeting concluded at 11:30am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update- Richmond Area Consulting Party Meeting

October 30, 2017; 10:00am

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Randy Selleck- DRPT

John Morton- HDR/Project Team

Carey Burch- HDR/Project Team

Karen Harrington- HDR/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Kimberly Chen- City of Richmond

Cyane Crump- Historic Richmond

Danielle Worthing- Historic Richmond

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview (Emily and Randy)

- Project Goals

- Environmental Process

- Current Status of DEIS

3) Cultural Resource Studies to Date (Kerri)

- Initiation & APE

- Phase I/Reconnaissance Studies

- Preliminary Effects

- DEIS (106 and 4(f))

- Consulting Party Communication

4) Next Steps (Emily and Kerri)

- Continue Cultural Resource Studies

- Acquire Final Effect Determination

- ACHP Notification of Adverse Effect (if applicable)
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- MOA Production

- FEIS

- Continued Consulting Party Communication

5) Questions and Answers on Resources and Project (all)

- Cyane Crump asked about the interconnection between this project and Long Bridge. 

She confirmed that, now, all trains that o on to Newport News/Hampton go through 

Main Street Station. Even with the current train schedule, would improvements to the Sline be needed regardless? Emily answered that yes, improvements are needed 

regardless of the DC2RVA project. Emily and Carey then described a similar issue (to 

Long Bridge) that is located across the James River near the I-95 crossing. 

- Daniel Worthing asked for a description of the new time table for travel between 

Richmond (Main Street Station) and Staples Mill. Emily stated that the time right now is 

between 20 and 40 minutes depending on time of day, traffic, and conditions. The 

DC2RVA project will reduce this to 10 to 15 minutes with increased reliability.

- Cyane said she has read the DEIS and information presented in the paper. Based on her 

review, she said that it appears that if only one station is used, Boulevard is the best 

option. Emily said that her analysis of the data is generally correct, but that 

improvements would be needed regardless of the selection of one or two stations. Kerri 

brought up the quantity of impacts if Boulevard was chosen from a historic properties 

standpoint to put the design in a 106 context.

- The group asked to pull out the big maps and go over the corridor from Staples Mill to 

the south. 

- Cyane and Danielle brought up the historic warehouse complex near the proposed 

Hospital Wye (DHR #111-6658). A cornerstone dates the original portion of the building 

to 1908. They asked that we take another look at this area from both an archaeological 

(potential rail roundhouse) and architectural (historic building) perspective. They said 

that the overpass proposed here would have an adverse effect on this property. Kerri 

said that the resource was examined during the original architectural reconnaissance in 

2016 but that she would assure that it is revisited to look for both above- and belowground resources given the new plans and potential impacts.

- Related to this, Cyane asked if there is another option for a turn around nearby. Carey 

and Randy said there isn’t one close by but that the team would take a look at the 

general area for other options. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Danielle asked if the alternatives described in our meeting were in the DEIS and 

available for viewing on the webpage. Karen said yes, they are in Appendix H.

- Danielle mentioned that the area south of the James only has one track and asked if 

this would remain the case. Carey explained that the project will include putting back a 

second track that was there historically. 

- Danielle and Cyane asked about potential impacts to Virginia Union Industrial Hall. 

Kerri said she believes it is outside of the project APE but will confirm.

- Danielle asked who would pay for a new station if one is needed. Similarly, who would 

approve the design. Emily stated that the funds would be a combination of local, state, 

and federal and the design would be determined based on a number of involved parties. 

It depends on the location and purpose of the new station.

- Cyane questioned if the A-line would be used for freight. Emily and Carey replied in the 

affirmative and added that the autotrain would also use that line.

- In an examination of changes at Main Street Station, Cyane, said she had concerns of 

the construction of a new parking deck on the Loving Building. Carey stated that the 

location shown on the plans is just an estimate and the team and agency will be working 

closely with the City and all other concerned parties on the details once the time arrives. 

Emily reiterated that what is shown on the plans at Main Street Station is a maximum 

square footage needed, and the size will likely be reduced in general as well. Kerri 

brought up that the Loving Building is a contributing element to the Shockoe Valley and 

Tobacco Row Historic District so the team is aware of its historical significance as well.

- The overlays created by the team showing the project plans and the proposed 

Memorial Park in this area were then shown to the group and discussed. Cyane 

commented on the channelization of Shockoe Creek and the impacts of the original rail 

construction on this area. 

- Kim Chen mentioned that the City is planning interchange modifications at 18th and 

Broad. She asked if the team had been in contact with the City about these plans. The 

team stated they are aware of the concept and would follow up to get additional details. 

- Cyane asked about potential impacts to the canals along the James. Carey stated that 

the new rail would be placed on existing viaducts from Main Street Station to the area 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

south of the James on the south side of the flood wall. As such, no new structures or 

supports are needed. 

- Plans south of the James were examined in detail, and it was discussed that the 

current DC2RVA plans are narrower than the previous Richmond to Raleigh plans as 

there are no planned new overpasses in this area. This minimizes the footprint.

- Kim asked if cultural resource studies are ongoing. Kerri said they are and include 

intensive-level architectural studies and additional Phase I-level architectural and 

archaeological surveys in areas that have not yet been studied. She said that another 

round of consulting party meetings will occur in the summer of 2018 once these studies 

have been completed.

- Cyane asked when a preferred alternative would be determined. Emily presented 

details on timing of the next steps.

- Cyane then asked what happens if the CTB and/or FRA do not agree with the preferred 

alternative. Emily discussed the potential scenarios, including making piecemeal 

improvements. 

The meeting ended at 11:30am.
10/19/2017 Dovetail Cultural Resource Group Mail - RE: DC2RVA Project Consulting Parties Meeting Invitation Letter

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9e83dc9037&jsver=g8gQ0BaJEzM.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15f3509abf591533&siml=15f3509abf59... 1/2

Kerri Barile <kbarile@dovetailcrg.com>

RE: DC2RVA Project Consulting Parties Meeting Invitation Letter

1 message

Robert Gray <rgray58@hughes.net> Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:29 AM

To: "Winkle, John (FRA)" <john.winkle@dot.gov>

Cc: Kerri Barile <kbarile@dovetailcrg.com>, DC2RVAdocumentcontrol <DC2RVAdocumentcontrol@hdrinc.com>, "Stock,

Emily (DRPT)" <Emily.Stock@drpt.virginia.gov>

Thank you for the consultation invitation. At this point in time the Pamunkey Indian Tribe is not aware of any site of

cultural or religious significance that would be affected by the project. We do ask to be notified in the event of inadvertent

discovery. 

Robert Gray

Chief / Tribal Administrator

Pamunkey Indian Tribe

Phone: (804) 572-1225

E-mail: rgray58@hughes.net

Mail Address

Pamunkey Indian Tribe

1054 Pocahontas Trail

King William, VA 23086

From: Winkle, John (FRA) [mailto:john.winkle@dot.gov]

Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:43 AM

To: rgray58@hughes.net

Cc: Kerri Barile (kbarile@dovetailcrg.com); DC2RVAdocumentcontrol (DC2RVAdocumentcontrol@hdrinc.com); Stock,

Emily (DRPT) (Emily.Stock@drpt.virginia.gov)

Subject: DC2RVA Project Consulting Parties Meeting Invitation Letter

Chief Gray –

Attached is a copy of a letter from the Federal Railroad Administration inviting the Pamunkey Tribe to participate in a

Section 106 Consulting Party meeting for the DC to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Tier II Environmental Impact

Statement. A hard copy will follow.
10/19/2017 Dovetail Cultural Resource Group Mail - RE: DC2RVA Project Consulting Parties Meeting Invitation Letter

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9e83dc9037&jsver=g8gQ0BaJEzM.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=15f3509abf591533&siml=15f3509abf59... 2/2

If you have any questions, please let me know. You can reach me at 202-493-6067 or John.Winkle@dot.gov.

Thank you,

John Winkle

Transportation Industry Analyst

Federal Railroad Administration
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update Call- Town of Ashland and Ashland Museum

June 18, 2018; 11:00am

MEETING NOTES

Attendees (all via telephone): 

Carey Burch- HDR/Project Team

Stephen Walter- Parsons/Project Team

Kerri Barile- Dovetail/Project Team

Nora Amos- Town of Ashland

Rosanne Shalf- Ashland Museum

Betsy Hodges- Ashland Museum

The Town of Ashland and Ashland Museum, both consulting parties for the DC2RVA project, requested a 

conference call prior to the three FEIS consulting party meetings to help address preliminary questions 

on process and resource eligibility. 

Rosie Shalf stated that she had reviewed the technical reports that were submitted to the consulting 

parties on May 15. She noted that Berkleytown Historic District was in one of the intensive reports but

she asked if resources that were NOT included in the five technical reports had been dropped from the 

consideration list.

- Kerri Barile replied that the five technical reports that were sent in May are in addition to the 

17 reports sent to the consulting parties in the summer of 2017. Slight modifications were made 

to the limits of disturbance due to the selection of a preferred alternative, so the new five 

reports present the results of studies on newly added areas. 

Betsy Hodges confirmed that the properties downtown are still on the list of resources that are being 

considered during the project.

- Kerri confirmed that they are. She did clarify that one Ashland area resource- Montevideo- had 

been removed as it was along the bypass which is not part of the preferred alternative. 

- Steve Walter discussed the preferred alternative in this area, including the 3-2-3 concept and 

reiterate that the resources downtown are still along the preferred alternative so they stayed in.

- Betsy and Rosie asked for clarification- if no work is required downtown (staying two tracks), 

why is it part of the preferred alternative?
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Steve and Carey Burch discussed the current plans. While a third rail is not being added, small 

safety improvements such as new bars or crosslights may be needed. There also may be 

additional trains through this area so it is still part of the preferred alternative. 

- Rosie asked how streetscapes and vegetation can be included as character-defining features for the 

historic district in the future. 

- Kerri stated that she would augment the district description in the FEIS but that the main place 

to make this change at the larger level is to include it in the NRHP nomination amendment that 

the town is already planning to do. This would assure that the concept is in future coordination.

- Rosie asked if there are examples to follow

- Kerri suggested talking to Marc Wagner at the DHR, their rep, to get his thoughts on examples 

as he knows them quite well and will be helping them on language anyway.

- Rosie commented on the Museum’s reply letter on the technical reports from 2017. She asked for a 

follow-up on their comments stating that several additional resources should be eligible. 

- Kerri noted that this was discussed during the October 11, 2017 consulting party meeting. The 

team compared the Museum’s list to the DC2RVA study and the Commonwealth Heritage 

Group’s survey of the district done last summer at the behest of the Town. Both the DC2RVA 

team and Commonwealth agreed that the resources on the Museum’s list were not individually 

eligible. The results of the Museum’s concern and the comparative data was brought to the DHR 

for their re-evaluation. The DHR confirmed that none of the resources are individually eligible.

- Rosie would still like a reply from Commonwealth.

- Kerri provided the name of the individual at the DHR who is the liaison on the 

Commonwealth/Town project and suggested calling him.

- Rosie and Nora asked if the 106 process would be revisited if any additional properties were 

determined to be eligible (such as those she mentions above). 

- Steve said it would be reopened if the project changes or if the local context is modified to 

require reevalation. 

- Carey also mentioned that the process can be reopened if extensive time passes. This would be 

a revisit to historic properties but it may not result in a revised environmental document.

- Rosie confirmed that properties that are determined eligible after this current study can still be 

taken into consideration.

- Steve and Carey said yes. A note goes in the file that something has been determined to be 

eligible and project effects are revisited prior to construction, among other tasks.

The call ended at 11:30am
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update & Effect Discussion with Consulting Parties

Thursday, June 21, 1:00pm-3:00pm

DC2RVA project office. 801 E. Main Street, Suite 1000, Richmond

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Randy Selleck- DRPT

John Winkle- FRA

Mike Estes- Project Team

Carey Burch- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Nora Amos- Town of Ashland

Betsy Hodges- Ashland Museum

Mark Coombs- Civil War Trust

Cyane Crump- Historic Richmond Foundation

Danielle Worthing- Historic Richmond Foundation

Lisa Bergstrom- Preservation Virginia

Claudia Cheely- Hanover County

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview and Current Status (Emily/Randy S.)

3) Cultural Resource Studies (Kerri B.)

- Pre-2018 Work

- 2018 Technical Studies

- DHR Replies on Eligibility

4) Project Effect (Kerri B.)

- List of Historic Properties

- DHR Effect Determinations

- MOA
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

5) Summary of FEIS and Remaining NEPA Process (Steve W. and Carey B.)

6) Questions and Answers (all)

- Danielle Worthing asked about the Ranks Biotech building and if it is in the Limits of 

Disturbance and eligible. Kerri Barile said it is in the LOD and was just recorded in the spring. 

The team reevaluted the resource for the third time (once prior to this project and twice during 

DC2RVA) and the DHR stated that the resource continues to be not eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

- Danielle Worthing asked about two additional resources- Mason’s Hall and a Cemetery for 

Free Blacks and Slaves. Kerri Barile stated that Mason’s Hall has been added to the list of 

historic properties based on Historic Richmond’s request. The cemetery was recorded by the 

team in the spring of 2018 and the DHR stated that the portion of the resource in the LOD does 

not contribute to its eligibility. Regardless, the team has worked carefully to avoid the 

cemetery, and Kerri shared an overlay showing the original plans and modified plans with the 

smaller footprint in this area. Wayne Hyatt shared details on how the impacts were avoided 

from an engineering standpoint. 

- Danielle Worthing then asked about other resources in Shockoe, particularly those related to 

the slave trade. Kerri Barile shared historic overlays of the area showing the evolution of the 

development and project plans, including details on minimization efforts to limit project effects. 

Emily Stock described the ongoing consultation regarding the proposed Memorial Park. Wayne 

Hyatt followed up with additional data on engineering minimization as well as details that the 

parking deck will likely go away (as shown in the DEIS). 

- Cyane Crump asked if changes would extend south of Main Street Station and Wayne Hyatt 

stated that, yes, changes would be made but everything is on an existing viaduct. There will be 

no new visual elements.

- Cyane Crump asked a follow-up question regarding the parking deck’s removal. Where will 

parking go? And has the City chimed in on this? Carey Burch described the existing deck to the 

west and ongoing conversations with the City on this issue.

- Danielle Worthing asked about the Barton Heights area north of Shockoe. Specifically, she 

wanted data on a proposed road in this area. Wayne Hyatt stated that the existing roads are 

remaining and there wouldn’t be a new overpass but that safety improvements are being made 

such as new cross gates. He also described an extension of James Street that the City requested 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

and an associated pedestrian path. The latter may need to be elevated over the tracks but have 

not made a decision on this yet. Cyane Crump confirmed it would just be pedestrians and not 

cars. Wayne said yes. 

- Cyane Crump asked for a synthesis of what has been changed since last time (fall 2017). 

Wayne Hyatt said the proposed yard and wye near Hospital Street has been removed and 

moved to the south, the number of tracks is being maintained. Cyane asked if this would cost 

more in the long run, and Wayne stated it was an offset cost. 

- Mark Coombs first commended the openness of the communication and thanked the project 

team for their transparency and excellent communication all around. He followed up by asking 

for the project’s definitions of Adverse, No Adverse, and No Effect. Kerri Barile replied with the 

definitions. He also asked if there are any changes in the quantity of battle-related resources or 

changes to impacts. Kerri described the changes at Jackson’s Earthworks and how the LOD has 

expanded so the resource was resurveyed. There is now an adverse effect. No other changes 

have been made. 

- Mark Coombs asked if impacts at Slaughter Pen will still be away from the resource, and 

Wayne Hyatt confirmed that this is still the case.

- Mark Coombs asked about consultation with the National Park Service. Kerri Barile described 

all of the meetings and calls. 

- Nora Amos asked about impacts to Berkleytown HD and what mitigation would be performed. 

Kerri Barile gave a few examples and said they were looking to consulting parties for input. Kerri 

said she will send around the Richmond to Raleigh MOA as inspiration for ideas. 

- Cyane Crump asked about additional impacts to Ashland. Carey Burch described the latest 

plans related to the preferred alternative.

- Nora Amos asked how long the studies are good for. Kerri Barile stated that eligibility is good 

for five years. Emily Stock followed up that the FEIS will be reviewed every few years to see if 

there are substantial changes to the environment.

- Betsy Hodges asked if there would be modifications to the trees in Ashland. The team said no.

- Lisa Bergstrom arrived a bit late and asked for a general update on the preferred alternative in 

Ashland and Shockoe. The team provided the data.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Claudia Cheely asked about changes in Doswell. Wayne Hyatt described the plans including 

efforts to minimize impacts (weighing new track to west or east). Moving the tower is the least 

impacts. Kerri Barile described the dialogues with the DHR on this issue and effects. Claudia 

then asked how far the tower will be moved, and Wayne stated 140-150 feet. 

- As a follow up to the dialogue on Shockoe, Emily Stock then described the efforts to reach out 

to various interested parties in the fall of 2017 and into 2018. She also discussed the ULI project 

and ongoing consultation efforts. 

- Cyane Crump asked if noise and vibration studies have occurred with a specific concern 

regarding Mason Hall. Carey Burch provided data on the study and that ther will be no changes. 

Wayne Hyatt followed up with comments on the driving of pilings at Main Street Station and 

that the impacts are minimal. 

- Mark Coombs asked when the construction would occur. Emily Stock said it is unknown but 

would start in DC then go to Fredericksburg then Richmond and Ashland last. 

The meeting concluded at 12:00pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update & Effect Discussion with Consulting Parties

Tuesday, June 26, 10:00am-12:00pm

Dovetail office, 11905 Bowman Drive, Suite 502, Fredericksburg

AGENDA AND MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Heather Staton- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Adriana Moss- Project Team

Erik Nelson- City of Fredericksburg

Eric Mink- NPS Fredericksburg

Emily Kambic- ABPP

Angelina Jones- ABPP

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview and Current Status (Emily/Randy S.)

3) Cultural Resource Studies (Kerri B.)

- Pre-2018 Work

- 2018 Technical Studies

- DHR Replies on Eligibility

4) Project Effect (Kerri B.)

- List of Historic Properties

- DHR Effect Determinations

- MOA
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

5) Summary of FEIS and Remaining NEPA Process (Steve W. and Carey B.)

6) Questions and Answers (all)

- Eric Mink asked about Jackson’s Earthworks. Kerri Barile described the additional survey to 

this resource in the spring of 2018 due to expansion of limits of disturbance. The boundaries of 

the earthworks were increased, and the project will now have an adverse effect. Wayne Hyatt 

described additional engineering efforts at the rail curve to minimize impacts. 

- Eric Mink asked if we confirmed the boundaries of the battlefields to assure we have the 

latest. Kerri Barile stated that the boundaries were reconfirmed.

- Eric Mink asked about the latest designs at Jackson’s Shrine. Wayne Hyatt stated that the only 

changes have been near the entrance where a few small safety upgrades were needed.

- Erik Nelson asked about resources with an adverse effect in downtown Fredericksburg. Kerri 

Barile described each resource and stated that changes occurred since the DEIS due to the 

inclusion of the parking deck. 

- Erik Nelson asked about the rail tracks at Lansdowne Road. Wayne Hyatt and Carey Burch 

shared details on the proposed overpass. 

- Emily Kambic asked about battlefield boundaries. She is concerned about use of Potential 

NRHP boundaries due to archaeological resources and suggested using the Study Area 

boundaries instead. Kerri Barile described the archaeological survey process, and that the 

entire corridor was examined and not just within resource boundaries. As such, the whole 

corridor including Study Areas has been surveyed for archaeological resources. 

- Emily Kambic asked for the definition of no adverse effect and to confirm why all battlefields 

received this designation. Kerri Barile provided the definition and described the effect analysis

completed and DHR consultation. John Winkle stated that additional information on the 

definitions of effect should be included in the FEIS for all. 

- Emily Kambic requested data on three battlefields not included in the list. Kerri Barile replied 

that they are not in the project area as they are in areas where no changes are being made, 

such as in Prince William County where construction is already completed. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Eric Mink asked if there will be any changes in the queuing of trains and if there will be any 

queuing in the battlefields. Wayne Hyatt and Carey Burch said no queuing will occur in the 

battlefields. 

- Eric Mink pointed out some discrepancies with the team GIS data and boundaries of 

ownership near the railroad. Karen Harrington stated that we have data as of a year ago or so, 

and that all ownership info will be cleaned up well in advance of the right of way stage. 

The meeting ended at 11:15am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update & Effect Discussion with Consulting Parties

Thursday, June 28, 10:00am-12:00pm

Parsons office, 100 M Street, SE, Suite 1200, Washington, DC

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Steve Walter- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Heather Staton- Project Team

Jennifer Kleinman- Project Team

Sarah Stokley- ACHP

Matt Virta- NPS GW Parkway

Garrett Fesler- Alexandria Archaeology

Tatiana Niculescu- Alexandria Archaeology

Rob Niewig- NTHP

Sharee Williamson- NTHP

Sarah- NTHP

1) Introductions (all)

2) General Project Overview and Current Status (Emily/Carey B.)

3) Cultural Resource Studies (Kerri B.)

- Pre-2018 Work

- 2018 Technical Studies

- DHR Replies on Eligibility

4) Project Effect (Kerri B.)
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- List of Historic Properties

- DHR Effect Determinations

- MOA

5) Summary of FEIS and Remaining NEPA Process (Steve W. and Carey B.)

6) Questions and Answers (all)

- Matt Virta asked how this project is coordinating with the Long Bridge study? Emily Stock 

described the partnership and ongoing meetings and consultations. Matt followed up by asking 

if the team is specifically working with the Long Bridge project team on effects and mitigation, 

and Emily said that all data is being shared and coordinated.

- Sarah Stokley asked about 23 adverse effects and if they are direct/indirect and for more 

details. Kerri Barile went through the list of historic properties and described impacts as well as 

DHR feedback on effects to date. Specific conversations were held regarding Doswell (moving 

of the rail tower) and Ashland (avoiding downtown but adverse effect on Berkleytown HD). 

Sarah asked if Ashland and involved parties were pleased with the project resolution in 

Ashland. Emily Stock and Carey Burch described the ongoing communication and said yes, they 

are pleased.

- Rob Niewig asked about train speeds in Ashland and for additional discussions regarding area 

involvement. Carey Burch stated that the train speeds will not change. Emily Stock described 

the numerous meetings with special advisory committees regarding Ashland. Rob followed up 

to ask if the College has been involved, and Emily said yes. Kerri Barile followed up with a 

summary of effects with the change in Ashland.

- Rob Niewig said the NTHP is particular concerned with Shockoe Bottom. Wayne Hyatt gave an 

update on the engineering and efforts to minimize plans in the area, including reducing the 

platform length and width, using existing viaducts, etc. He also discussed removing the parking 

deck. Rob followed up with additional questions regarding Main Street Station, as it is a 

National Historic Landmark. He particularly wanted additional details on impacts to the station 

and its design. Details were provided by Wayne and Carey Burch. 

- Rob Niewig stated that there are additional concerns beyond architecture, notably regarding 

the archaeological resources in the area. Kerri Barile described the APE, surveys conducted to 

date, and presence of recorded sites in the area, as well as preliminary thoughts on project 

effect. She disseminated historic overlay maps. She also discussed the newly recorded AfricanAmerican cemetery off of Hospital Street and avoidance plans there. Emily Stock followed up 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

with dialogues with the City of Richmond and other vested groups to assure that all voices were 

taken into account and projects by others were involved in plans. 

- Building on this, Rob Nieweg said he was concerned with consultation and that it has not been 

as robust as it should be with people not on the list of consulting parties. Emily Stock requested 

that the NTHP help to orchestrate a broader consultation group. Rob then followed up with 

additional information on the importance of this area both as a historical site but also as a 

modern place of remembrance and consciousness. Good consultation is imperative. He also 

brought up the difference between direct and indirect use as a result of the project and 

cumulative impacts that may come due to increased train traffic. John Winkle asked for the 

status of the park and the plans mentioned by the NTHP. Rob stated that they are in the works 

but there is no funding at this time.

- Rob Niewig asked if the Dutton & Associates report has been consulted. Kerri Barile said yes, 

all previous studies in this area have been thoroughly investigated. Steve Walter confirmed that 

a chapter specifically discussing previous efforts will be in the FEIS. 

- Sharee Williamson asked for a synthesis of reviews on induced development impacts. Steve 

Walter said the DEIS had a chapter on this and presented a summary. Rob Niewig and Sharee 

both stated that additional consultation and evaluation of all levels of impacts was needed. 

They stated that they believed that the archaeological studies conducted to date were 

inadequate. They also said some sites may be eligible under Criterion A as well as D. Kerri Barile 

said additional consultation is definitely in the works on all of these areas and asked the NTHP 

to provide this feedback in their formal response on information received to date. John Winkle 

followed this up with a review of FRA’s criteria for impacts, that a project has to be “planned 

and funded.”

- Sharee Williamson asked if there been visual, noise, and vibration studies. Carey Burch stated 

that there have. John Winkle also described the impacts from freight v. passenger trains and 

stated that freight is outside the scope of the current project. 

- Emily Stock stated that dialogues with the City are ongoing and part of this is on their 

shoulders as they are the property owners and arbiters of zoning. The team fully understands 

the sensitivity of the area and will continue to work on this issue. 

- Sarah Stokley asked for additional context on the planning of Memorial Park. Rob Nieweg and 

Carey Burch had a dialogue on the plans, induced development, City plans, and other issues.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Sharee Williamson asked for the status of the 4(f) review and FEIS. Steve Walter provided an 

update on both issues. 

- Sarah Stokley asked if any other issues besides those brought up during this meeting had been 

discussed during the other consulting party meetings. Kerri Barile provided a brief summary of 

the Richmond and Fredericksburg meetings as well as calls with other consulting parties. 

- Garrett Fesler asked if there had been any discussion on calling the Shockoe area a Traditional 

Cultural Property (TCP). Rob Nieweg backed this analysis. Kerri Barile said they would take a 

look at this concept. She also said that connections between the railroad and the slave trade 

would be an interesting topic for mitigation. Sarah Stokely asked if any other slave-related sites 

are TCPs. Kerri said she would follow up on this too. 

The meeting ended at 11:55am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

City of Richmond Update

July 19, 2018; 1:00pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Amy Inman- City of Richmond

Kim Chen- City of Richmond

1) Project Update- Emily Stock provided a general overview of the project as well as the preferred 

alternative in Richmond. She also described the public outreach to date.

2) Cultural Resource Update- Kerri Barile described the LOD studies in the spring of 2018, eligibility 

recommendations, and commencing project effect. She also described the consulting party meetings 

and overall feedback. 

- Kim Chen asked if the team was aware of the later-dating African-American cemetery north of 

Shockoe. Kerri said they were and had actually recorded it as part of DC2RVA. She then shared the 

overlays showing the boundaries of the cemetery and how the project had been changed to minimize 

impacts. The City was appreciative of these efforts. 

- Amy Inman asked about Shockoe, and Kerri shared additional overlays showing this area. Kerri and 

Carey Burch discussed ways the project had been changed to minimize impacts here. Amy asked if we 

were coordinating with other groups, and Kerri listed the consulting parties and other vested groups 

involved in the dialogue. 

- The City representatives said they have no concerns with the project at this time. 

The meeting ended at 1:30pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

City of Richmond Update 

August 29, 2018; 9:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Douglas Dunlap- City of Richmond

Kim Chen- City of Richmond

Jeannie Welliver- City of Richmond

Julie Langan- DHR

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

1) Introductions (all)

2) DC2RVA Overview/Recommended Alternative for Main Street Station Area

Emily Stock and Carey Burch provided an overview of the corridor in general and specifically plans for 

Main Street Station. 

Jeanne Welliver asked about project timeline, and Emily presented data, including a potential ROD in 

April 2019.

3 & 4) Section 106 Process Overview and Consulting Party Comments

Kerri Barile provided a general overview of the 106 process, followed by a synthesis of the results of the

project with a focus on Richmond. The group also discussed the National Trust for Historic Preservation 

(NTHP) letter and their specific questions. 

Jeanne Welliver said that she has 18 months of collaborative notes from the City’s Shockoe history 

initiative. She will disseminate this data to the team. She also described numerous projects that they 

City has done or will be doing in this area, including archaeology and creating overlay districts to protect 

resources from future development. 

The topic of Shockoe as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) was addressed. Julie Langan restated the 

DHR’s opinion that the area does not meet the definition of a TCP but was looking for FRA to formally 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

make a recommendation one way or another on this. All agree that there is a district here and it may 

best be considered part of the existing Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row HD or it may be a new district 

in the future, but information to date suggests the former. This is how it is being treated in the DC2RVA 

project to date. 

Jeanne Welliver stated that the City is considering defining a slave trade district as a future initiative. 

Kerri Barile said that perhaps a joint venture could be included as a mitigation in the MOA. Jeanne said 

this would work well with the City’s existing overlay district. 

Julie Langan brought up Lumpkins and the Burial Ground as individual resources, and Kerri Barile 

confirmed the previous dialogues with all parties and that the current trajectory is to assume eligibility 

for Lumpkins under A and D but that the Burial Ground is outside of the APE. All parties agreed with this 

statement, including the City of Richmond.

5) Development in Shockoe

To assure that all parties are on the same page, the meeting turned to a discussion of reasonably 

foreseeable development and induced development in the Shockoe area. Specifically, scopes, potential 

impacts, timeframe, funding and preservation efforts were described for a dozen projects including the 

small area plan for Shockoe Bottom, additional archaeology at Lumpkins, Rose Fellowship 

recommendations, I-95 improvements, Shockoe Street study, Farmer’s Market project, the Memorial 

Park, and others. 

The City assured that it is on top of all of these projects and is making sure that preservation is a 

component of all work, including memorialization and preservation in place as appropriate.

The City stated that they would put together a letter outlining all of their initiatives. 

6) Next Steps

The meeting ended with a synopsis of next steps. There is a meeting September 5th between the Mayor, 

DRPT, and Secretary of Transportation, among others, to assure commitments. 

The group also discussed on-site meeting at Shockoe with all consulting parties. 

Lastly, preliminary dialogues on the MOA for DC2RVA were shared.

The meeting ended at 11:00am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Preparation for Shockoe Meeting/NTHP and Others Update

September 10, 2018; 11:30am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Sarah Stokely- ACHP

Marc Holma- DHR

Roger Kirchen- DHR

Rob Nieweg- National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)

Sharee Williamson- National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP)

Lisa Bergstrom- Preservation Virginia

Elizabeth Kosteney- Preservation Virginia

Anna Edwards- Sacred Ground Project

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Projet Team

- Held call to discuss upcoming in-person meeting in Shockoe/Richmond to discuss project. Included 

dialogue on meeting content and invitees.

- Emily Stock discussed the purpose of the call as several groups brought up invitee lists for the 

upcoming on-site Richmond meeting, including NTHP, Preservation Virginia, City of Richmond, and 

Historic Richmond Foundation. Kerri Barile discussed how this meeting fits within previous and future 

meetings on this area and the whole corridor.

- Emily Stock discussed DRPT’s thoughts on some of the upcoming meeting components, including the 

use of visuals on site to show the platform modifications, boards to discuss plans, and how the goal is to 

answer any questions folks may have and solicit feedback on all aspects of the project.

- Sharee and Rob stated that their goal is to assure input from local stakeholders and to make sure they

are included in the meeting and other dialogues; this is especially important for Shockoe. Anna Edwards 

followed up to echo this point, to assure that local voices are heard as the process moves forward. Emily 

Stock replied to say that they want local voices to be heard as well and completely concur with these 

thoughts. She followed up by asking both groups to provide a contact list for invitees.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Rob Nieweg said they will provide a list of names. Rob Nieweg followed up to assure that these folks 

would be invited, and Emily Stock said yes. He also made sure that we’re really talking about key 

representatives to speak for a group and not whole groups. Both Emily Stock and Marc Holma said yes.

- Anna Edwards also said she will provide a list of participants. 

- Kerri Barile said that the whole list of consulting parties will also be invited, as well as the names 

received based on this meeting.

- As a follow up to Rob Nieweg’s question on key representatives v. whole groups, Kerri Barile offered 

for the team to meet with any group who may want information disseminated to a larger body than just 

key representatives. 

- Sarah Stokely asked if an agenda can be circulated in advance and if a post-meeting summary would be 

distributed. Emily Stock said yes to both. 

- The conversation turned to setting an actual date for the meeting. All agreed that it would be best to 

have it within the next month. Emily Stock was going to send a list of blackout dates to this group to 

start refining potential dates. She and Kerri Barile were going to work on an agenda and circulate it to 

the group. 

The meeting ended at 12:15pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

City of Alexandria Update 

October 2, 2018; 10:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Catherine Miliaris- City of Alexandria

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Catherine asked for a summary of work conducted since June. Kerri provided an overview. Of particular 

note in Alexandria, Kerri described the process of completing an evaluation-level analysis of the East 

Rosemont HD and the finding of not eligible for this resource. Kerri told Catherine she would get her the 

exact page numbers in the corresponding cultural resource report and also the DHR’s reply on this topic. 

Catherine asked if there had been any changes to the design in this area and, if so, if the team could 

provide details. Wayne replied that there are no sound walls or retaining walls in the city that would be 

visible as barriers. The only retaining wall is at Station and Buchanan. All temporary construction access 

is in the center of the tracks to minimize impacts. 

Catherine asked about the GW High School, and Wayne stated that the new track would be to the east 

of/away from the school.

Regarding the Parker-Gray HD, Catherine asked if residents would be made aware of any road closures 

associated with construction, and Wayne stated that they would. 

Wayne then went on to describe changes south of Parker-Gray and said that all changes are in the 

existing ROW. Construction would be between the tracks, including near Phoenix Mill. Catherine was 

very pleased to hear this data. Kerri suggested looking at the interactive map on the webpage if she 

wants to take a tour of the corridor to see exactly where construction would occur. 

Catherine stated that she appreciated the accommodation for a separate call since she couldn’t attend 

any of the consulting party meetings and she was grateful for the overall responsiveness of the team. 

The meeting ended at 10:30am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update & Mitigation Discussion with Consulting Parties

Thursday, October 4, 2018; 1:30pm-3:00pm

Dovetail office, 11905 Bowman Drive, Suite 502, Fredericksburg

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

John Winkle- FRA

Carey Burch- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Heather Staton- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Erik Nelson- City of Fredericksburg

Kate Schwartz- City of Fredericksburg

Justin Patton- Prince William County

Betsy Hodges- Ashland Museum

Tatiana Niculescu- Alexandria Archaeology

1) Introductions and Safety Briefing (all and Kerri Barile)

2) General Project Overview and Current Status (Emily Stock and Carey Burch)

3) Summary of FEIS Status and Remaining NEPA Process (Carey Burch)

4) Cultural Resource Update (Kerri Barile)

- Summary of Eligibility/List of Historic Properties

- Project Effect

- MOA Mitigation Stipulations

5) Questions and Answers (all)
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Justin Patton asked if the original bridge at the Occoquan is being maintained. Wayne Hyatt 

said yes, and a new bridge would be built to the east. He said he thought the MOA mitigation 

suggestions looked good. 

- Justin Patton also stated that the mitigation for Rippon Lodge as suggested looked 

appropriate. He did state that there is an existing sign related to the viewshed on the Rippon 

property and suggested that a better location for the recommended sign may be along 

Blackburn Road. Kerri Barile said she would alter the MOA to state that a sign location would be 

determined in consultation with Prince William County.

- Justin also said that a good mitigation item for the whole corridor (RF&P perhaps) would be an 

online project map/storyboard to highlight the historic resources. He provided an example. The 

team will look into working this into the mitigation. 

- Kate Schwartz asked about project plans in Fredericksburg near the existing train station. 

Wayne Hyatt and Carey Burch described project plans. Kerri Barile followed up that the work 

will have no adverse effect on the resource per the DHR. 

- Erik Nelson asked about the proposed new station and its location. Emily Stock and Carey 

Burch described ideas and committed to staying in touch with City on all station development 

plans. 

- Regarding mitigation, Kate Schwartz suggested creating a display of artifacts in the new train 

station for remains found during the data recovery of the three archaeological sites in town. 

The team said they would add this to the mitigation roster. Kate and Erik Nelson thought the 

remaining mitigation ideas looked good. 

- Kerri Barile asked Betsy Hodges if she had any questions or concerns. Betsy mentioned that 

the Town is looking to get funds to do a National Register nomination of the Berkleytown HD 

next year so she thought an alternative mitigation may be a better idea. Kerri mentioned for 

her to talk to colleagues and she would get back in touch for additional ideas.

- Tatiana Niculescu had no questions or comments. 

The meeting ended at 2:15pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update & Mitigation Discussion with Consulting Parties

Friday, October 5, 2018; 10:00am-11:30am

Parsons office, 100 M Street SE, Suite 1200, Washington, DC

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Jennifer Kleinman- Project Team

Mark Coombs- American Battlefield Trust

Adam Gillenwater- American Battlefield Trust

Emily Kambic- ABPP

Bradley Krueger- NPS GW Parkway

Lauren Hammig- NPS National Capital Region

1) Introductions and Safety Briefing (all and Jenny Kleinman)

2) General Project Overview and Current Status (Randy Selleck and Carey Burch)

3) Summary of FEIS Status and Remaining NEPA Process (Carey Burch and Jenny Kleinman)

4) Cultural Resource Update (Kerri Barile and Wayne Hyatt)

- Summary of Eligibility/List of Historic Properties

- Project Effect

- MOA Mitigation Stipulations

5) Questions and Answers (all)

- Laurel Hammig asked for an overview of changes near the GW Parkway. Wayne Hyatt 

provided an overview. As a follow up, she asked if determinations have been made regarding 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

vegetation along the parkway. Wayne said no details have been worked out yet but they are 

working with Arlington and the staff with the Long Bridge project to come up with details. 

- Laurel Hammig asked for details on project access and vegetation for areas south of the 

parkway. Wayne stated that all access is from outside of the parkway and none will be from the 

parkway itself. Also, there is no vegetation removal except for some within the CSX ROW. 

Randy Selleck confirmed that vegetative removal would be part of final design. Laurel asked if 

there are any communication upgrades in this area, and Randy stated that most will be buried. 

If there are new signals, they will discuss these with the NPS. 

- Brad Krueger had no additional questions on the GW Parkway. 

- Mark Coombs asked if there were any changes to battle-related resources since the June 2018 

meetings. Kerri Barile showed some maps and stated that no, there were no project design 

changes in these areas. Mark confirmed that this also applied to Slaughter Penn and that all 

changes will be in the existing ROW. Wayne Hyatt confirmed this and said that even utility 

improvements are restricted to the existing ROW here. 

- Kerri Barile clarified the point made in June that there had been a change at that time 

regarding Jackson’s earthworks. There is now an adverse effect due to design changes. Mark 

suggested that the team talk to NPS-Fredericksburg regarding signage for both Civil War sites 

near Fredericksburg. The team committed to doing this. She also shared the idea of a project 

corridor-wide online story board, as suggested during the Fredericksburg CP meeting. The 

group concurred this was a terrific idea. 

- Emily Kambic had no additional questions on this topic.

- Laurel Hammig asked for a general schedule. Kerri Barile provided a schedule for cultural 

resources, and Jenny Kleinman provided one for the FEIS. 

- Mark Coombs asked what the future plans are for communicating with the public during 

construction. Randy Sellick confirmed that extensive coordination would occur and it would be 

staged per segment to make sure the data is fresh. Carey Burch also said the public will be

involved in a context sensitive design. 

- Kerri Barile ended the meeting with a summary of next steps.

The meeting ended at 11:30am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Project Update & Mitigation Discussion with Consulting Parties and 

Other Vested Parties

Friday, October 12, 2018; 10:00am-12:00pm

Main Street Station, Richmond, Virginia

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

John Winkle- FRA

Sarah Stokely- ACHP

Jaime Loichinger- ACHP

Marc Holma- DHR

Roger Kirchen- DHR

Jennifer Mitchell- DRPT

Michael McLoughlin- DRPT

Emily Stock- DRPT

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Nick Ruiz- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Heather Staton- Project Team

Delegate Dolores McQuinn- Chair, Slave Trade Commission

Sharee Williamson- NTHP

Justin Sarafin- Preservation Virginia

Elizabeth S. Kostelny- Preservation Virginia

Jessica Russo- Historic Richmond Foundation

Kim Chen- City of Richmond 

Jeannie Welliver- City of Richmond

Doug Dunlap- City of Richmond 

Robert Steidel- City of Richmond

Selena Cuffee-Glen- City of Richmond

Free Egunfemi- UntoldRVA 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Rasheeda Creighton- Shockoe Partnership

Brian White- Shockoe Partnership

Chris Johnson- Shockoe Partnership

Lynetta Thompson- Community Unity in Action, Richmond Branch NAACP

Agenda:

1. Introductions/safety moment (Jennifer Mitchell and Carey Burch)

2. Agenda/Purpose of Meeting (Emily Stock)

 Inform participants on status of DC2RVA

 Advance the Section 106 process specific to DC2RVA

 Listen to other issues/concerns related to Shockoe Bottom and/or Main Street Station area that 

could have an effect on or be affected by DC2RVA

3. DC2RVA Project Overview (Emily Stock and Carey Burch)

4. Preferred Alternative at Main Street Station (minimal footprint) (Carey Burch and Wayne 

Hyatt)

 New track on existing viaduct structure

 Station facilities (inside Main Street Station)

 New platforms added inside/outside of existing viaduct structure

 Parking (note parking deck eliminated to reduce impacts to property and cultural resources)

5. DC2RVA Section 106 Process (Kerri Barile)

 Brief overview of 106 requirements

 Summarize history of area development, including rail history (Show historic maps, etc in 

handouts and on boards) – simple facts, but making the point there are many layers of history in 

the area to be considered.

 Summarize steps by City of Richmond and others to preserve/protect the area (give Trust and 

other groups recognition for their preservation efforts)

6. Walking Tour showing area of Proposed Platforms (all)

 Traffic cones placed at approximate edge of west side platform showing extent of potential 

area of disturbance

7. Historic Properties and DC2RVA compliance with Section 106 process in Shockoe Bottom area
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

 Review 106 findings to date on potential/eligible resources in APE

 Effects determination to date

 Proposed changes to potential/eligible resources and effects 

 Mitigation suggestions to be applied in Draft Memorandum of Agreement

8. Next Steps (Emily Stock and Kerri Barile)

Summary of Questions and Answers:

- Sharee Williamson asked what the timing is of the project. Emily Stock stated that we hope to have 

the 106 process wrapped up by the time we publish the FEIS this winter and the ROD this spring. 

- Jeanne Welliver asked what would happen with freight traffic. Would it be routed to the A-line? Or 

more freight in Richmond? Carey Burch stated that they do not know the freight schedule and routing 

as freight/CSX traffic is only marginally part of the study (only providing base information; building 

freight capacity is not part of the study though).

- Jeanne then asked if Environmental Justice studies had been done as part of the FEIS and, if so, is that 

why the downtown alternative was selected? Carey Burch stated that selection of downtown was the 

result of multiple pieces of information, including environmental justice studies done as part of the 

FEIS but also through the City’s initiative to make Main Street Station a transportation hub and a host 

of other studies that have suggested the success of this route. He also reiterated the results of the DEIS 

and alternatives studies if the line was put elsewhere in the city.

- Following up on this, Delegate McQuinn asked how this project blends with the City’s initiatives to 

bring people downtown? Also, were noise studies conducted as part of the environmental work? Emily 

Stock said that this area as a connection to all other points in town is based in history and this project 

aims to continue that. It will also bring visibility to some really important historical sites and 

preservation actions in this area. Delegate McQuinn followed by asking for clarification on noise and 

stated that this area has immense historical significance and the project needs to be sensitive to the 

concept of memorialization. Emily Stock and Carey Burch presented data on the noise study done as 

part of the project.

- Sharee Williamson asked if there are any considerations to dampen the noise? Emily Stock said no 

sound walls or other barriers would be erected but they have done other mitigation to keep trains 

where they are and sound levels at the current (or lower) decibels. This is why other options were 

removed- because of impacts to infrastructure and potential for increased noise. John Winkle followed 

up by reminding folks that freight noise and freight impacts are not part of the project. The lines are 

owned by CSX and they completely control that aspect.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Sharee Williamson asked why the parking deck has been removed from the study. Carey Burch stated 

that it was not needed and explained the presence of the City-owned deck to the west. Jennifer 

Mitchell followed up that this is an urban station and mentioned several other ways folks can get to 

the station including bus rapid transit, Uber, taxi, etc. Jeanne Welliver followed up that there are 

several extant City facilities nearby that can accommodate cars in addition to the parking deck 

mentioned by Carey.

- Moving into cultural resource studies, Sharee Williamson asked about the archaeological APE and if 

sites were being considered for their above-ground significance too (i.e., under Criterion A). Kerri Barile 

provided a synoposis of the dialogues conducted on this topic since June and the current direction of 

the analysis. 

- Regarding the concept of Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), Sharee Williamson asked if the area is 

being considered a TCP? Kerri Barile provided a definition for the group of a TCP and then presented a 

synthesis of meetings that have been held on this topic. Roger Kirchen and Marc Holma then presented 

their thoughts as the DHR, Sarah Stokely and Jaime Lochinger presented their thoughts as the ACHP, 

and John Winkle stated the FRA’s position. In sum, the area is not being considered a TCP. 

- Roger Kirchen followed up with additional data on Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre site. It has not been 

evaluated as a resource. He reiterated that the project is considering the site eligible under A and D 

due to consulting party feedback. 

- Lynetta Thompson said that the area is very important but that the tangible elements are gone and 

they would have to build elements for memorialization. This project will be an impetus for this 

building. 

- Delegate McQuinn reiterated the significance of this area and its high level of significance. Kerri Barile 

agreed with both Delegate McQuinn and Lynetta Thompson and said that the project is the 

opportunity to provide something back to the community associated with its important history as 

mitigation. 

- Sharee Williamson said that boundaries for a slave trade district are needed and once they are 

established, can present a case for significance of the district at the local, state, and national levels. 

This includes significance under several criteria. 

- To address Sharee’s comment, Jeanne Welliver presented the City’s map showing the locations of 

known slave trade-related sites and said that a lot of research has been done and the boundaries can 

be established by encircling these resources. She has been working closely with the Slave Trail 

Commission to tie these sites together through a unity walk. In fact, the City has done 19 projects in 

this area to record and memorialize the history here, including plans for the slave trail, a museum, 

archaeology at Lumpkins Jail site, etc. Delegate McQuinn followed this by stating that the City is 

working closely with the Virginia Commission on Reconciliation to be part of that project as well. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Related to the archaeological sites in the area, Jeanne Welliver presented more data on the digs at 

Lumpkins Jail and stated the reasons that no archaeology has been done by the City at the nearby 

Burial Ground- several studies done by VDOT and others, no evidence found, etc. 

- Free Egunfemi, Delegate McQuinn, and several others had a dialogue on striking a balance between 

commemorating the area and assuring that the project moves forward, as the city needs the transit 

option and it is good for the community. They stated that they are at the table to support the project 

and look forward to continuing a dialogue on finding the balance between progress and history.

- Sharee Williamson asked if there would be any additional meetings on this topic. Kerri Barile said that 

she is following up with every single consulting party to talk more and would circulate results of this 

meeting. There would also be several conference calls and perhaps one additional meeting. The goal is 

to continue to solicit feedback on historic properties and mitigation while allowing everyone a voice in 

the process. 

- Jeanne Welliver stated that the City has quarterly meetings to discuss the Shockoe area and that 

everyone in the room would be invited to the next meeting to keep the dialogue going that way, as 

well. 

The meeting ended at 12:00pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Historic Richmond Foundation Update 

October 15, 2018; 11:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

Cyane Crump- Historic Richmond Foundation

Jessica Russo- Historic Richmond Foundation

- Held conference call since Cyane Crump, Executive Director of HRF, could not attend Shockoe meeting. 

Kerri Barile started the call by providing a summary of the meeting. Jessica Russo with HRF, who was in 

attendance, said she thought the meeting was very informative and she enjoyed the dialogue. 

- Emily Stock discussed changes to the project plans since the last group meeting in June, including 

minimizing the footprint where possible, reducing the platform at Main Street Station to 950 feet so it 

doesn’t cross Broad Street, removing the parking deck in Shockoe, etc. She also provided a brief timeline 

of the process and the environmental document.

- Cyane Crump asked if the changed mentioned by Emily Stock change the cultural resource APE. Kerri 

Barile explained the changes and how it impacted the list of historic properties, as well as additional

studies. 

- Cyane Crump asked if Lumpkins Jail and the Burial Ground are now included in the APE. Kerri Barile

provided data that has been presented at other meetings based on extensive dialogues with the DHR, 

ACHP, and FRA- Lumpkins is being assumed eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C and is in the 

APE. There is no physical evidence of the Burial Ground despite numerous attempts to locate it, thus it is 

not included in the APE. She also said that both are being considered contributing elements to the 

surrounding Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row HD even though this designation has not been made (it is 

being assumed for the project to assure that the sites are included in multiple ways.)
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Cyane Crump asked if the team has an awareness of other projects going on in this area. Kerri Barile, 

Emily Stock, and Carey Burch all presented info on known other projects in the vicinity and the efforts to 

communicate with representatives of all so that the team is aware of it all.

- Returning to historic properties, Cyane Crump asked if the area would be considered a Traditional 

Cultural Property (TCP). Kerri Barile recounted data presented at previous meetings based on DHR, 

ACHP, and FRA feedback- the area is not being considered a TCP as it does not meet the definition.

- The group then looked at the preliminary mitigation stipulations sent to HRF for consideration. Cyane

Crump said she would look at it more thoroughly and provide comments.

- Cyane Crump asked about the burial ground to the north, located along Hospital Street. She asked if 

this resource meets the same criteria as Lumpkins and should be considered eligible under A and D and 

thus included? Kerri Barile went over the overlays in this area to show minimized avoidance but said she 

would talk to the team, FRA, and DHR about its potential eligibility under A and D and inclusion as a 

historic property. She would follow back with HRF on this issue.

- Cyane Crump asked if design review will be included in all modifications? Kerri Barile and Emily Stock 

said definitely. The conversation turned to purview of design and if there is a way to include changes to 

the local design code as a mitigation. Emily Stock said that this isn’t possible but that she would express 

this concern to the City during a future meeting. 

- Lastly, Cyane Crump asked about noise impacts. Carey Burch described the process the team went 

through to discuss noise and vibrations, including taking measurements throughout this area. There is 

no increase as a result of this project.

- Kerri Barile then discussed next steps, including getting maps to Cyane showing additional overlays in 

the Shockoe area and comments deadline from consulting parties on mitigation. 

The meeting ended at 11:45am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Town of Ashland/Ashland Museum Update

October 23, 2018; 2:00pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Nora Amos- Town of Ashland

Betsy Hodges- Ashland Museum

Will- Ashland Museum

- Held call to provide a summary on the consulting party meetings held in October as Town of Ashland 

could not attend. 

- Carey Burch started with an update on the environmental process and preferred alternative, as well as 

providing some information on schedule.

- Kerri Barile then provided a 106 update including summary of studies, list of historic properties, and 

details on Ashland. She specifically mentioned that due to the 3:2:3 concept in Ashland, there is only 

one adversely effected property now, the Berkleytown HD. 

- Nora Amos said that the Town is going for a cost share grant through the DHR next year to get a 

nomination done for the district. She asked if this could marry with the MOA and possibly still be a 

stipulation so that the DHR pays their half of the grant. Kerri Barile said that there are two options- one 

is to get the whole nomination paid for by DRPT as a mitigation but it wouldn’t occur until there is 

funding for the construction in several years or that the town goes ahead and does their nomination as a 

cost share and the DRPT isn’t involved at all. Nora Amos confirmed that they have to choose now and 

that the DRPT can’t pay for it in advance, and Kerri Barile said no, no funding can be released at this 

time.

- The group went over the preliminary mitigations suggested for the district, and all concurred that three 

of the four were great (design review, oral history and signage). A dialogue ensued about what to do for 

a fourth mitigation. It was determined that the DRPT would help fund the development of a walking 

tour of the district in consultation with the Ashland Museum. They also said that they should leave the 

NRHP nomination in the MOA on the off chance that it is not done in advance of the mitigation. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Nora Amos asked if anything is needed from the Town or Museum at this time? Kerri Barile said that a 

letter confirming the mitigation as discussed would be great. 

- Betsy Hodges asked for a clarification on the difference between a local marker and a state marker, 

and Kerri Barile provided the data and why she suggested a state marker for this district (more visibility 

and recognition). Betsy said this sounded good and she concurred. 

The meeting ended at 2:30pm.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Preservation Virginia Update 

November 1, 2018; 10:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Wayne Hyatt- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Justin Sarafin- Preservation Virginia

Elizabeth Kostelny- Preservation Virginia

- Held call to provide a summary on the consulting party meetings held in October and additional

dialogues on Shockoe area since that time. Kerri Barile provided an update on the status of resources in 

Shockoe, mainly that Lumpkins Jail and Graveyard for Free People and Slaves are being added as historic 

properties and assumed eligible under A and D but that the Burial Ground for Negros is not being added 

as there is no physical evidence of its existence and it is not visible from the limits of disturbance. 

- Justin Sarafin said that this issue was raised at the on-site meeting and that the approach makes sense 

to him.

- Kerri Barile then mentioned that Masons Hall was added at the request of the Historic Richmond 

Foundation. Although the APE has shrunk in that area as the parking deck was removed, this resource is 

still on the roster of historic properties due to its significance. Justin Sarafin asked for the recommended 

effect, and Kerri said no adverse. 

- On a broader level, Justin Sarafin asked if there has been any follow up with representatives from the 

City and, if so, what have transpired from those conversations? Carey Burch said that several levels of 

dialogues have been ongoing with the City, both as a property owner and as a consulting party. They 

have had positive comments on the project from the start. It was actually at the City’s request that a 

proposed parking deck east of the Main Street Station has been removed. Justin said the removal of this 

deck was a definite improvement. 

- Related to this, Randy Selleck said that the City is crafting a letter showing their commitment to historic 

preservation and this will be appended to a letter reply going to the National Trust. This data will be 

shared with Preservation Virginia once collected. Elizabeth Kostelny asked who is penning the letter for 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

the City, and Kerri Barile said it is a combination of Jeanne Welliver, Doug Dunlap and Mayor Stony. The 

letter will be robust and detailed. 

- Justin Sarafin brought up the Shockoe Alliance, which is discussing current and future development. 

They are talking with the mayor on upcoming projects and will make a joint announcement soon. 

- Justin Sarafin brought the slave trade area back up and asked how the project and associated 

mitigation can advance the larger goals of preservation in Shockoe. Kerri Barile and Wayne Hyatt 

described efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to the greatest degree possible and shared overlays 

with the group. Kerri also outlined how the team is assuming eligibility for a host of resources and also 

assuming that they contribute to the surrounding historic district. Mitigation efforts will provide 

historical studies to the area. Justin said he understands the complexity of the issues at hand, especially 

as the City is concurrently discussing putting g a museum/cultural center in the area as a parallel project. 

Like others, he said the crux of the issue is to find a balance between recognizing significance and 

preservation initiatives but also allowing for development (including both rail and memorialization 

construction). The group discussed timing challenges of all involved projects and the 106 process. 

- Lastly, Justin Sarafin asked for ideas on mitigation and Kerri Barile said she would email them a few 

rough ideas to get them started. Justin said this sounded like a good process. 

The meeting ended at 10:45am.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Elgeba Folklore Society Update 

November 2, 2018; 4pm

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Emily Stock- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Karen Harrington- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Janine Bell- Elgeba Folklore Society

- Janine Bell asked for an update as she was unable to attend the Shockoe meeting on October 12. Emily 

Stock provided an update on the project in general.

- Janine Bell then asked for a summary of the 106 process, and Kerri Barile described both the process 

and what has been done to date on this project related to this compliance. Emily Stock also stated that 

the significance of this area is well known so the team wanted to bring in other voices besides consulting 

parties to solicit input. Both Kerri and Emily provided a synopsis of comments received to date including 

those presented at the October 12 meeting.

- Carey Burch followed this with specific information on what is being done at Main Street Station in 

terms of design and modifications. Janine Bell said she understands that what is now an events center 

used to be the passenger shed and she asked if a new passenger area is being constructed as part of the 

process? Carey said yes but they’re using platforms with no superstructure. He described the minimal 

impacts due to the construction of the platforms and their parameters. 

- Carey Burch brought up the parking deck and how it has been removed from the project. There was a 

dialogue on the City’s plans for parking in this area.

- Janine Bell said that this project is important as it creating a foundation to make Richmond a 

transportation hub in the 21st century. On its surface, she said the project doesn’t seem to impact 

cultural resources but she does have questions on visual impacts and, more importantly, noise and 

bustle associated with increased activity. Kerri Barile followed this with a discussion on cultural resource

studies and how the team is looking at viewshed, setting, and feeling as important components to each 

resource. She discussed efforts to minimize impacts in the area, including the Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half 

Acre site and two burial grounds.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

- Janine Bell brought up the area as a possible site for a future museum. She wanted to know how the 

pieces merge together. Kerri Barile mentioned that the team created overlays of the proposed Memorial 

Park and museum plans with DC2RVA project plans to assure that proposed development wouldn’t 

overlap but would be complimentary. 

- Regarding significance and mitigation, Janine Bell reiterated the importance of the history in this area 

and that any efforts need to acknowledge this history. How will history be involved in the plans? Kerri 

Barile mentioned several ongoing ideas on mitigation, including the context of the rail and slave trade. 

Janine said it is very important to convey the feeling of the place and to assure that this story is put out 

to a wider audience. 

- Emily Stock thanked Janine Bell for her insightful comments and taking time to talk to the group. She 

said that Janine would be involved in any mitigation that takes place. We all have a responsibility to tell 

this story and this project can help increase area education on these significant events.

- Janine Bell said she would love to particulate and that we should make the city more accessible to 

everyone. This project not only brings in transportation options but also draws the eye to this important 

place and its history. This helps all aspects. She thanked the group for the dialogue.

The meeting ended at 4:45pm.
801 E. Main St., Suite 1000

Richmond, VA 23219

Historic Richmond Foundation Update 

November 20, 2018; 11:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees: 

Kerri Barile- Project Team 

Jessica Russo- Historic Richmond Foundation 

- Kerri Barile sent Historic Richmond Foundation (HRF) a copy of the DC2RVA/FRA reply to the National

Trust for Historic Preservation, letter dated November 13, 2018. HRF has raised similar concerns to the

National Trust in the past.

- Emails were exchanged between HRF (Cyane Crump and Jessica Russo) and Kerri Barile regarding the

letter, historic properties, project effect, and mitigation.

- Jessica Russo with HRF called Kerri Barile to discuss the National Trust letter. Specifically, she clarified

which resources would be adversely effected and asked questions on the process. Kerri Barile replied

and provided data.

- Regarding mitigation, Jessica Russo stated that HRF comments sent to DRPT on July 20, 2018 regarding

mitigation remain accurate and they request that the data in this letter be evaluated when determining

effect. Kerri Barile said the letter is in hand and she would re-read it and assure that their comments

were included in the dialogue.

- Kerri Barile asked if HRF has any additional comments to add to the process or any other questions she

could answer, and Jessica Russo said no. She was pleased with the process to date and appreciated the

opportunity to solicit additional feedback.

The meeting ended at 11:30am. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

National Trust for Historic Preservation and Preservation Virginia

Update

December 3, 2018; 11:00am

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Sharee Williamson- National Trust for Historic Preservation

Rob Nieweg- National Trust for Historic Preservation

Elizabeth Kostelny- Preservation Virginia

Justin Sarafin- Preservation Virginia

Sarah Stokely- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Marc Holma- Virginia Department of Historic Resources

Roger Kirchen- Virginia Department of Historic Resources

John Winkle- Federal Railroad Administration

Randy Selleck- DRPT

Carey Burch- Project Team

Kerri Barile- Project Team

Emily Calhoun- Project Team

- Call to discuss meetings and letters concerning the DC2RVA project and historic resources in Shockoe 

Bottom, Richmond. Topics included the area as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), effects on 

Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre site, the project Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and next steps.

TCP

- Sharee Williamson stated that the National Trust had received FRA’s reply letter regarding their 

concerns on Shockoe Bottom on November 13. They are writing a response to this letter. She asked for a 

clarification of the numbers discussed in the document. Kerri Barile confirmed the number of historic 

properties, resources involved, research that has gone into this area, etc. Specifically, she mentioned 

that there have been 18 meetings and calls with vested groups and agencies and extensive background 

research (39 reports and two dozen DHR resource files) to craft a 13 page synthesis that will be in the 

upcoming FEIS. The team also did extensive research on other TCPs, particularly those that do not have 

an affiliation with a Native American tribe including the African Burial Ground in New York City. The 

team also talked to the DHR and ACHP, who have also done research. Together, this resulted in the 

determination that the area does not meet the TCP definition as currently defined. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

- Marc Holma and Roger Kirchen with the DHR followed confirming this data and stating that they have 

no additional comments. 

- Sarah Stokely with the ACHP followed confirming this data and stating that she has no additional 

comments.

- Steve Walter offered to provide copies of the 39 reports and summary to the National Trust and 

Preservation Virginia. Roger Kirchen asked to review a list of the documents in advance due to concerns 

with the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Kerri Barile said she would craft this list and 

send it to Roger. Upon approval, copies of all documents would be sent to both the Trust and 

Preservation Virginia.

- Sharee asked for a clarification on what non-consulting party groups were involved in the discussions. 

Kerri Barile presented a list. Marc Holma asked if Kim Chen with the City of Richmond has been involved. 

Kerri Barile said yes, the City is a consulting party and Kim and others have received all info and been to 

numerous meetings. 

Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre and Project Effect

- Sharee Williamson restated data presented in the FRA’s letter- the site is eligible under Criteria A and is 

within the project APE, correct? Kerri Barile explained the decision to assume eligibility for the site 

(which has not been formally evaluated) under both Criteria A and D and described the process to 

determine effects. Specifically, she noted that consulting party feedback led to this decision. FRA has 

determined that the project will have no adverse effect on the Lumpkins site as the resource has 

integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and association but not setting and feeling. The 

latter are the two aspects of integrity that could be impacted by the project as the site is outside of the 

archaeological APE. The site and surrounding area do not appear as they did during the resource’s 

period of significance and donot convey a historic sense of place. This guidance comes from National 

Register Bulletin 36. Roger Kirchen concurred with the analysis as presented. 

- Marc Holma followed up that their official decision on effect has not yet been rendered as they are 

waiting on all consulting party feedback prior to issuing their decision, including the current call and the 

National Trusts’s follow up reply letter. 

- Sharee Williamson brought up the site’s contributing status to the surrounding Shockoe Valley and 

Tobacco Row Historic District. She asked how the site could be considered not individually eligible but 

could still be mitigated? Kerri Barile described the process. The site has not been evaluated as either an 

individual resource or a contributing element to the district but the FRA is assuming eligibility and that it 

is a contributing element. As the project will have an adverse effect on the district as a whole, will target 

some of the mitigation towards this site.
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

- Sharee Williamson asked for more information on why the “Burial Ground for Negros” was not 

included in the roster of historic properties. Roger Kirchen stated that the DHR finds it difficult to 

evaluate a site when there is no physical data. Despite several attempts to locate this resource, it is 

mapped based on conjecture and no physical evidence. Until more information is available, they cannot 

apply the criteria of eligibility. This does not diminish its importance, just how it is evaluated in a 

situation like this. 

- Marc Holma followed by stating that the site cannot be seen from the project area either. Kerri Barile 

described the viewshed study that was done to see if the burial ground as mapped could be seen and it 

cannot due to Broad Street. Sharee Williamson asked for a copy of this study. Kerri Barile stated that she 

would provide it.

- Sarah Stokely asked for additional data on this issue, specifically regarding a potential adverse effect 

and if the National Trust thought there was one? Sharee Williamson stated that they have not done a 

viewshed analysis themselves and that they may concur with FRA, but they need to see the data. They 

just want to assure that the research has been completed. 

- Following up on this, Sharee Williamson stated that their biggest concerns are regarding cumulative 

effects. What additional economic development could occur and what has the FRA/team done to learn 

about other activities? Kerri Barile stated that they have been in constant contact with the City to learn 

about current and future projects, including many meetings and calls. VDOT has also been contacted. 

Sharee Williamson asked if there are minutes from these meetings? Kerri Barile confirmed that there 

are, and she will get them to the group. She also said that the appended City of Richmond letter with the 

FRA’s reply from November 13th also summarized the dialogues. 

- Regarding this issue, Rob Nieweg confirmed that the meetings/calls have included not just current 

projects but future projects? Kerri Barile stated in the affirmative. Data presented in the letter in hand 

and in the minutes to be sent would confirm this. Carey Burch followed that the City has had plans to 

make Main Street Station a multimodal hub for years. This is in their Land Use plan. John Winkle stated 

that changes to this area are coming with or without this project and use of Main Street Station was 

actually spurred by the City. 

MOA

- Kerri Barile confirmed that all on the call had received the list of very preliminary mitigation ideas. The 

group responded in the affirmative and stated that they needed some time to peruse and analyze the 

list. 

- Marc Holma asked for clarification if any buildings are being demolished because of the undertaking. 

The team stated that no, no buildings are being demolished. The tower in Doswell is being moved but no 

other physical impacts. 
 

801 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

- Sharee Williamson asked for a clarification on the archaeological sites in Shockoe Bottom on the list of 

adversely effected resources. Kerri Barile stated that all three are related to the early-twentieth century 

railroad activity in the area. 

- Sarah Stokely returned to the concept of building impacts and wanted to triple check that no buildings, 

especially those in Richmond’s Shockoe area, will be demolished. Marc Holma said he spoke in error and 

no buildings will be demolished as part of this project. Randy Selleck said that plans associated with the 

creation of a museum in this area by an independent group (outside the scope of the current project) 

include the demolition of the Seaboard Building, so that may be where confusion lies. Kerri Barile said 

that the Seaboard building dates to around 1910 and was found to be not individually eligible during the 

Richmond to Raleigh study. 

- Rob Nieweg asked for a clarification on the Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District. This is 

the district that was determined to be eligible in the 1980s and not the slave trade industry proposed 

district from the 2000s, right? Kerri Barile confirmed this data. Rob Nieweg asked to assure that 

consulting party and city interest groups are involved in any mitigation in this area.

Next Steps

- Sharee Williamson asked when the requested data would be received. Kerri Barile said she would start 

gathering the information as soon as the call was complete and would have it to the group within a few 

days. Sharee Williamson said they would craft their reply immediately upon receipt of the data.

- Marc Holma reiterated that the DHR will not issue a reply to the second effects addendum until 

National Trust and Preservation Virginia comments are in hand. Rob Nieweg said he appreciated their 

consideration.

The meeting ended at 12:00pm.
 

600 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves/Site 44HE1203

On-Site Meeting

Wednesday, February 13, 2019; 3:00pm

AGENDA & MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

See attached attendance roster

Agenda:

1. Safety briefing (Carey Burch)

2. Purpose of visit (Emily Stock)

- Review DC2RVA rail project including purpose and need and history

- Review DC2RVA rail project’s preliminary plans for the area around the Graveyard For Free 

People of Color and Slaves (Site 44HE1203), located at the northeast corner of 5th and 

Hospital Street in Richmond, VA

- Review DC2RVA rail project’s preliminary engineering and cultural resource studies to date, 

and project commitments 

- Obtain feedback and discuss next steps

3. Map review with Preliminary Plans (Carey Burch and Wayne Hyatt)

- Using large map sheets, discussed original and revised project limits of disturbance

- Described location of additional track, grade-separation of Hospital Street and pedestrian 

sidewalk over the tracks; re-alignment of 7th Street, use of retaining walls to keep Hospital 

Street within existing right-of-way

- Discussed parameters of 30 percent design (preliminary) and next steps in the design 

process

4. Site visit (Kerri Barile and Tony Opperman)

- Discussed cultural resource studies undertaken by the DC2RVA rail project to date, including 

coordination with DHR, the City of Richmond, and other stakeholders
 

600 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

- Using the Timeline handout, discussed area history including past changes to the Graveyard 

For Free People of Color and Slaves (Site 44HE1203) 

- Discussed road improvements (separate from DC2RVA road improvements) proposed in the 

area by VDOT and the City

- Walking tour along public sidewalk adjacent to the Graveyard For Free People of Color and 

Slaves (Site 44HE1203); reviewed DC2RVA project preliminary design elements

- Discussed recommended project commitments

5. Next steps (Kerri Barile and Emily Stock)

- Discussed timeline for DC2RVA rail project implementation and project commitments, 

which could be ten plus years into the future, depending on funding availability and the 

progress of higher-priority sections of the corridor in Northern Virginia 
 

600 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

Summary of Questions and Answers:

- Steve Thompson asked for a clarification to the known modifications to Hospital Street, including 

those that have occurred in the past, those originally proposed as part of the DC2RVA project, and 

those that are part of the modified plans currently represented in the 30 percent designs. Wayne Hyatt 

discussed the DC2RVA project with Kerri Barile and Carey Burch adding additional data on the area’s 

history.

- Cyane Crump asked for more information on the third track to be installed in this area, specifically 

asking on which side of the current tracks work will be performed. Carey Burch stated that the 

modifications in this area will be on the east side of the existing tracks and away from the mapped 

cemetery.

- During a discussion of the proposed project commitments, Cyane Crump asked for more information 

on 3D modeling as referenced in the proposed landscape study. She also asked for a definition of 

“archaeological testing.” Kerri Barile provided a clarification on both of these items to describe the 

documentation and archaeological process. 

- Related to the commitments, Steve Thompson asked if archival research would also be a 

commitment; Kerri Barile confirmed it would, as well as oral histories, if possible, with descendants and 

those with knowledge of past activities in this area. 

- Steve Thompson asked if the field studies would not be done until the 90 percent plans were 

completed. Kerri Barile and Wayne Hyatt confirmed this, and explained that archaeology is destructive 

so work will not be done until exact limits of disturbance have been determined, at advanced design 

stages after construction funding is secured. Steve followed up by asking if testing would occur in areas 

where fill is needed (versus excavation). Kerri confirmed that this will occur as the goal is to identify 

any possible interments or archaeological features in any areas touched by the project to avoid 

construction on top of graves or other sensitive archaeological features. If human remains are 

encountered, the DHR will be contacted and a plan will be derived. Wayne stated that construction 

plans may need to be reexamined if that is the case to assure that things are done properly. 

- Ana Edwards asked for a definition of “grade separation.” Wayne Hyatt provided the data.

- Emily Stock stated that DRPT is coordinating with the community, VDOT and the City of Richmond to 

keep in touch on DRPT’s work in this area and to assure that the DC2RVA rail project commitments 

remain valid and appropriate. 

- Ryan Smith asked about the cemetery lot and if there are any plans for lot development and what 

may happen to the extant gas station on the parcel. Kim Chen with the City of Richmond said that the 

future of the lot is up in the air, as the taxes are delinquent so the property is in a bit of limbo. She said 

the city cannot legally just “take” the property but they are considering acquiring it. 
 

600 E. Main St., Suite 2100

Richmond, VA 23219

- Following up on the current land use question, Kim Chen said she is working with other City 

departments to get the land use designation changed from general business to cemetery use. This 

would assure that the area is included as a cemetery in all future dialogues on the parcel. 

- Cyane Crump asked if the billboard currently on the lot will remain- Kim Chen was unaware of details 

regarding the billboard.

- Ana Edwards stated that she knows there have been attempts to communicate with the property 

owners in the past and asked if the City is continuing this effort. Kim Chen confirmed that the City is 

continuing to attempt contact, but that the owner remains unresponsive. 

- Steve Thompson wanted to ensure that the whole story is told about this cemetery including not only 

its use as an interment area but also its post-burial history, such as the construction impacts, explaining 

how this activity adds up to tell the tale of the African-American experience in this area. He asked that 

the boundaries of the cemetery and its significance be reevaluated as part of the project 

commitments. Emily Stock and Kerri Barile said they will add these elements to the revised 

commitment document.

The meeting ended at 4:30pm.

ATTACHMENTS:

- Attendance roster

- Revised list of commitments based on meeting feedback
 

Site 44HE1203/Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves

On-Site Meeting, February 13, 2019; 3:00pm

ATTENDEE LIST

NAME AFFILIATION EMAIL

Kerri Barile Project Team kbarile@dovetailcrg.com

Wayne Hyatt Project Team whyatt@moffattnichol.com

Karen Harrington Project Team karen.harrington@hdrinc.com

Tony Opperman VDOT a.opperman@vdot.virginia.gov

Sarah Clarke VDOT Sarah.Clarke@vdot.virginia.gov

Steve Thompson Rivanna Archaeological Services sthompson@rivarch.com

Chris Smith DRPT Chris.Smith@drpt.virginia.gov

Cyane Crump Historic Richmond ccrump@historicrichmond.com

Justin Sarafin Preservation Virginia jsarafin@preservationvirginia.org

Marc Holm DHR Marc.holma@dhr.virginia.gov

Roger Kirchen DHR Roger.kirchen@dhr.virginia.gov

Kim Chen City of Richmond Kimberly.chen@richmondgov.com

Carey Burch Project Team Carey.burch@hdrinc.com

Randy Selleck DRPT Randy.selleck@drpt.virginia.gov

Emily Stock DRPT Emily.stock@drpt.virginia.gov
 

NAME AFFILIATION EMAIL

Shawn Utsey VCU soutsey@vcu.edu

Ryan Smith VCU Rksmith3@vcu.edu

Nicole Turner VCU nmturner@vcu.edu

Winnie Chan VCU wchan@vcu.edu

Faedah Totah VCU ftotah@vcu.edu

Michael McLaughlin DRPT Michael.McLaughlin@drpt.virginia.gov 

Andrea Douglas Jefferson School African 

American Heritage Center director@jeffschoolheritagecenter.org

Ana Edwards Sacred Ground Project ourrosewood@gmail.com

Jordy Yager Freelance journalist jordyyager@gmail.com
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203*

*Timeline compiled from research presented in Calhoun 2013, research conducted as part of the 

DC2RVA project, and research presented by Lenora McQueen and Steve Thompson. For the ease 

of discussion, the area will be referred to as “site 44HE1203” as it changed names numerous 

times historically.

1799, City of Richmond Purchases Land

City of Richmond purchased the property that is currently referred to as site 44HE1203 from 

Nathanial Wilkerson and others, “being a portion of the same property known as ‘Poor House 

Tract’” (Calhoun 2013). 

1816, Burial Ground Establishment

Richmond City Council Minutes address an 1812 proposal/call for establishment of a cemetery for 

slaves and free people of color.

Figure 1: Richmond City Council Minutes, 1816, Volume 5, page 23 (Calhoun 2013:Figure 5).

1816 Richmond Enquirer article announces establishment of burial ground.

Figure 2: Richmond Enquirer 22 February 1816 (Calhoun 2013:Figure 6). 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 2

1835, Bates Map

Micajah Bates’ 1835 Plan of the City of Richmond Drawn From Actual Survey and Regional Plans

locates the “Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves”(in red), divided into two sections. 

Other prominent area landmarks include the Poor House/Alms House, Jewish Cemetery, and 

Shockoe Hill Cemetery. 

Figure 3: Site 44HE1203 on the 1835 Bates Map as it Relates to DC2RVA Project.
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 3

1856, Ellyson Map

M. Ellyson’s 1856 Map of Richmond locates the Poor House/Alms House, Jewish Cemetery, 

Shockoe Hill Cemetery, and powder magazine, but not the Grave Yard for Free People of Color 

and Slaves.

Figure 4: M. Ellyson’s 1856 Map of Richmond (Calhoun 2013:Figure 9). 

1866, Powder Magazine Construction

E.G Rex acquires land from the City of Richmond to construct a new powder magazine (S. 

Thompson to K. Barile and E. Stock, letter, 29 January 2019).

1867, Human Remains Discovered During Powder Magazine Construction

The discovery of approximately 100 human skeletons during construction of the new magazine 

was reported by the Richmond Whig (April 9, 1867) and Daily Dispatch (April 9, 1867) (S. 

Thompson to K. Barile and E. Stock, letter, 29 January 2019).

1867, Michler Map

Gen. N. Michler’s 1867 Richmond [1862–1865] locates the Poor House/Alms House, Jewish 

Cemetery, Shockoe Hill Cemetery, and powder magazine, but not the Grave Yard for Free People 

of Color and Slaves. It appears that the Hospital Street alignment is altered from the 1853 Bates 

map. Prior to 1867, Hospital Street, east of 5th Street, is shown to be oriented in a southeastnorthwest direction, a linear extension of the orientation west of 5th Street. On this map it takes a 

more east-west orientation, creating an angle east of 5

th Street. Additionally, this map seems to 

indicate topography of the approximate site area, showing a steep slope down to Bacon’s Quarter 

Branch. 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 4

1877, Beers Map

F.W Beers’ 1877 Map of the City of Richmond locates the Poor House/Alms House, Jewish 

Cemetery, Shockoe Hill Cemetery, the Colored Alms House, and the Grave Yard for Free People 

of Color and Slaves (noted as Potters Field, see Figure 6). Also, locates two powder magazines, 

one north of Hospital Street within Potters Field “Laflin & Rand Powder Co’s Mag” and one south 

of Hospital Street “E.J. Dupont & Cos Powder Mag”. 

Figure 5: Gen. N. Michler’s 1867 Richmond [1862–1865] (Calhoun 2013). 

Figure 6: F.W Beers’ 1877 Map of the City of Richmond, Potters Field Circled in Red.
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 5

Figure 7: Site 44HE1203 on the 1877 Beers Map as it Relates to DC2RVA Project.

1879, Cemetery Records

Last reported burial activity recorded at 44HE1203 in June 1879, as published on January 1, 1880 

in the Richmond Dispatch (S. Thompson to K. Barile and E. Stock, letter, 29 January 2019).

1883, 5th Street Improvements

On October 9, 1883 the Daily Dispatch reports “improvements at the extreme north end of Fifth 

Street” were unearthing “bodies buried in that locality” (S. Thompson to K. Barile and E. Stock, 

letter, 29 January 2019).
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 6

1888 (Circa), Cook0184 Image 

Figure 8: Circa 1887 Image of the Richmond Locomotive and Machine Works, Facing Southwest. Red arrow locates the Alms House, yellow arrow locates the 

Shockoe Hill Cemetery, blue arrow locates the “Colored Alms House” and green circle indicates approximate/assumed location of “Grave Yard for Free People 

of Color and Slaves” (Bates 1835) and “Potters Field” (Beers 1877). 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 7

Figure 9: Detail of the Approximate/Assumed Location of “Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves” (Bates 

1835) and “Potters Field” (Beers 1877) On the Circa 1887 Image, With Presumed 1887 Hill Elevation in Orange. 

Note slope wash creating deep rills (drainage due to erosion of loose sediment) and excavated/cut notch already 

present in hillslope (blue arrow). Hospital Street location is obscured by the hillslope. 

1889, Baist Atlas of Richmond

G. Wm. Baist’s 1889 Atlas of the city of Richmond Virginia. and vicinity; from actual surveys

locates Potters Field, Shockoe Hill Cemetery, both Alms Houses, and the Richmond Locomotive 

and Machine Works. 

1890, 5th Street Viaduct

In 1890 the City Council passed an ordinance that would allow for the construction of a viaduct 

over Bacon’s Branch, the ordinance stated “to erect a viaduct or bridge upon so much of the land 

belonging to the said City as would like in the extension of 5th Street, should the same be graded

from its present northern termination.” The ordinance suggests the grading evident in subsequent 

1891 image of the area (Calhoun 2013).
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 8

Figure 10: G. Wm. Baists’ 1889 Atlas of the city of Richmond Virginia. and vicinity; from actual surveys. Details 

from Plate 14 (right) and Plate 15 (left) showing the general vicinity of site 44HE1203 (circled in red). 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 9

1891 (Circa), Cook1067 Image 

Figure 11: Circa 1891 Image of the Richmond Locomotive and Machine Works, Facing Southwest. Red arrow locates the Almshouse, yellow arrow located the 

Shockoe Hill Cemetery, blue arrow locates the “Colored Alms House”, orange arrow locates “Laflin & Rand Powder Co Mag” (Beers 1877), and green circle 

indicates approximate/assumed location of “Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves” (Bates 1835) and “Potters Field” (Beers 1877). 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 10

Figure 12: Detail of the Approximate/Assumed Location of “Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves” (Bates 1835) and “Potters Field” (Beers 1877).

Circa 1887 Circa 1891
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 11

Figure 13: Detail of the Approximate/Assumed Location of “Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves” 

(Bates 1835) and “Potters Field” (Beers 1877) On the Circa 1891 Image. Note excavated/cut hillslope, with

slope wash creating deep rills (drainage due to erosion of loose sediment). Hospital Street location 

approximated by the red line.

1905, Sanborn Map Company 

Sanborn Map Company’s 1905 Insurance Maps of Richmond, Virginia, Sheet 115 shows a detail 

of the American Locomotive Co. Richmond Works, located across/east of Bacons Quarter Branch 

from site 44HE1203. Note, Sanborn Maps from 1896 and 1925 were also consulted, but did not 

include detailed inventories in the vicinity of the site.
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 12

Figure 14: Sanborn Map Company’s 1905 Insurance Maps of Richmond, Virginia, Sheet 115. Detail of the area east 

of site 44HE1203. Approximate/possible eastern margin of site 44HE1203 outlined in red.

1930s, 5th Street Viaduct Replacement

The 5th Street Viaduct was replaced with the Stonewall Jackson Bridge in the early 1930s (Calhoun 

2013). An examination of historic topographic maps from this era suggested that Hospital Street 

was straightened/realigned again between 1895 and 1923. 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 13

Figure 15: Top, 1895 Richmond 1:62,500 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle. 

Bottom, 1934 Richmond 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Quadrangle. Red cross indicates the approximate location of 

site 44HE1203. 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 14

Figure 16: 1923 Division Engineer of Surveys/ Topography City of Richmond/ Department of Public Works

Topographic Map, Showing the General Site Vicinity (Circled in Red). 

1960, Property Ownership Transfer

On March 29, 1960, the City of Richmond sold the parcel containing site 44HE1203 to the Sun 

Oil Company. Following this transfer a commercial building (service station) was constructed on 

the property (circa 1960), addressed at 1305 N. 5th Street (Calhoun 2013). 

1960s, Interstate 64 Construction

Construction of the portion of Interstate 64 in the vicinity of site 44HE1203 was begun circa 1966 

and was completed by 1968. 

1968, Imagery

An examination of 1968 imagery indicates the area immediately surrounding the service station at 

1305 N. 5th Street was filled during construction.
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 15

Figure 17: 1968 Aerial Imagery of the Newly Constructed Service Station at 1305 N. 5th Street. 

1981, Tallys Auto Shop Ownership

Walter L. and Leontyne Tally acquired the property at 1305 N. 5th Street (Calhoun 2013).

1990s, Stonewall Jackson Bridge Replacement

In the early 1990s the Stonewall Jackson Bridge was replaced with the current structure that carries 

5

th Street (Calhoun 2013).

2013, VDOT/CRA Study

Archaeological survey and geomorphological studies (detailed soil analysis) were conducted 

within VDOT’s right-of-way (ROW), under the I-64 overpass. Perpendicular backhoe trenches 

across the ROW yielded no human remains or evidence of cultural features. The geomorphology 

analysis indicated near surface relic marine truncated subsoils (pre-human occupation) overlain by 

modern fill (Calhoun 2013). This indicates that existing soils in the area were stripped and removed 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 16

from the area, exposing pre-human geologic layers, and modern fill was deposited over these 

sterile deposits.

Summary/Interpretations

The “Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves” was undoubtedly located north of the 

nineteenth century iteration of Hospital Street, and presently in the northeast quadrant of the 

intersection of 5th Street and Hospital Street. It appears to have been in use from 1816 through 

1879. The 1835 Bates map clearly identifies two sections within the cemetery, indicating that at 

least pre-1865 free people of color were interred in the western portion of the burial ground and 

that enslaved individuals were interred in the eastern portion, closer to Bacon’s Quarter Branch. 

By 1877 the boundaries of the cemetery were expanded to the north and west. Given the abundant 

historic evidence documenting the presence of this cemetery, the DC2RVA team sought to elevate 

this site from speculation in unpublished citations, by formally recording it with the Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (DHR) in 2018. 

Discussions regarding the DC2RVA project and site 44HE1203 have been ongoing since the 

spring of 2018. In order to better understand the history of the site landscape following the apparent 

1879 abandonment of the cemetery, a variety of historic maps and images were examined by the 

DC2RVA team as part of Phase IB survey efforts, site avoidance dialogues, consulting party 

coordination, and the current discussion. The first event that likely impacted the site was the 

realignment of Hospital Street. Based on the map inspection, this occurred between 1856 and 1867. 

Michler’s 1867 map appears to be the first depiction of Hospital Street oriented east-west, as 

compared to the previous southeast-northwest direction. The 1866 establishment of a powder 

magazine north of Hospital Street also impacted, and yielded evidence for, the site location, as 

newspaper accounts documented the inadvertent discovery of human remains during its 

construction. It appears as if the eastern two-thirds of the site (as currently mapped/recorded with 

DHR) was removed in advance of the 1890 construction of the 5th Street Viaduct. The removal of 

this hillslope is evident when comparing the 1888 and 1891 Cook images presented above, but 

was also confirmed on the ground via a geomorphology assessment of the eastern portion of the 

site area by VDOT (Calhoun 2013). It is reasonable to assume that this removal greatly disturbed 

the portion of the cemetery marked “for slaves” on the 1835 Bates map. Furthermore, it appears 

that the western third of the site, marked “for free people of color” and closest to present day 5th

Street, may have been spared from extensive grading in the 1890s. The eastern portion of the site 

was likely once again subjected to significant earthmoving activities when the 5th Street Viaduct 

was replaced in the 1930s, which also included a realignment of the portion of Hospital Street as 

it intersected Bacon’s Quarter Branch (as evidenced via the analysis of period topographic maps). 

Analysis of imagery from the 1960s, bracketing the construction of Interstate 64, indicates that the

western portion of the site may have been filled and leveled in the 1960s. 

The differential grading and treatment of the site landscape discussed above is also evident on the 

ground surface today by the extreme and unnatural elevation difference between the 

western/hilltop (where Tallys Autoshop was located) portion of the site and the eastern/excavated 

hillslope portion of the site (within the VDOT right-of-way under Interstate 64). 
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 17

Recommendations

Based on this analysis, it appears that the western portion of site 44HE1203 (along 5th Street) has 

the potential to contain intact remains. There would be no impact from the DC2RVA project on 

this area, as there are no project improvements in this portion of the site. The potential for other 

non-DC2RVA project development in the future is unknown. Given the known history of burials 

and the potential for intact remains, any ground disturbing activities in this area would likely need 

to comply with existing State legislation on cemeteries and unmarked graves. The City of 

Richmond has indicated its intent to augment land records to reflect the presence of a historic 

cemetery in this area, adding an additional layer of protection.

The eastern two-thirds of site 44HE1203 has been notably disturbed repeatedly over the past 150 

years, including substantial removal of material from the site. While the potential for intact burials 

is low based on these historic disturbances of this portion of the site, there is a chance for out-ofcontext human remains to be located in this area. In addition, this area has a significant history 

associated with the nineteenth-century African-American experience in Richmond. As such, 

although the FRA and DHR have determined that the project will have no adverse effect on the 

cemetery from the perspective of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the 

following DC2RVA Project commitments are recommended to be performed as part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act compliance process:

1) A landscape analysis of site 44HE1203 and surrounding area will be completed to 

understand the chronology of area development. This landscape analysis will include, 

among other tasks, archival research, georeferenced overlays, a cut and fill analysis, and 

potentially 3D modeling of the data. The information will be gathered in a report and 

presented to the DHR, DRPT, Virginia Department of Transportation, City of Richmond, 

Historic Richmond Foundation, Preservation Virginia, and other vested groups interested 

in the history of this area for their use in future planning.

2) Once DC2RVA project designs in this area have reached 90 percent completion, 

archaeological testing will be completed in the revised limits of disturbance in the area of 

site 44HE1203 to examine the subsurface integrity and composition of these areas and 

ascertain the potential for intact burials. Should intact shafts or soils be noted, 

archaeological stripping of overburden may occur to delineate potential interments. If 

internments are identified, the project design will be re-evaluated and additional measures 

taken to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the internment area. 

3) A Secretary of the Interior (SOI)-qualified archaeologist will be on site during all 

DC2RVA construction-related ground disturbing activities in this area to assure that no 

unanticipated/undiscovered archaeological or burial remains are encountered during 

ground-disturbing construction.

These commitments would be implemented during the Project’s final design and construction 

phase, but prior to any Project-related ground disturbing activities.
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 18

References

Baist, George

1889 Atlas of the City of Richmond, Virginia, and Vicinity. G. W. Baist Publishing, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic document, catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?

searchCode=LCCN&searchArg=unk81004088&searchType=1

&permalink=y, accessed January 2019. 

Bates, Micajah

1835 Plan of the City of Richmond Drawn From Actual Survey and Regional Plans.

Electronic document, search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:1003728#

?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&xywh=-1404%2C-1453%2C23619%2C17511, accessed 

January 2019.

Beers, F.W.

1877 Map of the City of Richmond. F.W. Beers, Richmond, Virginia. Electronic document, 

www.loc.gov/item/2005630891, accessed January 2018. 

Calhoun, Emily

2013 Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Assessment of The Slave and Free Black 

Burying Ground, I-64 Shockoe Valley Bridge Project, City of Richmond, Virginia. 

Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Richmond, Virginia

City of Richmond Deed Books, available at the John Marshall Courts Building and the Library of 

Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.

City of Richmond City Council Records, available at the State Records Center, Richmond, Virginia.

Cook Studios

1888 Richmond Locomotive and Machine Works, Image 0184 (Photograph). On file at The 

Valentine, Richmond, Virginia. 

1891 Richmond Locomotive and Machine Works, Image 1067 (Photograph). On file at The 

Valentine, Richmond, Virginia. 

Ellyson, M.

1856 Map of Richmond, Ellyson, 1856. William Sides, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic 

document, www.virginiamemory.com/online-exhibitions/exhibits/show/mappinginequality/item/2, accessed January 2019. 

Michler, Gen. N.

1867 Richmond [1862–1865]. LC Civil War Maps (2nd ed.), Washington, D.C. Electronic 

document, https://www.loc.gov/item/99446363, accessed January 2019. 

Richmond Enquirer [Richmond, Virginia]

1816 Statutes of the General Assembly, 22 February 1816. Available at the Library of Virginia, 

Richmond.
DRAFT TIMELINE OF EVENTS: SITE 44HE1203

Page 19

Sanborn Map Company

1896 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Richmond, Independent Cities, Virginia. Sanborn 

Map Company. Electronic document, www.loc.gov/item/sanborn09021_003/, 

accessed January 2019.

1905 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Richmond, Independent Cities, Virginia. Sanborn 

Map Company. Electronic document, www.loc.gov/item/sanborn09064_003/, 

accessed January 2019.

1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Richmond, Independent Cities, Virginia. Sanborn 

Map Company. Electronic document, http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/

sanborn.aspx, January 2019.
3/5/19

Site 44HE1203/Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves

Cultural Resource Commitments for DC2RVA Rail Project

The following commitments will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final 

EIS) for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment of the Southeast High Speed Rail project (the 

Project) in association with the Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves (archaeological 

site 44HE1203). The commitments are made to address stipulations set forth in the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Each commitment has been agreed to by the Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), and will be implemented, as appropriate, 

in the Project’s design and construction phases. The Project will be designed and constructed in 

increments as funding becomes available; as each Project increment is funded and moves forward 

through design and construction, the commitments appropriate to that specific Project increment 

will also be implemented. In the event that the Project is turned over to another sponsor during 

construction, DRPT will continue to coordinate the following commitments with that sponsor and 

the appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory and managing agencies. 

1) A landscape analysis of site 44HE1203 and surrounding area will be completed to 

understand the chronology of area development. This landscape analysis will include, 

among other tasks, archival research, oral histories with local historians and descendants, 

georeferenced overlays, a cut and fill analysis, and potentially 3D modeling of the data. 

Data to be gathered includes information on the history and development of the cemetery, 

post-interment impacts, and comments on the memorialization and interpretation of the 

site. The landscape analysis will be documented in a report and presented to the Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources (DHR), DRPT, Virginia Department of Transportation, 

City of Richmond, Historic Richmond Foundation, Preservation Virginia, and other vested 

groups interested in the history of this area for their use in future planning. Concurrently, 

the resource boundaries and National Register of Historic Places eligibility of site 

44HE1203 will be reevaluated through consultation with the DHR using the newly 

acquired data.

2) Once DC2RVA project designs in this area have reached 90 percent completion, 

archaeological testing will be completed in the revised limits of disturbance in the area of 

site 44HE1203 to examine the subsurface integrity and composition of these areas and 

ascertain the potential for intact burials. Should intact shafts or soils be noted, 

archaeological stripping of overburden may occur to delineate potential interments. If 

internments are identified, the project design will be re-evaluated and additional measures 

taken to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the internment area. 

3) A Secretary of the Interior (SOI)-qualified archaeologist will be on site during all 

DC2RVA construction-related ground disturbing activities in this area to assure that no 

unanticipated/undiscovered archaeological or burial remains are encountered during 

ground-disturbing construction. In the event that remains are encountered, construction 

would stop and the DHR will be contacted to evaluate next steps.