D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

SECTION 4ΈfΉ EVALUATION 5
 5-1 

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in 

the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger 

rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. 

to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project. 

5.1.1 Introduction to Section 4(f) 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Act of 1966 (23 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 138) prohibits use of land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl 

refuge, or any significant historic site unless it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible and 

prudent alternatives to avoid the property and that the proposed project included all possible 

planning to minimize effects. 

 Section 4(f) applies only to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges. Similar resources that are privately owned yet open to the public are 

not considered Section 4(f) resources. 

 Section 4(f) also applies to historic sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), regardless of whether the site is in public or private 

ownership. 

 Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites listed on or eligible for inclusion on the 

NRHP, including those discovered during construction. The exception to this is when 

FRA, in consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), 

determines that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be 

learned by data recovery and has minimal value to preservation in place. 

 Section 4(f) applies to protected resources when a “use” occurs. This “use” can be 

permanent, such as the permanent acquisition of a property, or temporary, such as the 

use of the property for construction staging purposes. Section 4(f) also applies when a 

“constructive use” occurs, such as when the noise, vibration, air quality, or visual effects 

of a project are so great that the use of the property is substantially impaired, even though 

it is not physically affected by the project. 

5 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-2 

5.1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project 

The Project would deliver higher speed passenger rail service, increase passenger and freight rail 

capacity, and improve passenger rail service frequency and reliability in a corridor shared by 

growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic, thereby providing a 

competitive option for travelers going between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and those 

traveling to and from adjacent connecting corridors. 

The purpose of the current DC2RVA Project described here is to fulfill the purpose of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) within this 

segment of the larger SEHSR corridor. The Project, by increasing rail capacity and improving 

travel times between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, would improve passenger train 

performance and reliability in the corridor, enabling intercity passenger rail to be a competitive 

transportation choice for travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond. 

DRPT anticipates that the Project will provide multiple benefits to the traveling public and the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, including: 

 Providing an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor between Washington, D.C. 

and Richmond and beyond. 

 Increasing the capacity of the multimodal rail system between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond. 

 Improving the frequency, reliability, and travel time of passenger rail operations in 

Virginia and beyond, and providing a competitive alternative to highway and air travel. 

 Accommodating Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail service operations. 

 Accommodating freight rail movement through the corridor, including to and from 

Virginia’s ports. 

 Improving modal connectivity with other public transportation systems within the 

corridor to further expand travel options for passengers within Virginia and beyond. 

 Improving multimodal rail operations safety in the corridor. 

 Improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by diverting 

passenger trips by automobile and movement of freight by trucks to more 

environmentally sustainable rail transportation. 

Higher speed passenger rail service would also encourage economic development in Virginia and 

along the Eastern Seaboard travel corridors by expanding competitive travel options in the 

corridor for business and leisure travelers. Additionally, because the Project corridor is a 

multimodal corridor shared with freight, intercity passenger, and commuter service, the 

proposed improvements would also enhance the efficiency of freight rail movements within the 

corridor. Improvements to freight rail operations in the corridor would encourage economic 

development by increasing freight traffic through Virginia’s ports and present an opportunity for 

greater diversion of freight transport from congested highways to rail. 

Current conditions existing in the Project corridor support the Tier I EIS purpose and need and 

are the foundation for the Project today. These conditions include: 

 Population Growth. Population in the corridor and adjacent urban regions continues to 

grow, increasing demand for reliable and safe travel options for passengers. In addition 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-3 

to overall population growth, changing demographics in the corridor and adjacent urban 

regions are increasing the demand for passenger rail service. 

 Freight Growth. Demand for freight movement through and within the corridor is 

growing as economic activity and population increase. Ongoing expansion of Virginia’s 

deep water ports and intermodal facilities further increases the need for efficient shipment 

of freight. 

 Congestion in the I-95 Corridor. The I-95 corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond remains congested, despite ongoing and planned improvements. As a result, 

trip times by highway vehicle are not reliable. 

 Air Travel Congestion. Travel by air is increasingly at capacity, resulting in frequent 

delays and causing commercial carriers to reduce flights and increase fares, which limits 

the transportation options between Washington, D.C., Richmond, and adjacent corridors, 

and generates detrimental economic effects such as lost productivity for travelers and 

excessive fuel consumption. 

 Rail Capacity in the Corridor. The shared freight and passenger rail corridor between 

Washington, D.C. and Richmond is nearing capacity and requires improvements to 

effectively and efficiently meet existing and future demands for passenger service, 

commuter passenger service, and freight service. 

 Providing Options for Reliable and Convenient Movement of Goods and People. The 

transportation network must provide options for reliable and convenient movement of goods 

and people for Virginia and the southeast region’s economy to remain strong and grow. 

 Air Quality. There is a need to reduce growth of transportation-related mobile source 

emissions and the resultant effects to air quality. Travel or freight movement by train 

provides a safe and efficient travel mode, and it uses less energy and produces fewer 

emissions per passenger or ton of freight moved per mile. 

5.1.3 Project Description and Approach 

The DC2RVA Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and service upgrades 

to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of 

freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. The increased capacity 

will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and door-to-door competitive travel 

time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic. 

Specific improvements to the existing rail infrastructure between Arlington, VA, and Centralia, 

VA, include: 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to accommodate efficient 

operation of passenger, commuter, and freight rail service with increased frequency, 

reliability, and speed, including an additional main track along most of the corridor, 

additional sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity and reliability 

improvements at certain locations. 

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

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

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-4 

 New or replacement station, platform, and parking improvements at intercity passenger 

stations in the corridor to improve the efficiency of railroad operations, improve quality 

of service, and accommodate increased ridership. 

 Safety improvements to roadway crossing treatments, to include median treatment, grade 

separations, and/or closure of existing at-grade crossings of the rail corridor. 

5.1.4 Project Alternatives 

Developing potential rail alignments was an iterative process. DRPT relied on previous studies 

and public scoping comment as the starting point for developing potential rail alignments. Rail 

alignment modifications were made to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on 

environmental resources and existing infrastructure, and to minimize the need for additional new 

infrastructure, while preserving the ability of that alignment to meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need. The final screening evaluation—to determine the Build Alternatives to be carried forward 

for evaluation in the Draft EIS—focused on each rail alignment’s ability to reduce trip times based 

on increased track design speed and increase the reliability of rail operations based upon added 

capacity, with the least potential environmental impact and consideration of cost to construct. 

As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT evaluated both existing and potential new passenger rail 

stations in the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT plans to incorporate the DC2RVA SEHSR passenger train 

service into Amtrak’s regional and long distance intercity passenger rail network; along the DC2RVA 

corridor, these existing stations include: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, Fredericksburg, 

Ashland, and Staples Mill Road and Main Street in Richmond. Additionally, in Richmond, DRPT is 

considering two proposed new locations under some Build Alternatives: Boulevard Station and 

Broad Street Station. However, not all proposed trains would necessarily serve all existing or 

proposed stations. 

For evaluation in the Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT combined and categorized the Build Alternatives into 

six alternative areas along the corridor (Figure 5.1-1): 

 Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach): 1-mile section that includes approach 

alignments to the Long Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River between Washington, D.C. 

and Virginia. 

 Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur): 47-mile section that 

includes additional track within existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads): 14-mile section that 

includes alignments through or around the city. 

 Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell): 29-mile section that includes 

additional track primarily within the existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295): 10-mile section including alignments through 

or around the town. 

 Alternative Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia): 23-mile section including different station 

locations and routing options along the A-Line and/or S-Line. 

Project Build Alternatives were developed separately, specific to the existing conditions, constraints, 

and/or needs of each of the six areas, and will be linked to form a single DRPT recommended 

Preferred Alternative for the corridor, to be confirmed in the Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD). 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-5 

Figure 5.1-1: Alternative Areas 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-6 

Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for a full summary of the alternatives development process and 

description of Build Alternatives, and Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS for description of the DRPT 

recommended Preferred Alternative. 

In general, the DC2RVA Project proposes to increase capacity by adding one additional main track. 

In most areas, the Project will add a new third track in addition to two existing tracks. The 

determination of the location of the new track on the east or west of existing trackage varies by 

location within the corridor based on physical constraints and minimization of impacts. For each 

alternative, DRPT also evaluated the potential to realign the tracks to improve speeds. The proposed 

Build Alternatives vary within the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland, where 

alignments outside of the existing right-of-way were considered (i.e., bypass alignments around the 

downtown areas); the typical section of the new bypass alignments consists of two tracks. 

From a wide range of options that were considered during the alternatives development process, 

23 Build Alternatives, which vary within each alternative area, were included for evaluation in 

the Draft EIS (Table 5.1-1). Each includes build-alternative-specific improvements to features such 

as stations and at-grade roadway crossings, as applicable. The following sections provide details 

of each of these Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative. 

5.1.4.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative defines the future infrastructure and service levels that will result from 

planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. Information about planned physical 

improvements and rail service additions in the corridor was gathered from fiscally-constrained 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning documents, Commonwealth multiyear 

improvement programs, and from transit agency planning documents. If a project was under 

construction, fully-funded, or was the focus of advanced collaborative planning (evidenced by 

partial funding, board-level commitments, or interagency agreements), DRPT assumed it to be 

complete by 2025 for the purposes of the Draft EIS evaluation. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides 

a full description of elements included in the No Build Alternative. 

The purpose of the No Build Alternative is to serve as a baseline for comparison of potential 

effects and impacts of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives. The No Build Alternative was fully 

evaluated and dismissed by FRA in the 2002 SEHSR Tier I ROD because it does not meet the 

SEHSR Purpose and Need. Although previously dismissed as not a viable alternative, it is fully 

considered as part of the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project because the baseline is required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

5.1.4.1 Build Alternatives 

The 23 Build Alternatives are summarized below. Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-22 show the proposed 

improvements by alternative. Figures 5.1-23 through 5.1-39 show the proposed station 

improvements. All of these figures are provided at the end of this section. 

Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full information, including lists of specific track and station 

improvements, for each Build Alternative. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-7 

 Table 5.1-1: Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

5A–Ashcake Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5B Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track Through Town East of Existing (Relocate Station to 

Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 

6C Broad Street Station Only 

6D Main Street Station Only 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

 Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

There are three Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 1, which are described in Table 5.1-2. Build 

Alternative 1A, 1B, and 1C are shown in Figure 5.1-2. 

Table 5.1-2: Arlington Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

TRACK 

All three Build Alternatives would: 

 Equally support expanded intercity passenger service (all types), expanded VRE commuter service, and expanded CSXT 

freight service 

 Add two main tracks, with minor shifts to improve speed 

 Be constructed within existing railroad right-of-way 

The difference between the alternatives is on which side(s) of the existing track the new track is added (as indicated in Build

Alternative names): two tracks on the east (1A); two tracks on the west (1B); one track east and one track west (1C) 

Final decision deferred to the completion of the Long Bridge Study (separate study by the District of Columbia Department 

of Transportation) 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 45 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within area 

CROSSINGS 

No changes to existing public roadway crossings 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-8 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Alternative Area 2, which is described in Table 5.1-3. Build 

Alternative 2A is shown in Figure 5.1-3. 

Table 5.1-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with realignment of some curves to improve speed, to create: 

 Fourth track from Alexandria to Crystal City 

 Third track from Spotsylvania to Alexandria 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Station improvements are mainly platform improvements and to be performed by VRE 

Proposed new DC2RVA service includes: 

 Alexandria: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) (Figure 5.1-23) 

 Woodbridge: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (Figure 5.1-24) 

 Quantico: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (no figure) 

 All other stations: VRE service only (no figure)

No changes to the locations of Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) or 

VRE commuter stations served 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Mount Hope Church Road), with alternate access provided; no grade separations 

of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, and Aquia Creek 

Alexandria Union Station 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-9 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg 

There are three Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 3, which are described in Table 5.1-4, Table 

5.1-5, and Table 5.1-6. Build Alternative 3A, 3B, and 3C are shown in Figure 5.1-4, Figure 5.1-5, and 

Figure 5.1-6, respectively. All three Build Alternatives would support expanded intercity passenger 

(all types), VRE commuter, and CSXT freight service, without change to stations served by existing 

Amtrak (Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), Long Distance, and Auto 

Train) passenger service or VRE commuter service. Due to constraints of the geography through 

this location, the maximum authorized speed in this section is designed for 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3B is consistent with the City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2015). 

Table 5.1-4: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3A 

TRACK 

No construction of new track / no additional rail capacity within Fredericksburg 

 Existing two main tracks would be maintained, which are used by freight, passenger, and commuter trains, similar to existing conditions 

 Tracks would be shifted in some areas to improve speed 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the city 

All improvements are within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new 

parking structure (Figure 5.1-25) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: 

 Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in Alternative Area 3 is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only. 

CROSSINGS 

All public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements (no roadway crossing closures or grade 

separations of public at-grade crossings) 

Improvements to major rail bridges over the Rappahannock River 

Table 5.1-5: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3B

TRACK 

One main track would be added in most areas, with track shifts to improve speed 

 Within Fredericksburg, the additional track would be added east of the existing two tracks 

 A third track already exists between Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania stations; therefore, no improvements are required 

in this section 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, a new elevated railway, side and center 

platform improvements, and a new parking structure (Figure 5.1-26) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in Alternative Area 3 is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only. 

CROSSINGS 

No public roadway crossing closures; grade separation of one at-grade roadway crossing (Landsdowne Road) 

Improvements to major rail bridges over the Rappahannock River 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-10 

Table 5.1-6: Fredericksburg Build Alternative 3C 

TRACK 

Existing two-track corridor through the city would be maintained, with some track shifts to improve speed 

New two-track bypass would be constructed east of the city 

 Would serve all freight rail as well as some or all of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 Would require new right-of-way 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new parking 

structure (Figure 5.1-25)

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in Alternative Area 3 is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only. 

CROSSINGS 

Public roadway crossings along existing Dahlgren Spur would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

All new public roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Alternative Area 4, which is described in Table 5.1-7. Build 

Alternative 4A is shown in Figure 5.1-7. Based on geography throughout this area, this section is 

most suitable for higher speed passenger rail service and therefore provides the greatest 

contiguous section along the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum authorized speed up to 90 mph. 

Table 5.1-7: Central Virginia Build Alternative: 4A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with track shifts to improve speed 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Supports expanded intercity passenger service (all types) and CSXT freight service 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within the area 

Would not preclude the development of a proposed future station at Carmel Church (not included as part of this study) 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Colemans Mill Road); no grade separations of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Multiple crossings of small waterways and wetlands 

Corridor in rural Caroline County 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-11 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 5: Ashland 

There are seven Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 5, which are described in Table 5.1-8 

through Table 5.1-11 below. Build Alternative 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake are shown in Figure 5.1-8, Figure 5.1-9, Figure 5.1-10, Figure 5.1-11, Figure 5.1-

12, Figure 5.1-13, and Figure 5.1-14, respectively. 

The Ashland Build Alternatives may include different station locations: either maintaining the 

station at the existing downtown station with improvements (Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C) 

or relocating the station to south of Ashcake Road (all Build Alternatives with “–Ashcake” in their 

name). The Build Alternatives with the same letter, with and without the “–Ashcake” 

designation, are otherwise identical in terms of alignment. For ease of comparison, they are 

presented together in the tables below. 

Due to constraints of the geography through this location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible, with an existing 35 mph municipal slow order 

through the Town of Ashland. 

Table 5.1-8: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks (no construction of new track/no additional rail capacity) within Ashland 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

All rail improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5A: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which would require closure of the 

existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 5.1-27) 

 5A–Ashcake: Would close the existing station and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road (Figure 5.1-28) 

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 5.1-9: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks and construct one additional track east of the existing tracks within Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

 New right-of-way would be required for rail improvements within the town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) with different station locations: 

 5B: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts 

(Figure 5.1-29) 

 5B–Ashcake: Would close the existing station and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road (Figure 5.1-28) 

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-12 

Table 5.1-10: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would construct a two-track bypass, west of Ashland, to serve all freight rail as well as all Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 New right-of-way would be required on bypass alignment 

Both alternatives would maintain the existing two-track corridor through town 

 No additional right-of-way needed in town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5C: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

5.1-27) 

 5C–Ashcake: Would close the existing station and relocate service to a new station south of Ashcake Road (Figure 5.1-28) 

CROSSINGS 

All new roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 5.1-11: Ashland Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake 

TRACK 

One additional main line track, with centering of all main line tracks on the existing alignment, would be constructed through 

the entire area, which generally requires additional railroad right-of-way, especially within the town of Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

STATIONS 

This rail alignment would require removal of the existing station building and platforms, resulting in the relocation of service 

to a new station south of Ashcake Road to provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service (Figure 5.1-28). 

CROSSINGS 

Includes the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Corridor in downtown Ashland 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-13 

Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 6: Richmond 

There are eight Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 6. All Build Alternatives generally add one 

main track (though they vary whether they use the A-Line or S-Line through the city), and they vary 

in whether they consolidate passenger train service to a single station (including two potential new 

stations at Boulevard Station or Broad Street Station) or provide combinations of service at two 

stations. There are no changes to CSXT freight service routes due to proposed changes to passenger 

train routes as part of the DC2RVA Project. The Amtrak Auto Train does not stop in Richmond. 

Five of the Richmond area alternatives are single-station alternatives, which are presented in 

Table 5.1-12 through Table 5.1-16. The single station alternatives are Build Alternative 6A, 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D, which are shown in Figure 5.1-15, Figure 5.1-16, Figure 5.1-17, Figure 

5.1-18, and Figure 5.1-19, respectively. All single-station alternatives consolidate Northeast 

Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, as well as all Amtrak Long Distance, 

Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, to one station. 

Three of the Richmond area alternatives are two-station alternatives, which are presented in Table 

5.1-17 through Table 5.1-19. All dual station alternatives use the existing Staples Mill Road and 

Main Street Stations. The dual station Build Alternatives are Build Alternatives 6E, 6F, and 6G, 

which are shown in Figure 5.1-20, Figure 5.1-21, and Figure 5.1-22, respectively. All two-station 

alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service to at 

least one station, as well as associated service of Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) to one or both stations. 

Main Street Station
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-14 

Table 5.1-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with track 

shifts to improve speed

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street Station would be closed to passenger rail service, and all service consolidated at Staples Mill Road Station 

Staples Mill Road Station would be improved and becomes the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-30) 

 Does not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

One of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Alternative Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

Elevated loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and consolidated

to a new station at Boulevard 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-31) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

Second of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Alternative Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Boulevard 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-31) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate four at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-15 

Table 5.1-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

At-grade loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Broad Street 

New Broad Street Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-32) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Station location would require two new at-grade crossings on West Leigh Street adjacent to proposed station, which would 

require a variance from state code and/or coordination with VDOT 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D (Main Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Staples Mill Road Station would be closed to passenger rail service and all service consolidated at Main Street Station 

Main Street Station would be improved and be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 5.1-33) 

 Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service 

 Potential increases in passenger and freight delay may occur as proximity to I-95 prevents adding sufficient station 

platforms/track on the west side of the station 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

James River Bridge
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-16 

Table 5.1-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational. All passenger trains would serve Staples Mill Road Stations; trains to and 

from Newport News would additionally serve Main Street Station. 

 Staples Mill Road Station would be expanded and would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including 

new proposed Northeast Regional (SEHSR) to Norfolk and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains (Figure 5.1-34) 

 Main Street Station would have platform and parking improvements and would be served by all Northeast Regional (SEHSR 

and Virginia) passenger trains to Newport News (Figure 5.1-35) 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with all passenger trains serving both stations 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 5.1-36 and Figure 

5.1-37) 

 Both stations would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including new proposed Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 5.1-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and the S-Line (through Richmond), 

with track shifts to improve speed 

 The A-Line is used for service but does not require proposed track

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with both stations being served by all new proposed SEHSR service and 

other Amtrak passenger train services to either one or both stations 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 5.1-38 and Figure 5.1-39) 

 Both stations would be served by all Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) trains 

 Long Distance (Amtrak) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) would serve Staples Mill Station only 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-17 

Figure 5.1-2: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-18 

Figure 5.1-3: Build Alternative 2A – Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-19 

Figure 5.1-4: Build Alternative 3A – Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-20 

Figure 5.1-5: Build Alternative 3B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-21 

Figure 5.1-6: Build Alternative 3C – Add Two-Track Bypass East 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-22 

Figure 5.1-7: Build Alternative 4A – Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-23 

Figure 5.1-8: Build Alternative 5A – Maintain Two Track Through Town 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-24 

Figure 5.1-9: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake – Maintain Two Track Through Town 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-25 

Figure 5.1-10: Build Alternative 5B – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-26 

Figure 5.1-11: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake – Add One Track Through Town East of Existing 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-27 

Figure 5.1-12: Build Alternative 5C – Add Two-Track West Bypass
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-28 

Figure 5.1-13: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake – Add Two-Track West Bypass 

(Relocate Station to Ashcake)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-29 

Figure 5.1-14: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake – Three Tracks Centered Through Town 

(Add Single Track, Relocate Station to Ashcake)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-30 

Figure 5.1-15: Build Alternative 6A – Staples Mill Road Station Only
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-31 

Figure 5.1-16: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line – Boulevard Station Only, A-Line
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-32 

Figure 5.1-17: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line – Boulevard Station Only, S-Line
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-33 

Figure 5.1-18: Build Alternative 6C – Broad Street Station Only
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-34 

Figure 5.1-19: Build Alternative 6D – Main Street Station Only
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-35 

Figure 5.1-20: Build Alternative 6E – Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-36 

Figure 5.1-21: Build Alternative 6F – Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-37 

Figure 5.1-22: Build Alternative 6G – Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-38 

Figure 5.1-23: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-24: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-40 

Figure 5.1-25: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-42 

Figure 5.1-27A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/850-Foot Platf
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-27B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/350-Foot Platf
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-44 

Figure 5.1-28: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-29A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-46 

Figure 5.1-29B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-30: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-48 

Figure 5.1-31: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-32: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-50 

Figure 5.1-33: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-34: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-52 

Figure 5.1-35: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-36: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-54 

Figure 5.1-37: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
SECTION 4

Figure 5.1-38: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-56 

Figure 5.1-39: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-57 

5.2 TYPES OF SECTION 4(f) USE 

Under Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303[c]), as amended by Section 6009 of 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), U.S. DOT may approve a transportation project requiring the use of a publicly 

owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or a historic site only if: (1) there is 

no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the project includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) resource resulting from the use, unless the criteria 

for de minimis Section 4(f) involvement can be met. Historic sites protected under Section 4(f) 

include publicly or privately owned properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. For those 

historic sites, the Section 106 process helps inform the Section 4(f) process, but the two processes 

are distinct. Section 4.13 of the Draft EIS includes a description of the Section 106 process. Projects 

funded by U.S. DOT must comply with the requirements of Section 4(f). Section 4(f) has 

mandatory requirements for avoidance alternatives, minimization measures, and possible 

mitigation of any use of the above types of resources. 

There are three different types of Section 4(f) use: 

 Permanent Use 

 Temporary Use 

 Constructive Use 

A Section 4(f) Permanent Use occurs if a property meeting the requirements of Section 4(f) is 

permanently acquired (as fee simple or as permanent easement) such that the use of that acquired 

Section 4(f) property is incorporated in the transportation facility changing its original use to 

“transportation use” and the acquisition does not meet the de minimis criteria. 

Temporary Use occurs when the Section 4(f) property or a portion of the Section 4(f) property is 

impacted or used only during a portion of the construction of the project such that the Section 

4(f) property is not permanently incorporated into the transportation facility or transportation 

use. For temporary use, the Section 4(f) property must be restored to its original condition (e.g. 

regrading or revegetating the area). For temporary use the following conditions must be met: 

 The land use is of short duration (defined as less than the time needed for the construction 

of the project) 

 There is no change in ownership of the land 

 The scope of the work must be minor 

 There are no temporary or permanent adverse changes to the activities, features, or 

attributes of the property 

 The land must be fully restored to a condition at least as good as prior to the project 

 There must be documented agreement from the official(s) with jurisdiction over the 

property with the above conditions 

Constructive Use occurs when there is an indirect impact to the Section 4(f) property of such 

magnitude as to effectively act as a permanent incorporation. Here, the project does not physically 

incorporate the resource but is close enough to it to severely impact important features, activities, 

or attributes associated with it and to substantially impair it. Examples of impacts that may be 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-58 

considered constructive use include noise, vibration, air quality, and visual impacts. 

“Constructive use” is rare; however, if it is determined that there is a “constructive use”, the 

requirements are the same as a regular Section 4(f) use. 

A de minimis impact involves the use of a Section 4(f) property that is generally minor in nature. 

For a de minimis use of a non-historic site: 

 The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, 

does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource 

for protection under Section 4(f); 

 The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the 

project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and 

 The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property is informed of U.S. DOT’s intent to make 

the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for 

protection under Section 4(f). 

A determination of de minimis impact on a historic site may be made when all three of the 

following criteria are satisfied: 

 The process required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

results in the determination of "no adverse effect" or "no historic properties affected" with 

the concurrence of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO), and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), if 

the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 consultation; 

 The SHPO and/or THPO, and ACHP, if the ACHP is participating in the Section 106 

consultation, is informed of U.S. DOT's intent to make a de minimis impact determination 

based on their written concurrence in the Section 106 determination; and 

 U.S. DOT has considered the views of any consulting parties participating in the Section 

106 consultation. 

Additional details on historic properties and the Section 106 evaluation process can be found in 

Section 4.13. 

5.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE 4(f) RESOURCES 

Chapter 3 of this Draft EIS discusses the screening process that was completed to identify Section 

4(f) resources that would potentially be affected by Project alternatives. The following sections 

describe these resources. 

5.3.1 Parks and Recreation Areas 

The parks discussed in this section are located within the temporary and/or permanent rightsof-way of the proposed Build Alternatives. Potential impacts to these park properties are 

described in Section 5.4. 

 Long Bridge Park⎯Long Bridge Park is a 29-acre local park constructed in 2011 that is 

owned and operated by Arlington County. The park is located between Long Bridge Drive 

and the western edge of the rail alignment and includes additional land east of the rail 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-59 

alignment adjacent to Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. This park includes multi-sport, 

lighted, athletic fields, as well as walkways, greenspace, and playgrounds. The park 

facilities are located west of the rail alignment. 

 Dog Run Park at Carlyle⎯This 3-acre facility consists of a fenced dog exercise area and 

tennis courts. The park is owned by the City of Alexandria. 

 George Washington Memorial Parkway⎯The Parkway encompasses 1,105 acres and is 

operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The facility is utilized for transportation and 

recreational driving, but it also includes several walking/biking trails. The Parkway runs 

parallel to the DC2RVA corridor throughout much of Arlington. 

 Veterans Memorial Park⎯This 110-acre park includes a recreation center and several 

outdoor athletic fields, pavilions, a skate park, horseshoe pits, and walking trails. 

 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park⎯This park is operated by 

NPS. The park is 8,374 acres in size and is comprised of several different sections. The 

park encompasses four major Civil War battlefields and also preserves four historic 

buildings associated with them. The Stonewall Jackson Shrine is contained within this 

park in the section located near Guinea, VA. 

 North Ashland Park⎯This small 0.2-acre park is owned by the Town of Ashland and 

currently consists of open greenspace and a picnic shelter, but it is under development 

and is likely to expand in size. The park is part of a much larger 29-acre parcel owned by 

the Town that includes a sewage treatment facility and maintenance/storage areas. 

 Railside Park⎯This 1.0-acre park is owned by the Town of Ashland and is located at the 

northern end of North Center Street. The park connects to Vaughan Road by a 1/3-milelong path along the rail tracks. The site remains largely open space with one picnic table 

and some park benches for viewing passing trains. 

 Carter Park⎯This park is around 13.5 acres and is located between South Center Street 

and Maple Street Extended. Most of the park is heavily wooded. Carter Park is the 

centerpiece of the Ashland park system. It contains a junior Olympic size swimming pool, 

one-half basketball court, a picnic shelter and picnic area, playground, and gravel walking 

trails through the wooded areas. 

 Ashland Trolley Line⎯This park is approximately 0.5 mile in length and totals 6.7 acres. It 

is part of the historic Ashland-Richmond Trolley Line. The majority of the walkway and 

park is owned by Hanover County and is maintained as a natural surface trail. The northern 

portion of the park also includes Walder Lane and is owned by the Town of Ashland. 

 Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields⎯The Maggie Walker Governor’s School is 

located adjacent to the railroad tracks to the west on North Lombardy Street in Richmond. 

This resource includes approximately 4.9 acres of outdoor athletic fields. The parcel is 

owned by the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School Regional School Board. 

 Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park⎯This 6.4-acre park is owned by the City of 

Richmond Public Works. The park provides access to the walk along the floodwall south 

of the James River. 

 Gates Mill Park⎯This park is 11.4 acres and is located west of the railroad right-of-way. 

The park is owned by Chesterfield County and includes some trails for passive recreation. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-60 

 Mount Vernon Trail⎯The trail is an 18-mile-long trail that connects Theodore Roosevelt 

Island Park with George Washington’s Estate at Mount Vernon. It is a very popular trail 

in the Washington, D.C. area with heavy use by bikers and pedestrians. Most of the trail 

is paved with some portions on boardwalk. This trail also connects with several other local 

and regional trails, including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Trail, the Four Mile Run Trail, 

and the Custis Trail. The trail crosses the DC2RVA corridor near Long Bridge Park. 

5.3.2 Wildlife Refuges 

There is only one wildlife refuge potentially affected by the Build Alternatives. 

 Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area⎯This state wildlife management area is 

2,652 acres in size and is owned and operated by the Virginia Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary is located in close proximity to Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 

1C, but there would be no permanent or temporary impacts to the Wildlife Sanctuary land. 

5.3.3 Historic Properties 

Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS describes the historic architecture resources within the Area of Potential 

Effect (APE) of the Project that were determined to be eligible for listing or are listed on the NRHP. 

DRPT determined that these resources meet one or more of the following NRHP eligibility criteria: 

 Criterion A⎯Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history 

 Criterion B⎯Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 

 Criterion C⎯Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, 

or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction 

 Criterion D⎯Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or 

history. Although resources considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D alone are 

evaluated for project effect, a resource must be eligible for one other criterion in addition to 

D (wherein preservation in place in warranted) to be considered a Section 4(f) resource. 

The 158 historic properties (buildings, districts, objects, structures, and sites) that are included in 

this Section 4(f) analysis are listed in Table 5.3-1 (see Chapter 3 for additional details). The 

resources are listed in the order they appear in the DC2RVA corridor from north to south. 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 1: 

Arlington 

029-0218 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway 

(portion of George Washington 

Memorial Parkway) 

Ca. 1929 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 1: 

Arlington 

000-0045 Washington National Airport 

(Reagan National Airport) 

1941 Listed under Criteria A and C 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-61 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0160 George Washington Junior High 

School, 1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue 

1935 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown 

Ca. 1810 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District Ca. 1900 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot 

110 Callahan Drive 

1905 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0128 George Washington National 

Masonic Memorial 

Ca. 1922 Listed Criterion C and 

Criterion Consideration F 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Holmes Run in 

Cameron Run Park 

1946 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill 

3642 Wheeler Avenue 

ca. 1776 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

029-0953 Old Colchester Road, Potomac Path, 

King's Highway 

ca. 1664 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark House/Enyedi 

House, 10605 Furnace Road 

ca. 1876 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion B and Criteria 

Consideration B and G 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

029-0043 Colchester Arms, Fairfax Arms, 

10712 Old Colchester Road 

ca. 1756 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Occoquan River 1915 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base Quantico 

(Current), Quantico Marine Corps 

Base Historic District (NRHP Listing) 

post-1918 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

287-5147 Town of Quantico 

(Historic/Current), Town of 

Quantico Historic District (Current) 

post-1918 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands, 945 Widewater 

Road 

ca. 1790 Eligible for the NRHP under 

Criteria B and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over Potomac Creek at 

Leland Road 

1872 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and B 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road 1931 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. 

Battlefields National Military Park & 

Cemetery, Lee Drive 

1862 Listed under Criteria A and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0016/ 

44ST0084 

Ferry Farm 1738 Listed National Historic 

Landmark (NHL), NRHP, and 

Virginia Landmarks Registry 

(VLR) under Criteria A, B, and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest (Historic) 1810 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0025 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 1927 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

44SP0187 Stone Piers; Bridge or Building 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria C and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0704 

Fredericksburg Train Station 

200 Lafayette Boulevard 

1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic District Post 1727 Listed under Criterion C 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-62 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0020 

 Purina Tower 1916 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0132-

0522 

House 

314–316 Frederick Street 

1851 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0009-

0795 

Pulliam's Service Station 

411 Lafayette Boulevard 

ca. 1935 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic District 

Extension 

post 1775 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I 1862 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II 1863 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-5181 Salem Church Battlefield 

(Banks Ford Battlefield) 

1863 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-5364 Fredericksburg & Gordonsville 

Railroad Bed District 

(Virginia Central Railroad) 

1853 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory ca. 1775 Listed under Criteria A and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-0254 Slaughter Pen Farm 

11232 Tidewater Trail 

(Wayside Farm or Pierson Farm) 

ca. 1898 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

44SP0468-

extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 1861 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A, C, and D 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

088-0039 LaVue 

3232 LaVue Lane 

(Prospect View) 

ca. 1848 Listed under Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation Office 

Jackson Shrine 

12019 Stonewall Jackson Road 

ca. 1820 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A, B, and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0208 House 

12096 Guinea Drive 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of Caroline 

County MPD 

ca. 1896-

ca. 1950 

Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-5129 Woodford Historic District ca. 1890-1969 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior Company 

Office, Lake Farm Road 

ca. 1896 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & Passenger 

Depot, Woodford Road 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0224 Glenwood House 

11102 Woodford Road 

ca. 1925 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion 

11146 Woodford Road 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0270 Milford State Bank 

15461 Antioch Road 

ca. 1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-5136 Milford Historic District ca. 1880-1960 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

016-0286 Coleman's Store 

22275 Penola Road 

Penola 

16095 Polecat Lane 

ca. 1900 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-63 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield 1864 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-5448 Doswell Historic District ca. 1840-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0470 House 

10570 Doswell Road 

ca. 1898 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria B and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, Doswell Branch 

(part of Squashapenny Antiques) 

10561 Doswell Road 

ca. 1920 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and Tower

10577 Doswell Road 

ca. 1928 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic District ca. 1900-1935 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Little River 1923 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little River 1862 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

042-0557 Dry Bridge 

10411 Old Bridge Road 

ca. 1850 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

042-0392 Montevideo 1790 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5073 Berkleytown Historic District ca. 1900-1965 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5073-

0010 

House, Dabney Funeral Home 

600 B Street 

1955 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001 Ashland Historic District 1850-1950 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0015 

Business Office, Randolph-Macon, 

310 N. Center Street 

ca. 1895 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District Expansion 

ca. 1900-1960 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District 

1872-1950 Listed VLR and NRHP under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0008 

Ashland Station Depot 

112 N. Railroad Avenue 

1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-5041 Priddy House 

107 Stebbins Street 

ca. 1926 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0055 

House 

704 S. Center Street 

ca. 1850 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0060 

House 

708 S. Center Street 

ca. 1894 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0036 MacMurdo House 

713 S. Center Street 

ca. 1858 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0037 Hugo House, 

11208 Gwathmey Church Road 

ca. 1886 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

166-0001-

0077 

House 

1005 S. Center Street 

ca. 1890 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

042-5048 Elmont Historic District ca. 1870-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District ca. 1870-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-64 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

043-0694 Hunton Treasures 

11701 Greenwood Road 

ca. 1930 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

043-5646 House 

11501 Old Washington Highway 

ca. 1937 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield 1864 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5657 Darling Smokestack 

Old Washington Highway 

ca. 1910 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0690 Lewis-McLeod House 

2945 Mountain Road 

ca. 1921 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial School Historic 

District, Hungary Road 

1892 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0292-

0001 

Main Building/Robert Stiles Building/ 

Bluford Office Building, 

2900 Hungary Road 

1895 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5636 Integrated Power Sources of Virginia 

2260 Dabney Road 

ca. 1940 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic District Post-1900 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6569 Central National Bank 

3501 W. Broad Street 

1956 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6514 Kent Road Village 

905 Kent Road 

1942 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0742 West of Boulevard Historic District ca. 1895 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6756 Carillon Neighborhood Historic 

District 

1859 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0171 James River and Kanawha Canal 

Historic District 

1795 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6792 Southern Railway ca. 1850 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood Historic 

District 

post-1941 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Temp 402 House 

351 W. 49th Street 

ca. 1958 Not accessible; Further Survey 

Required 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic District ca. 1950-1960 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Temp R Rolando Historic District ca. 1946-1950 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Temp 268 Broad Run House 

2011 S. Kinsley Avenue 

ca. 1770 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg Electric 

Railway 

1902 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic 

District, United States Department 

of Defense Supply Center Historic 

District 

post-1942 Eligible under Criteria A, B, C, 

and D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, Earthworks, 

Fort 

1861-1865 Eligible under Criteria A, C, and 

D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek Battlefield 1864 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-65 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6188 Movieland Bowtie Cinema 

1331 North Boulevard 

1887 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6840 Warehouse 

2728 Hermitage Road 

ca. 1955 Indeterminate; Could not 

Access; Phase II Needed 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6730 Hermitage Road Warehouse 

Historic District 

1930-1958 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6165 Cookie Factory Lofts 

900 Terminal Place 

1927 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0226 Science Museum of Virginia 

2500 Broad Street, West 

1919 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5978 Todd Lofts 

1128 Hermitage Road 

1892 Listed under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6145 Southern Stove Works 

1215 Hermitage Road 

1905 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6570 West Broad Street Industrial and 

Commercial Historic District 

1890-1960 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0414 Governor's School 

1000 North Lombardy Street 

1938 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0354 Virginia Union University Historic 

District 

1500 North Lombardy Street 

1899 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0428 George W. Carver Elementary 

School 

1110 West Leigh Street 

1887 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0822 Carver Residential Historic District Pre-1958 Listed under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6171 Richmond and Chesapeake Bay 

Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland 

Railway Company Car Barn 

1907 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5679 Barton Heights Cemetery 

1600 Lamb Avenue 

1814 Listed under Criteria A and B 

and Criterion Consideration D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing Home 

210 Hospital Street 

1860 Listed under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery 

320 Hospital Street 

1816 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ Plateau Historic 

District 

1889-1950 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row 

Historic District 

post 1737 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1098 Main Street Station Parking 

Lot/Railroad 

19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage 

East Main Street 

ca. 1866 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0172 Main Street Station and Trainshed, 

New Union Station, Seaboard Airline 

& Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad 

Depot 

1901 Listed NHL, NRHP, and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0344-

0123 

Railroad Y.M.C.A. 

1552 East Main Street 

1907 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-66 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic District and 

Expansions 

1780 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1092 Warehouse 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1094 Warehouse 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6793 C&O Railroad Pre-1851 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5809 Bridge #1857, North 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge North 

1911 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, South 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge South 

1911 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf Storage 

Warehouse 

1717-1721 East Cary Street 

1914 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

44HE1095 Storage Facility 19th Century Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and D; under Parking 

Lot 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0282 Henrico County Courthouse 

2127 Main Street East 

1896 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0192 St. John's Church Historic District 18th Century 

to 1940 

Listed under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0192-

0322 

Libby Hill Park and Park House 

2801 East Franklin Street 

ca. 1873 Potentially Eligible under 

Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0854 Bridge #1850, E. Main Street 

spanning Southern Railway 

ca. 1913 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0119 John Woodward House 

3017 Williamsburg Avenue 

pre-1782 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6693 Armitage Manufacturing Company 

3200 Williamsburg Avenue 

1900 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works 

Williamsburg Avenue 

ca. 1925 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 1938 Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5313 James River Steam Brewery Cellars 

4920 Old Main Street 

1866 Listed on the NRHP and VLR 

under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0439 Aviation General Supply Depot 

508 Bickerstaff Road 

1917 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm 

(New Market Heights Battlefield) 

New Market Road 

1862 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

043-5071 Darbytown & New Market Roads 

Battlefield, Route 5 

1864 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse Historic 

District 

1880-1960 Listed under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco 

Southern Stove Works 

516 Dinwiddie Avenue 

1920 Listed under Criteria A and C 

 Continued.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-67 

Table 5.3-1: Summary of Historic Properties in the Area of Potential Effect 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name/Description 

Date/Time 

Period NRHP Eligibility 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6245/ 

44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, 

Emergency Fleet Corporation 

Factory 

700 East 4th Street 

1919 Eligible under Criteria A, C, and 

D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company, 

1314 Commerce Street 

Transmontaigne 

1936 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic District 1947 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance 1929 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

1619 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criterion D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff Battlefield 

(Fort Darling, Fort Drewry) 

Fort Darling Road 

1862 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II) 

Bermuda Hundred Road 

(Alt Route 697) 

1865 Eligible/Potentially Eligible under 

Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, Auburn Chase 

Building 42, Defense Supply Center 

Richmond 

8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

1804 Listed NRHP and VLR under 

Criteria A, C, and D 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0013 House 

3619 Thurston Road 

1913 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0022/ 

44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks 1861 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-5378 VEPCo Power Transmission Line ca. 1910 Eligible under Criteria A and C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0140 Circle Oaks 

4510 Centralia Road 

1840 Eligible under Criterion C 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office 1905 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) 

Corridor 

Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 

post 1833 Eligible under Criterion A 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) 

Corridor 

1900 Eligible under Criterion A 

All 076-0301 RF&P Railroad 1836 Eligible under Criterion A 

5.4 SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY IMPACTS 

5.4.1 Parks and Recreation Areas 

This section describes the potential impacts by alternative to parks and recreational areas 

protected under Section 4(f). Table 5.4-1 provides a summary of the temporary and permanent 

use of lands associated with these Section 4(f) resources. Figure 5.4-1 depicts the areas of 

permanent use. Based on the criteria discussed in Section 5.2, FRA anticipates all permanent 

impacts to parks and recreation areas will be de minimis and all temporary impacts to parks and 

recreation areas will not result in a Section 4(f) use. DRPT sent initial coordination letters 

regarding Section 4(f) impacts to resource owners in June 2017 (Appendix U). FRA and DRPT 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-68 

will continue this coordination after publication of the Draft EIS and will discuss potential 

impacts with all affected resource owners prior to issuance of the Final EIS. 

 Long Bridge Park⎯Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would have temporary impacts to 

this facility. Build Alternatives 1B and 1C would also have permanent impacts. 

Build Alternative 1A would expand the railroad infrastructure on the east side of the right-ofway approaching Long Bridge from the south, which would have 0.51 acre of temporary 

impacts during construction associated with access, erosion control, and material placement to 

this 29-acre park; this is less than two percent of the parkland at this facility. The temporary 

impacts would affect a narrow strip of land less than 10 feet in width along the east side of the 

railroad; however, this area is segregated from the active parkland by a retaining wall and fence 

on the west side of the active railroad corridor and is inaccessible for public use. The Long 

Bridge Park activities such as trails and sport fields are located along the west side of the 

railroad. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because 

upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the 

activities of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

Build Alternative 1B would expand the railroad infrastructure on the west side of the rightof-way approaching Long Bridge from the south, which would require 1.45 acres of 

permanent right-of-way and 0.88 acre of temporary impacts for a combined permanent and 

temporary impact of eight percent of the 29-acre facility. The permanent impacts would affect 

a long narrow width of additional right-of-way of generally less than 50 feet expanding to 

around 100 feet in one area on the west side of the existing railroad. Temporary impacts, from 

area needed for construction access, erosion control, and material placement, extend 

approximately another 15 feet in width. The permanent impacts avoid the park activity areas 

such as walking trails and sport fields. The areas impacted consist of landscaping or natural 

vegetation. Impacted landscaped elements will be replaced in nearby locations in the 

remaining parkland. Temporary impacts may affect the area adjacent to the soccer field but 

will not affect the field itself, and disruptions to the activity will be avoided. FRA believes the 

permanent impacts to be minor in nature and will recommend that the use is de minimis. FRA 

does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon 

completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities 

of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

Build Alternative 1C would expand the railroad infrastructure on both the east and west 

sides of the right-of-way approaching Long Bridge from the south, which would require 

0.36 acre of additional permanent right-of-way and 0.65 acre of temporary impacts totaling 

three percent of the 29-acre facility. These impacts would affect a narrow strip of land along 

the west side of the existing railroad, generally less than 25 feet in width (approximately 15-

foot width of permanent impacts and 10-foot width of temporary impacts). The areas 

impacted consist of landscaping and natural vegetation. Temporary impacts are associated 

with access, erosion control, and material placement for construction. Trails and sport fields 

are not impacted. Impacted landscaped elements will be replaced in nearby locations in the 

remaining parkland. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature and will recommend 

that the use is de minimis. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a 

Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its 

prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected during the timeframe 

of the temporary impacts. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-69 

 Mount Vernon Trail⎯Build Alternative 2A would have temporary impacts to 20 feet of 

this trail facility for access and erosion control during construction. Trail connectivity 

would be maintained during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts 

will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, trail connectivity 

would be maintained, and the land would be restored to its prior condition. The activities 

of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Dog Run Park at Carlyle⎯Build Alternative 2A would require 0.04 acre of permanent right-ofway from this park facility and 0.14 acre of temporary impacts totaling six percent of this 3-acre 

dog park. The permanent impacts are primarily located at the west side of the park in an area of 

natural vegetation that is not utilized for park activities. There is also a very narrow strip of 

permanent impacts along the length of the park, approximately 3 feet in width. Temporary 

impacts, from area needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during 

construction, are located in an area of natural vegetation comprising a narrow strip and extending 

an additional 10 feet from the additional permanent right-of-way. The adjacent dog run area and 

tennis courts would not be impacted. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature and will 

recommend that the use is de minimis. The transportation use of this additional right-of-way does 

not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection 

under Section 4(f). FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use 

because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition. The 

activities of the park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 George Washington Memorial Parkway⎯Build Alternative 2A would have temporary 

impacts to this facility. These impacts consist of an approximately 10-foot-wide strip of 

vacant forested land on the east side of the existing railroad totaling 1.04 acres or less than 

0.1 percent of the 1,105-acre facility. Temporary impacts would be from area needed for 

access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion 

of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the 

park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Veterans Memorial Park⎯Build Alternative 2A would have temporary impacts of 0.05 

acre of this 110-acre facility or 0.5 percent of the total parkland acreage. The impacted area 

is a narrow strip of land, less than 5 feet in width. Temporary impacts would be needed 

from area needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. 

The area consists of natural vegetation. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts 

will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would 

be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected during 

the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park⎯Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 

4A would have temporary impacts to this facility. Build Alternatives 3A and 3B, which 

follow the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, share a common alignment 

in this area and would have temporary impacts of 0.02 acre, less than 0.001 percent of the 

8,374-acre National Military Park. The temporarily impacted area is a small rectangularshaped piec of land that is vacant. Temporary impacts would be from area needed for 

access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-70 

of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition and the activities of the 

park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

Build Alternative 4A, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way south of 

Fredericksburg, would have temporary impacts of 1.09 acres, or 0.01 percent of the National 

Military Park. The temporary impacts consist of an approximately 20-foot-wide strip that 

consists of forest and agricultural lands. Temporary impacts would be from area needed 

for access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion 

of construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the 

park would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 North Ashland Park⎯Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake, which adds a third track through 

and constructs a new station south of Ashland, would have temporary impacts to this 

facility. The temporary impacts would be 0.02 acre in size or 10 percent of the 0.2-acre 

park. The temporary impacts would be to an open grassed area that is approximately 10 

feet wide along the existing right-of-way. Temporary impacts would be from area needed 

for access and erosion control during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary 

impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land 

would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected 

during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Railside Park⎯Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake, which adds a third track through and 

constructs a new station south of Ashland, would have temporary impacts to this facility. 

The temporary impacts would be 0.01 acre in size or one percent of the 1.-acre park. The 

temporary impacts would be to an approximately 6-foot-wide strip of vacant land along 

the existing right-of-way. Temporary impacts would be from area needed for access and 

erosion control during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will 

result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would be 

restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park would not be affected during 

the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Carter Park⎯Build Alternatives 5B and 5B–Ashcake, which add a third track through 

Ashland (Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake also constructs a new station south of Ashland), 

share a common alignment in this area and would require 0.03 acre of permanent rightof-way, 0.2 percent of this 13.5-acre park facility. This impact consists of a very narrow 

strip of forested land, less than 5 feet in width, on the east side of the existing right-ofway. Park activities would not be affected. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature 

and will recommend that the use is de minimis. The transportation use of this additional 

right-of-way does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify 

the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 

 Ashland Trolley Line⎯Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake, each of which constructs a new station south of Ashland, share a common 

alignment at this location and would require 0.01 acre of permanent right-of-way, 0.1 

percent of this 6.7-acre park facility. The additional right-of-way is required for access 

purposes to connect to Walder Lane which is located within the park boundaries in the 

area owned by the Town of Ashland. FRA believes the impacts to be minor in nature and 

will recommend that the use is de minimis. The permanent impacts consist of a small area 

of additional right-of-way. The transportation use of this additional right-of-way does not 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-71 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for 

protection under Section 4(f). 

 Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields⎯Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, 

which expand intercity passenger rail service on the S-Line through and south of 

downtown Richmond, share a common alignment in this area and would have temporary 

impacts of 0.01 acre, 0.2 percent of this 4.9-acre facility. The area temporarily impacted 

consists of small slivers of land less than 5 feet in width. These areas are not actively used 

by the school and consist of natural vegetation. Temporary impacts would be from area 

needed for access and erosion control during construction. FRA does not anticipate the 

temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of 

construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the activities of the park 

would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park⎯Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, 

which expand intercity passenger rail service on the S-Line through and south of 

downtown Richmond, share a common alignment in this area and would require 

permanent right-of-way from and temporary impacts to this park facility. Permanent 

impacts would be 0.17 acre, and temporary impacts would be 0.23 acre for a total affected 

percentage of six percent of the 6.4-acre park. The affected area is a vacant grassed area 

with a multi-use trail that currently crosses under the existing tracks. Trail connectivity 

would be maintained during and after construction. The impacted width ranges up to 70 

feet for temporary and permanent impacts combined. FRA believes the impacts to be 

minor in nature and will recommend that the use is de minimis. The transportation use of 

this additional right-of-way does not adversely affect the activities, features, and

attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). Temporary impacts 

would be from area needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during 

construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) 

use because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored to its prior 

condition, trail connectivity would be maintained, and the other activities of the park would 

not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. 

 Gates Mill Park⎯Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, and 6E, which expand intercity 

passenger rail service on the A-Line through and south of Richmond (none of which are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative as described in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS), share a common alignment in this area and would require permanent right-ofway from and temporary impacts to this park facility. Permanent impacts would be 0.19 

acre, and temporary impacts would be 0.22 acre for a total affected percentage of four 

percent of the 11-acre park. The affected area includes parking for an adjacent business 

and vacant forested land. The land is not actively used for park activities. FRA believes 

the impacts to be minor in nature and will recommend that the use is de minimis. The 

transportation use of this additional right-of-way does not adversely affect the activities, 

features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). 

Temporary impacts would be from area needed for access, erosion control, and material 

placement during construction. FRA does not anticipate the temporary impacts will result 

in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of construction, the land would be restored 

to its prior condition, and there would be no changes to areas of park activity.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-72 

5.4.2 Wildlife Refuges 

There are no permanent impacts to wildlife refuges (see Table 5.4-2). Build Alternative 4A would 

have temporary impacts of 2.54 acres or 0.1 percent of the 2,652-acre Mattaponi Wildlife 

Management Area. The impacted area consists of forest in a narrow strip of land, approximately 

15 feet wide on the west side of the existing right-of-way. Temporary impacts would be from area 

needed for access, erosion control, and material placement during construction. FRA does not 

anticipate the temporary impacts will result in a Section 4(f) use because upon completion of 

construction, the land would be restored to its prior condition, and the other activities of the park 

would not be affected during the timeframe of the temporary impacts. Roaches Run Waterfowl 

Sanctuary is located near the DC2RVA corridor but will not have temporary or permanent 

impacts associated with any of the Build Alternatives. 

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area 
SECTION 4

Table 5.4-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Park Resources by Build Alternative (Acres) 

Resource 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

6B–A-Line 

6B–S-Line 

6C 

Long Bridge Park 

0.00 

(0.51) 

1.45 

(0.88) 

0.36 

(0.65) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Mount Vernon Trail 

– – – 0 ft 

(20 ft) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Dog Run Park at Carlyle 

– – – 0.04 

(0.14) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 

– – – 0.00 

(1.04) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Veterans Memorial Park 

– – – 0.00 

(0.05) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

– – – – 0.00 

(0.02) 

0.00 

(0.02) 

– 0.00 

(1.09) 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

North Ashland Park 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.00 

(0.02) 

– – – – 

Railside Park – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.00 

(0.01) 

– – – – 

Carter Park – – – – – – – – – – 0.03 

(0.00) 

0.03 

(0.00) 

– – – – – – – 

Ashland Trolley Line 

– – – – – – – – – 0.01 

(0.00) 

– 0.01 

(0.00) 

– 0.01 

(0.00) 

0.01 

(0.00) 

– – – – 

 Continued; Key: Permanent Impacts / (Temporary Impacts); Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-74 

Table 5.4-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Park Resources by Build Alternative (Acres) 

Resource 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

6B–A-Line 

6B–S-Line 

6C 

Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.00 

(0.01) 

– 

Walker’s 

Creek Retention Basin Park 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.17 

(0.23) 

– 

Gates Mill Park 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.19 

(0.22) 

0.19 

(0.22) 

– 0.19 

(0.22

Key: Permanent Impacts / (Temporary Impacts); Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 

Table 5.4-2: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Wildlife Refuges by Build Alternative (Acres) 

Resource 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

5D–Ashcake 

6A 

6B–A-Line 

6B–S-Line 

6C 

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area 

– – – – – – – 0.00 

(2.54) 

– – – – – – – – – – – 

Key: Permanent Impacts / (Temporary Impacts); Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7)
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-75 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1B
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-76 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 1C 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-77 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 2A 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-78 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-79 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–

Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-80 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, 6G 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-81 

Figure 5.4-1: Permanent Park Impacts – Build Alternative 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-82 

5.4.3 Historic Properties 

There are 158 historic properties within the APE: 9 archaeological sites, 135 aboveground 

resources, 3 resources with an aboveground and belowground component, and 11 battlefields. 

FRA anticipates that the Project could potentially result in a Section 4(f) use of up to 14 of the 158 

historic properties from one or more of the Build Alternatives (Tables 5.4-3 and 5.4-4 and Figure 

5.4-2). Therefore, FRA anticipates the Project will result in either no use or de minimis use of the 

remaining 144 properties. If FRA determines there is no use of these properties, no further action 

is required, and these results will be presented to the DHR to inform DHR of FRA’s de minimis 

determinations. More-detailed figures showing impacts to historic properties and DHR eligibility 

determinations (including individual eligibility and contributions to historic districts) are 

provided in the Cultural Resources Reports (Appendix R). 

Preliminary dialogues with the DHR on effect and Section 4(f) use took place on August 10, 2016, 

and the ensuing preliminary determinations are represented here. Where FRA anticipates that one 

or more of the Build Alternatives will potentially result in a use of a historic property, details are 

provided below regarding each alternative’s impact on the resource. If the DHR determined that 

the project will have an adverse effect on a resource but FRA determined that the project will have 

a de minimis use or no use, these resources are discussed below to provide contextual data for the 

de minimis/no use determination. FRA and DRPT will continue consultations with DHR and 

consulting parties, and the Final EIS will detail final determinations of effect and Section 4(f) uses. 

Table 5.4-3: Summary of Preliminary Section 4(f) Recommendations for All Historic 

Properties 

Alternative Area Alternative 

Section 4(f) Recommendation 

Use de minimis No Use 

Area 1: Arlington 1A 1 1 1 

1B 1 1 1 

1C 1 1 1 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 1 6 8 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3A 0 0 21 

3B 3 10 8 

3C1 1 3 2 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 3 10 7 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 0 

5A–Ashcake 0 4 15 

5B 3 11 5 

5B–Ashcake 3 11 5 

5C1 1 3 3 

5C–Ashcake1 1 3 3 

5D–Ashcake 3 11 5 

Area 6: Richmond 6A 4 36 43 

6B–A-Line 5 25 53 

6B–S-Line 8 30 45 

6C 5 28 50 

6D 7 36 40 

6E 3 47 33 

6F 7 35 41 

6G 7 43 33 

Note: 1. Partial Data; Only Phase IA reconnaissance studies were completed on the bypass alternatives. As such, this count only includes 

previously recorded resources; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

029-0218 Mount Vernon Memorial 

Highway (portion of George Washington Memorial Parkway) 

de 

minimis

de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – – – – 

000-0045 Washington National 

Airport (Reagan National Airport) 

No Use No Use No Use – – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0160 George Washington Junior 

High School 1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic District – – – de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot 

110 Callahan Drive 

– – – de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – – – 

100-0128 George Washington 

National Masonic Memorial 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill 

3642 Wheeler Avenue 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Holmes 

Run in Cameron Run Park 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0953 Old Colchester Road, 

Potomac Path, King's Highway 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark 

House/Enyedi House 10605 Furnace Road 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

029-0043 Colchester Arms 

Fairfax Arms 10712 Old Colchester Road 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Occoquan 

River 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-84 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (Current), Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (NRHP Listing) 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

287-5147 Town of Quantico (Historic/ 

Current), Town of Quantico Historic District (Current) 

– – – No Use – – – – – – – – – – 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands 

945 Widewater Road 

– – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – – – 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over Potomac 

Creek at Leland Road 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over Naomi 

Road 

– – – – No Use Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – 

089-0016/ 

44ST0084 

Ferry Farm – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – – – – – – 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest (Historic) – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – 

111-0132-0025 Rappahannock River 

Railroad Bridge 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

44SP0187 Stone Piers; Bridge or 

Building 

– – – – No Use Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0704 Fredericksburg Train Station 

200 Lafayette Boulevard 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132 Fredericksburg Historic 

District 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis

– – – – – – – – 

111-0132-0020 Purina Tower – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

111-0132-0522 House 

314–316 Frederick Street 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0009-0795 Pulliam's Service Station 

411 Lafayette Boulevard 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0009 Fredericksburg Historic 

District Extension 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

088-5181 Salem Church Battlefield 

(Banks Ford Battlefield) 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

088-5364 Fredericksburg & 

Gordonsville Railroad Bed District (Virginia Central Railroad) 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun 

Manufactory 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

088-0254 Slaughter Pen Farm 

11232 Tidewater Trail (Wayside Farm or Pierson Farm) 

– – – – No Use No Use – – – – – – – – 

44SP0468-

extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

– – – – – – – – 

088-0039 La Vue 

3232 LaVue Lane (Prospect View) 

– – – – No Use de 

minimis 

No Use – – – – – – – 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation Office 

Jackson Shrine 12019 Stonewall Jackson Road 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0208 House 

12096 Guinea Drive 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-86 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of 

Caroline County MPD 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-5129 Woodford Historic District – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior 

Company Office, Lake Farm Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & 

Passenger Depot, Woodford Road 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0224 Glenwood House, 

11102 Woodford Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion 

11146 Woodford Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-0270 Milford State Bank 

15461 Antioch Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

016-5136 Milford Historic District – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

016-0286 Coleman's Store, 

22275 Penola Road Penola, 16095 Polecat Lane 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

042-5448 Doswell Historic District – – – – – – – Use – – – – – – 042-0470 Squashapenny Junction 

Store; House 10570 Doswell Road 

– – – – – – – Use – – – – – – 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, Doswell 

Branch (part of Squashapenny Antiques) 10561 Doswell Road 

– – – – – – – No Use – – – – – – 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and Tower 

10577 Doswell Road 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

TBD RF&P Bridge over Little 

River 

– – – – – – – de 

minimis 

– – – – – – 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little River – – – – – – – de 

minimis

– – – – – – 

042-0557 Dry Bridge 

10411 Old Bridge Road 

– – – – – – – – – de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

042-0392 Montevideo – – – – – – – – – – – – No Use No Use 166-5073 Berkleytown Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-5073-0010 House, Dabney Funeral 

Home, 600 B Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – 

166-0001 Ashland Historic District – – – – – – – – – de 

minimis

Use Use – – 

166-0001-0015 Business Office, 

Randolph-Macon College 310 N. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon College 

Historic District Expansion 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon College 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0001-0008 Ashland Station Depot 

112 N. Railroad Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – de 

minimis

Use Use – – 

166-5041 Priddy House 

107 Stebbins Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use – – 

166-0001-0055 House 

704 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0001-0060 House 

708 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0036 MacMurdo House 

713 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis

de 

minimis

– – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-88 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

166-0037 Hugo House 

11208 Gwathmey Church Road 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

166-0001-0077 House 

1005 S. Center Street 

– – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis

– – 

042-5048 Elmont Historic District – – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

043-0693 Mill Road Historic District – – – – – – – – – No Use de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

de 

minimis 

043-0694 Hunton Treasures 

11701 Greenwood Road 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use No Use No Use 

043-5646 House 

11501 Old Washington Highway 

– – – – – – – – – No Use No Use No Use No Use No Use 

043-5657 Darling Smokestack 

Old Washington Highway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 043-0690 Lewis-McLeod House 

2945 Mountain Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial School 

Historic District, Hungary Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0292-0001 Main Building/Robert Stiles 

Building/Bluford Office Building, 2900 Hungary Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5636 Integrated Power Sources of 

Virginia, 2260 Dabney Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6136 Scott's Addition Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6569 Central National Bank 

3501 W Broad Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-6514 Kent Road Village 

905 Kent Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0742 West of Boulevard Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6756 Carillon Neighborhood 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0171 James River and Kanawha 

Canal Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6792 Southern Railway – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127-6629 Cedarhurst Neighborhood 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 402 House 

351 W. 49th Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic District – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp R Rolando Historic District – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Temp 268 Broad Run House 

2011 S. Kinsley Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5351 Richmond & Petersburg 

Electric Railway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, US Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek Battlefield – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127-6188 Movieland Bowtie Cinema 

1331 North Boulevard 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-90 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-6840 Warehouse 

2728 Hermitage Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6730 Hermitage Road Warehouse 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6165 Cookie Factory Lofts, 

900 Terminal Place 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0226 Science Museum of Virginia 

2500 Broad Street, West 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5978 Todd Lofts 

1128 Hermitage Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6145 Southern Stove Works 

1215 Hermitage Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6570 West Broad Street Industrial 

and Commercial Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0414 Governor's School 

1000 North Lombardy St. 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0354 Virginia Union University 

Historic District, 1500 North Lombardy St. 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0428 George W. Carver 

Elementary School 1110 West Leigh Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0822 Carver Residential Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6171 Richmond and Chesapeake 

Bay Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland Railway Company Car Barn 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5679 Barton Heights Cemetery 

1600 Lamb Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing Home 

210 Hospital Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery 

320 Hospital Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ Plateau 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & Tobacco 

Row Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44HE1098 Main Street Station Parking 

Lot/Railroad 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage 

East Main Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0172 Main Street Station and 

Trainshed, New Union Station, Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0344-0123 Railroad Y.M.C.A. 

1552 East Main Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic 

District and Expansions 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

44HE1092 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 44HE1094 Warehouse – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6793 C&O Railroad – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127-5809 Bridge #1857, North 14th

Street; Mayo Bridge North 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, South 14th

Street; Mayo Bridge South 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf Storage 

Warehouse 1717–1721 East Cary Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-92 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

44HE1095 Storage Facility – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0282 Henrico County 

Courthouse 2127 Main Street East 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0192 St. John's Church Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0192-0322 Libby Hill Park and Park 

House, 2801 East Franklin Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0854 Bridge #1850, E. Main 

Street, spanning Southern Railway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0119 John Woodward House 

3017 Williamsburg Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6693 Armitage Manufacturing 

Company 3200 Williamsburg Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works 

Williamsburg Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 043-5313 James River Steam Brewery 

Cellars 4920 Old Main Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0439 Aviation General Supply 

Depot 508 Bickerstaff Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm 

(New Market Heights Battlefield) New Market Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

043-5071 Darbytown & New Market 

Roads Battlefield, Route 5 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

127-0457 Manchester Warehouse 

Historic District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf Tobacco 

Southern Stove Works 516 Dinwiddie Avenue 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6245/ 

44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory 700 East 4th Street 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company 

1314 Commerce Street Transmontaigne 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6213 Davee Gardens Historic 

District 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff Battlefield 

(Fort Darling, Fort Drewry), Fort Darling Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II), Bermuda Hundred Road (Alt Route 697) 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, Auburn 

Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0013 House 

3619 Thurston Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0022/ 

44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Continued; Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-94 

Table 5.4-4: Details of Recommended Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations of Historic Properties 

DHR ID Name/Description 

Build Alternative 

1A 

1B 

1C 

2A 

3A 

3B 

3C 

4A 

5A 

5A–Ashcake 

5B 

5B–Ashcake 

5C 

5C–Ashcake 

020-5378 VEPCo Power Transmission 

Line 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0140 Circle Oaks` 

4510 Centralia Road 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 076-0301 RF&P Railroad Use Use Use Use No Use Use Use Use – de 

minimis 

Use Use Use Use 

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad 

(ACL) Corridor, Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line Railroad 

(SAL) Corridor 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

 Recommended Preferred Alternative (see Chapter 7) 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-95 

Figure 5.4-2: Historical Properties with Potential Section 4(f) Use
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-96 

Figure 5.4-2: Historical Properties with Potential Section 4(f) Use 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-97 

RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080): The bridge is a double-vault arched structure rumored to 

be the oldest documented and identified reinforced concrete bridge in the Commonwealth. It is 

potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural merit. Construction of Build 

Alternative 3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would result in 

the removal of the existing bridge and construction of a new structure. Based on effect dialogues with 

DHR, FRA believes that demolition would remove all character-defining features of this resource. 

FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternative 3B, which is identified as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a 

Section 106 adverse effect on this structure and would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (111-0132-0025): This multiple-span, open-spandrel, concretearch bridge is an excellent and rare surviving example of a reinforced-concrete arch railroad bridge 

within this region of Virginia. The bridge is both individually eligible (Criterion C for its architectural 

merit) and eligible as a contributing element to the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132) and the 

RF&P Railroad (076-0301). Addition of a third track to the east of the existing alignment as part of 

Build Alternative 3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would 

require construction of a new bridge adjacent to the old structure. Although the new bridge would 

somewhat diminish its integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association, and affect the architectural 

character of the Rappahannock Railroad Bridge, FRA does not believe these indirect impacts are so 

severe as to substantially impair the bridge.1 FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternative 3B, 

which is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the bridge. 

Site 44SP0187: This site includes a series of stone piers along the river, likely associated with a 

railroad structure or a mill once located in this area. It is eligible under Criteria A and D for its 

association with the development of Fredericksburg and its information potential. Construction 

of a new bridge across the Rappahannock River to accommodate a third track for Build 

Alternative 3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would 

physically impact the subsurface archaeological deposits in this area, thus diminishing the data 

potential of this site. FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternative 3B, which is identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse effect to this historic property and would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of this site. 

Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132): The district is a 200-acre area that comprises the city’s 

downtown commercial area, adjacent industrial area, and some of the surrounding residential 

blocks. It is listed in the NRHP under Criterion C for its architectural merit. Although no new tracks 

are part of Build Alternative 3A and installation of the third track associated with Build Alternative 

3B, which follows the existing CSXT right-of-way through Fredericksburg, would be constructed 

within the existing rail right-of-way, work associated with both alternatives would entail building 

a multi-story parking deck to the east (south) of the tracks in an existing parking lot. This new 

structure would impact the viewshed of the district and its integrity of setting, feeling, and 

association by adding a large, non-conforming, visual element to the distinct area skyline. The new 

parking structure would also add a new physical element within the district boundaries. These 

impacts are all, however, indirect, and FRA does not believe that they are severe enough to 

 

1 Per 23 CFR 774.15(a), “substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the 

property are substantially diminished.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-98 

substantially impair the district. FRA’s initial determination is, therefore, that Build Alternatives 

3A and 3B, of which Build Alternative 3B is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative 

in Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse 

effect on this historic property but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the district. 

Doswell Historic District (042-5448): Doswell Historic District encompasses a rural community 

that was once a center of major activity along road and rail networks. It is potentially eligible for 

the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with railroad history and C for its architectural 

integrity. Although the community was founded along the rail lines, Build Alternative 4A would 

adversely affect one contributing element to the district, the Squashapenny Junction Store (042-

0470), as listed below. This includes potentially removing the main dwelling and/or associated 

outbuildings and taking land from the parcel, thus diminishing the characteristics that render it 

eligible for the NRHP. Because of the potential physical adverse effects to a contributing element, 

Build Alternative 4A, which is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative 

Area 4 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would likely have a Section 106 adverse effect on 

the district, and FRA’s initial determination is that this alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use. 

Squashapenny Junction Store/House, 10570 Doswell Road (042-0470): The store was a 

commercial hub for the Doswell community and is an excellent example of railroad-town 

commercial architecture. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C for its 

architectural style. The building, also a contributing element to the Doswell Historic District (042-

5448), is located immediately east of the rail tracks. At a minimum, Build Alternative 4A requires 

the acquisition of approximately 10 feet of land from the parcel and would bring the tracks closer 

to the dwelling, potentially requiring the physical removal of one or more contributing buildings 

on the property and compromising its integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, 

feeling, and association. Depending on final design, the main building itself may be an 

acquisition, thus resulting in additional physical impacts. As such, FRA’s initial determination is 

that Build Alternative 4A, which is identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative in 

Alternative Area 4 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse 

effect on this resource and would result in a Section 4(f) use. However, this determination may 

be altered pending future design plans that minimize the project footprint in this area. 

Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073): The district is typical of many small-town, twentieth-century, 

African-American neighborhoods, dotted by small vernacular dwellings. It is potentially eligible under 

Criteria A for its association with African-American history in this area and C for its architectural merit. 

Construction of an overpass carrying Vaughan Road over the rail tracks associated with Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would require alterations to the historic road pattern 

within the district and require a new bridge structure within the viewshed of the district and several 

contributing elements, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the district. Due to these disturbances to the setting, feeling, and design of the district, 

FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a 

Section 106 adverse effect but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the district. 

Ashland Historic District (166-0001): The Ashland Historic District survives as a fine example of a 

railroad and streetcar suburb, preserving much of its turn-of-the-century character. It is listed in the 

NRHP under Criteria A for its association with railroad history and C for its architectural character. 

Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the existing rail corridor through 

town, would result in physically modified roadways, sidewalks, secondary resources, and 

viewsheds in the district, some of which are contributing elements to the district. Character-
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-99 

defining features may be impacted. Moreover, FRA believes these alternatives would have an 

adverse effect to several contributing resources to the district through physical modifications or 

additions to their viewshed. As such, FRA’s initial determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–

Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on the Ashland Historic District 

and would result in a Section 4(f) use of this district. 

Randolph-Macon College Historic District (166-0002) and Randolph-Macon College Historic 

District Expansion (166-5072): The districts include the 85-acre college campus and all associated 

buildings, structures, and landscape features. The original district was listed in the NRHP under 

Criteria A as one of the oldest Methodist colleges in the United States and C for its architectural merit. 

The expansion was determined to be eligible for the NRHP as part of the current survey. Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would result in modifications that would physically 

and visually diminish character-defining features of the districts through roadway realignments, 

sidewalk modifications, and viewshed changes, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts 

will result in substantial impairment of the districts. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on these 

historic properties but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of these historic properties. 

Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008): The building is a good example of a Colonial Revivalstyled depot, potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with area 

development and C for its architectural character. It is also a contributing element to the Ashland 

Historic District (166-0001) and the RF&P Railroad (076-0301). Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

and 5D–Ashcake require track changes, platform modifications, and alterations to the NRHPeligible station. Some design proposals associated with these alternatives include demolition of 

the historic station and construction of a new station. FRA’s preliminary determination is that 

Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on 

this resource and would result in a Section 4(f) use of the property. 

MacMurdo House (166-0036): This two-story, three-bay, Greek Revival, single-family dwelling 

is one of the few buildings of its style in Ashland. As such, it is potentially eligible for the NRHP 

under Criterion C for its architectural merit. The building is a contributing element to the Ashland 

Historic District (166-0001) as it dates to the period of significance and reflects the developmental 

history of the district. Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, expanding the 

existing rail corridor through town, would result in moving the existing sidewalks and roadways 

closer to the historic dwelling and onto the parcel boundaries, thus physically impacting the 

resource’s integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association and modifying key visual elements 

of the building, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the house. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–

Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this property but would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource. 

Laurel Industrial School Historic District (043-0292): The district consists of a complex of 

buildings that were part of a school founded under the patronage of the Prison Association of 

Virginia. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with prison reform and C for 

its architectural character. All Build Alternatives in Area 6 (6A–6G) would require construction 

of a bridge to carry traffic on Hungary Road over the rail tracks, as well as notable associated 

secondary road changes. These modifications would impact the district through introduction of 

a large visual element (the new overpass) and physically modified roadway plans. Some 

additional landscape elements may also be required to be relocated. As such, FRA’s preliminary 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-100 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6A through 6G, of which Build Alternative 6F is identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS, would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this historic district; however, the 

modifications do not rise to the level of substantial impairment. Therefore, the Project would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the district. 

Scott's Addition Historic District (127-6136): This area is a 152-acre industrial and commercial 

district in Richmond featuring 287 contributing resources built primarily between 1900 and 1956. It 

is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond development and C for its 

architectural fabric. Construction of Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

would require notable visual and physical changes to this area, including new tracks outside of the 

existing right-of-way, erecting superstructures to support rail facilities, and construction of multistory parking facilities. These changes would diminish character-defining features of the district, 

although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial impairment of the 

district. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 

6E, and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on the historic district but would not result in 

a Section 4(f) use of the district; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Rolando Historic District (Temp R): The district is a post-World War II-era, suburban 

neighborhood containing approximately 142 parcels. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion C for its styling as a post-war neighborhood. Plans associated with Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G include construction of a new overpass carrying Broad Rock 

Boulevard over the tracks and associated roadway modifications, which are required to expand 

intercity passenger rail service on the A-Line through and south of downtown Richmond. Some 

of the impacted roadways are located within the footprint of the district, and the new overpass 

would be a notable new visual element to the viewshed of the neighborhood. These changes 

would diminish the district’s integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association, although FRA 

does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial impairment of the district. FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have 

a Section 106 adverse effect on this district but would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the 

resource; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the recommended Preferred 

Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Broad Run House (Temp 268): This two-story, Federal-style, frame dwelling was constructed 

around 1770 with a central-passage plan. It is potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criterion 

C for its architectural style and as a unique example of extant eighteenth-century architecture in 

this part of Richmond. Plans associated with Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G 

include construction of a new overpass carrying Broad Rock Boulevard over the tracks and 

associated roadway modifications, which are required to expand intercity passenger rail service 

on the A-Line through and south of downtown Richmond. Some of the impacted roadways are 

located within the viewshed of this resource, and the new overpass would be a notable new visual 

element to the property. These changes would diminish the district’s integrity of design, setting, 

feeling, and association, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in 

substantial impairment of the house. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6A, 6B–A-Line, 6C, 6E, and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this property but would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of the resource; however, none of these Build Alternatives are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-101 

Movieland Bowtie Cinema (127-6188): This is an industrial complex with two buildings, the 

brass foundry and the iron foundry, that are both steel-framed resources with masonry walls. It 

is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond industrial history and C 

for its architectural merit. Construction of Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6C require 

development of new rail corridors and large-scale structures to accommodate train movement in 

this part of Richmond to serve new stations on either Boulevard or Broad Street, as well as 

associated road modifications and new parking structures. Construction of 6B–S-Line also 

requires modifications to the rail system and new structures in this area. Some of these changes 

border, or are located on, the Movieland Bowtie Cinema parcel. Modifications would physically 

and visually diminish the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP, although 

FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial impairment of the property. 

As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 

6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not result in a Section 4(f) 

use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Warehouse (127-6840): This circa 1955 warehouse could not be accessed during the reconnaissance 

survey; eligibility for this resource is assumed. As with the Movieland Bowtie Cinema, Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C all require notable modifications to the landscape, road 

system, rail lines, and extant resources in this area to serve new stations on either Boulevard or 

Broad Street. These changes would introduce large-scale new visual elements to the viewshed of 

this resource, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the warehouse. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Hermitage Road Warehouse Historic District (127-6730): This industrial district is characterized 

by roughly a dozen medium- to large-scale one-story warehouse buildings constructed in the 

second quarter of the twentieth century and set on a gridded block pattern. It is listed in the 

NRHP under Criterion A for its association with twentieth-century Richmond development and 

Criterion C for its architectural styling. Construction of Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6C 

require development of new rail corridors and large-scale structures to accommodate train 

movement to serve new stations on either Boulevard or Broad Street, as well as road 

modifications and new parking structures. Construction of Build Alternative 6B–S-Line also 

requires modifications to the rail system and new structures in this area. These changes would 

physically and visually diminish the characteristics that render this resource eligible for the 

NRHP, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the district. As such, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives 

are identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Cookie Factory Lofts (127-6165): The building is a six-story, multi-bay industrial building 

constructed in 1927 with Colonial Revival attributes. It is listed in the NRHP under Criterion A 

for its association with the development of this section of Richmond and Criterion C for its 

architectural merit. The resource is also a contributing element to the West Broad Street Industrial 

and Commercial Historic District (127-6570) listed below. As with nearby properties listed above, 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C all require notable modifications to the 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-102 

landscape, road system, rail lines, and extant resources in this area to serve new stations on either 

Boulevard or Broad Street. These changes would introduce large-scale new visual elements to the 

viewshed of this resource, although FRA does not believe these impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the building. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are 

identified as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226): This building is a 3-story, 11-bay, monumental Neoclassical 

style train station that now houses the Science Museum of Virginia. It is listed on the NRHP under 

Criteria A for its association with transportation history and C for its architectural characteristics. The 

resource is also a contributing element to the West Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic 

District (127-6570) listed below. While construction of Build Alternative 6C would partially restore 

the historic usage of this property as a passenger station, many of the rail-related features originally 

part of this property were removed when the structure was converted into a museum. Work 

associated with Build Alternative 6C, as well as that required to serve a new station on Boulevard in 

Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, would result in new construction, such as raised tracks 

and the installation of new structures, as well as roadway modifications, to the north and east of the 

historic building. This work would physically and visually diminish the integrity of design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, and association of this historic property. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B-A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 

adverse effect on the Science Museum of Virginia and, because of the physical alteration to the 

museum and demolition of contributing elements to this resource, would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of this property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Todd Lofts (127-5978): The structure is a five-story, multi-bay commercial building originally used as 

a brewery. It is listed on the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with industrial development 

in this part of Richmond. Build Alternative 6C would require road work along Hermitage Road and 

includes construction of a rail superstructure to aid in train movement to a new station on Broad 

Street. This new superstructure would be visible from the property and directly impact the property 

but not touch the building. Similar nearby large-scale modifications would be part of Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line to serve a new station on Boulevard. FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 

adverse effect on this resource, but because no changes will be made to the building itself, it would 

not result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. None of these Build Alternatives are identified as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Southern Stove Works (127-6145): This resource is an industrial complex of four brick buildings 

and a water tower built during the time of rapid industrialization in Richmond. It is listed on the 

NRHP under Criteria A for its association with Richmond industrialization and C for its 

architectural merit. This resource is located just east across Hermitage Road from Todd Lofts, listed 

above. The same modifications stated for Todd Lofts are applicable to this resource, including 

roadway changes and construction of new rail structures required to serve a new station on 

Boulevard in Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, or a new station on Broad Street in Build 

Alternative 6C, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the building. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this historic property but would not 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-103 

result in a Section 4(f) use of the property; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

West Broad Street Industrial and Commercial Historic District (127-6570): The district 

comprises an area of approximately 40 acres; it reflects the development of the industrial 

capabilities of Richmond. It is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A for its association with 

industrial history in this area and C for its architectural characteristics. The district is located on 

both sides of Broad Street and extends northeast past Marshall Street. Changes associated with 

the Project and associated roads required to serve a new station on Boulevard in Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line, or a new station on Broad Street in Build Alternative 6C 

would physically and visually diminish character-defining features of this district, as well as at 

least two contributing resources: the Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226) and Cookie Factory 

Lofts (127-6165), although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the district. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 

6B–S-Line, and 6C would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this historic district but would not 

result in a Section 4(f) use of this district; however, none of these Build Alternatives are identified 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6 in this Project. 

Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344): This district encompasses the area of 

Richmond's earliest residential, commercial, and manufacturing activity. It is listed in the NRHP 

under Criteria A for its association with early Richmond developmental history and C for its 

architectural merit. The district is located east of the S-line corridor and north of the James River in 

downtown Richmond. Construction associated with the expansion of intercity passenger rail 

service to Main Street Station on the S-Line in Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G would include one 

to two multistory parking garages and the addition of long, linear platforms within the district 

boundaries. These elements have the potential to visually diminish the characteristics that render 

this resource eligible for the NRHP, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result 

in substantial impairment of the district. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

6D, 6F, and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource but would not result in a 

Section 4(f) use of this district, of which Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred 

Alternative in Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1095: These three sites represent warehouses once located 

in this part of Richmond. They are potentially eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D for 

their association with the development of Richmond and their data potential. Current plans for 

Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service on 

the S-Line through and south of downtown Richmond, include installation of new piers to 

support expanded tracks near Main Street Station. Installation of the piers would result in 

physical subsurface disturbances within these three recorded archaeological sites. As such, FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–S-Line, 6D, 6F, and 6G would have a 

Section 106 adverse effect on these three archaeological sites and would result in a Section 4(f) 

use of these three sites. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in 

Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Main Street Station and Trainshed (127-0172): This multi-story, multi-bay monumental structure 

symbolizes the importance of the rail terminal as an entrance gateway to Richmond. The building 

is a National Historic Landmark (NHL), listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C, and is also a 

contributing element to both RF&P Railroad (076-0301) and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad (127-

6271), both listed below. Based on parameters set forth in 800.5(2)(iv) and DHR’s evaluation of 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-104 

effect, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 

6C could have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource based on the disuse of the current 

station and thus removal of the historic, and continued, use of this rail station. In addition, 

construction of Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service 

on the S-Line through and south of downtown Richmond, would alter physical elements of the 

property, and FRA’s preliminary determination is that this impact would constitute a Section 106 

adverse effect on this resource. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A, 

6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C could and 6D, 6F, and 6G would result in a Section 4(f) use of this 

property. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 6 

as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Railroad Y.M.C.A (127-0344-0123): The resource is a three-story, three-bay, rectangular, French 

Renaissance Revival-style commercial building constructed in 1907. It is eligible for the NRHP 

under Criterion A for its importance to the early recreational and social history of this segment 

of Richmond and under Criterion C for its architectural styling. Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 

6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service on the S-Line through and south of downtown 

Richmond, all involve the construction of large parking decks to the north of this resource within 

the viewshed. The decks will diminish the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of this 

resource, although FRA does not believe these indirect impacts will result in substantial 

impairment of the building. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, 

and 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this property but would not result in a Section 

4(f) use of this resource. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in 

Alternative Area 6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS.

Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac Railroad (076-0301): The RF&P opened in 1836 and 

eventually spanned from the Potomac River to Richmond. It is eligible for the NRHP under 

Criterion A for its association with rail development in northern and central Virginia. 

Construction associated with several alternatives would result in removal or large-scale physical 

modifications to several contributing elements to the railroad district, including the Ashland 

Depot and several bridges. Determinations on the structures to be modified as part of the Project 

are ongoing and will be reflected in the final designs. However, based on preliminary data, FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 

5C, 5C–Ashcake, 5D–Ashcake, and 6A through 6G would have a Section 106 adverse effect on 

this property and, because of the physical alterations to contributing elements, could result in a 

Section 4(f) use of the property.2 Among these Build Alternatives, one of the Build Alternatives 

in Alternative Area 1 (Build Alternative 1A, 1B, or 1C) will be required to deliver the service 

proposed in this Draft EIS, and Build Alternatives 2A, 3B, 4A, and 6F are the recommended 

Preferred Alternatives in respective Alternative Areas 2, 3, 4, and 6 as described in Chapter 7 of 

this Draft EIS. 

 

2 Section 11502 (23 U.S.C. 138(f)/49 U.S.C. 303(h)) exempts from Section 4(f) review the use of railroad and rail transit 

lines, or elements thereof, that are in use or that were historically used for the transportation of goods or passengers. 

The exemption applies regardless of whether the railroad or rail transit line, or element thereof, is listed on or is eligible 

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The exemption has two important exceptions: 1) the exemption 

does not apply to rail stations or transit stations; and 2) the exemption does not apply to bridges or tunnels located on 

a rail line that has been abandoned under the process described in 49 U.S.C. 10903 or a transit line that is not in use. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-105 

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) Corridor (127-6251): This is a historic railroad corridor that 

represents the origins and growth of the railroad industry in the Richmond to Petersburg 

corridor. It is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with area transportation 

history. Like the RF&P listed above, construction of the Build Alternatives would result in 

physical modifications or reconstruction of several contributing elements to this railroad district. 

The exact list is pending, but this includes the A-line bridge over the James River and potential 

contributing resources in the Centralia area. Determinations on the structures to be modified as 

part of the Project are ongoing and will be reflected in the final designs. However, based on 

preliminary data, FRA’s preliminary determination is that all Richmond area alternatives (Build 

Alternatives 6A through 6G) would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource and, 

because of the physical alterations to contributing elements, could result in a Section 4(f) use of 

the resource. Build Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 

6 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) Corridor (127-6271): This historic railroad corridor represents 

a competing rail enterprise to the ACL above. It is also eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A 

for its association with area transportation history. Similar to the ACL, work associated with 

improvements to the S-Line would include modifications to contributing elements to this 

resource, such as Main Street Station, the S-Line bridge over the James River, and other road and 

rail structures south of Richmond. Determinations on the structures to be modified as part of the 

undertaking are ongoing and will be reflected in the final designs. However, based on 

preliminary data, FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6A through 6G 

would have a Section 106 adverse effect on this resource and, because of the physical alterations 

to contributing elements, could result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic property. Build 

Alternative 6F is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 6 as described in 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. 

5.5 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES 

A feasible and prudent avoidance alternative avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not 

cause other severe problems of a magnitude that substantially outweigh the importance of 

protecting the Section 4(f) property. In assessing the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) 

property, it is appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource to the preservation 

purpose of the statute. An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound 

engineering judgment. An alternative is not prudent if: 

 It compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project 

in light of its stated purpose and need; 

 It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; 

 After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: 

– Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; 

– Severe disruption to established communities; 

– Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; or 

– Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes; 

 It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary 

magnitude; 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-106 

 It causes other unique problems or unusual factors; or 

 It involves multiple factors that, while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique 

problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 

If FRA concludes that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section 4(f) 

property, then it may approve only the alternative that causes the least overall harm in light of 

the statute's preservation purpose. The least overall harm is determined by balancing the 

following factors: 

 The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any 

measures that result in benefits to the property); 

 The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, 

attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection; 

 The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

 The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

 The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

 After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not 

protected by Section 4(f); and 

 Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

An avoidance alternative for an individual Section 4(f) resource used by the Project must be 

evaluated within the area of the Project where the resource is located. An avoidance alternative 

must not impact other Section 4(f) resources. The recommended Preferred Alternative will be 

comprised of a recommended Preferred Alternative option within each alternative area. 

Avoidance alternatives are not required when a finding of de minimis use is made for Section 4(f) 

resources because Section 4(f) is satisfied once de minimis applies. 

The following sections discuss the resources for which FRA recommends there is Section 4(f) use 

with one or more of the proposed Build Alternatives. The resources are discussed by the overall 

corridor first and then by Build Alternatives in alternative areas 1 through 6. 

5.5.1 Summary of Preliminary Section 4(f) Use Determinations 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that there are up to 14 historic resources for which one or 

more of the Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use. None of these Section 4(f) 

resources is along Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, or 2A. There are two historic resources along 

Build Alternative 3B (Fredericksburg) with a potential Section 4(f) use. There are no feasible and 

prudent avoidance alternatives in Alternative Area 3. Depending on the resource, Build 

Alternatives 3A and 3C would be avoidance alternatives; however, Build Alternative 3A does not 

meet the Project Purpose and Need and Build Alternative 3C is not prudent and feasible due to 

extensive impacts and substantial costs. There are two historic resources with a potential Section 

4(f) use along Build Alternative 4A. No avoidance alternatives were identified with Build 

Alternative 4A; therefore, the No Build Alternative would be the avoidance alternative. The No 

Build Alternative does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. Two resources along Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D-Ashcake have a potential Section 4(f) use. Build 

Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5C, and 5C–Ashcake would not result in a Section 4(f) use and, as 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-107 

such, would be the avoidance alternatives within this area. There are seven resources in 

Alternative Area 6 with a potential Section 4(f) use along one or more of the Build Alternatives. 

Due to extensive resources in Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), there is no avoidance alternative 

that would avoid all potential Section 4(f) use other than the No Build Alternative. The No Build 

Alternative does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. The RF&P Railroad extends through all 

six alternative areas. There is no avoidance alternative for this resource other than the No Build 

Alternative, which does not meet the Project Purpose and Need. 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternatives 2A, 3B, 4A, and 6F as the recommended 

Preferred Alternatives in their respective alternative areas along the Project corridor. This Draft 

EIS does not identify a recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Areas 1 and 5. With 

the identification of recommended Preferred Alternatives in Areas 2, 3, 4 and 6, while remaining 

undetermined in Areas 1 and 5, FRA’s preliminary determination is that there are up to 14 historic 

resources for which one or more Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use upon 

publication of this Draft EIS. 

5.5.2 Entire DC2RVA Corridor 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac Railroad (076-0301): Given that the historic RF&P 

Railroad corridor extends between the Potomac River on the north and Main Street Station on the 

south, FRA’s preliminary determination is that there is a permanent Section 4(f) use with all Build 

Alternatives in all six of the alternative areas with the exception of Build Alternatives 3A and 5A. 

Build Alternatives 3A and 5A do not add additional track or modify any structures within the 

existing rail corridor, but they do not comprise a complete alternative; therefore, they would not 

meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. 

A total avoidance alternative is the only alternative that would avoid all Section 4(f) uses within 

the corridor. The only total avoidance alternative would be to not use the existing rail line, and 

this would not be feasible and prudent due to cost and extensive impacts to the human and 

natural environment. 

5.5.3 Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would not result in a 

Section 4(f) use, other than de minimis, for any resources other than the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) 

discussed in Section 5.5.2. 

5.5.4 Build Alternative 2A 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 2A would not result in a Section 4(f) 

use, other than de minimis, for any resources other than the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed 

in Section 5.5.2. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 2A as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 2 of the Project corridor. 

5.5.5 Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3A would not result in a Section 4(f) 

use. Build Alternative 3B would result in a Section 4(f) use from two historic resources. Build 

Alternative 3B is the recommended Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 3 as described in 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-108 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS. Build Alternative 3C does not result in any Section 4(f) uses and, as 

such, would be the avoidance alternative within Area 3; however, Build Alternative 3C is not a 

feasible and prudent alternative because it results in extensive impacts to wetlands, residential 

and commercial properties, and substantially higher costs and the cultural resource study only 

provided preliminary data. In addition to these historic resources, FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that the Build Alternatives 3B and 3C also include certain de minimis uses of 

Section 4(f) resources, and Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C include use of the RF&P Railroad 

(076-0301) discussed in Section 5.5.2. 

RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080): This is the existing railroad bridge over Naomi Road. 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 3B would result in a Section 4(f) use of 

this resource. Avoidance alternatives must not modify the existing structure at all (including not 

adding an abutting structure) or not add an additional track. Build Alternatives 3A and 3C are 

avoidance alternatives for this resource. Build Alternative 3A is not a prudent and feasible 

alternative as it does not meet the Purpose and Need of the Project. Build Alternative 3C is not a 

feasible and prudent alternative because it results in extensive impacts to wetlands, residential 

and commercial properties, and substantially higher costs. Build Alternative 3B is the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 3 as described in Chapter 7 of this Draft 

EIS and would result in a use of this resource. 

Site 44SP0187: This archaeological site is located under the existing bridge and FRA’s preliminary 

determination is that Build Alternative 3B would result in a Section 4(f) use due to construction of a 

new bridge. There are no other avoidance alternatives other than utilizing a new alignment, not 

modifying the existing structure at all (including not adding an abutting structure), or not adding an 

additional track. The avoidance alternatives are Build Alternatives 3A and 3C as discussed above. 

Build Alternative 3A is not a prudent and feasible alternative as it does not meet the Purpose and 

Need of the Project. Build Alternative 3C is not a feasible and prudent alternative because it results in 

extensive impacts to wetlands, residential and commercial properties, and has substantially higher 

costs. Build Alternative 3B is the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 3 as 

described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS and would result in a use of this resource. 

5.5.6 Build Alternative 4A 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 4A would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of two historic resources along the existing tracks. In addition to these historic resources, FRA’s 

preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 4A also includes certain de minimis uses of 

Section 4(f) resources, as well as use of the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed in Section 5.5.2. 

Build Alternative 4A is the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 4 as 

described in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS and would result in a use of these resources. 

Doswell Historic District (042-5448): Because the district is located on both sides of the existing 

tracks, there is no avoidance alternative other than the No Build Alternative. The No Build 

Alternative is not a prudent and feasible alternative because it does not meet the Purpose and 

Need of the Project. 

Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470): This resource is located within the Doswell Historic 

District. Impacts to individually eligible historic resources within the district were minimized to the 

greatest extent feasible. Any shifts to avoid this resource would result in impacts to other resources. 

Similar to the Doswell Historic District, there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-109 

5.5.7 Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 

5D–Ashcake 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

which add a third track through Ashland, would result in a Section 4(f) use of two historic resources 

along the existing tracks. Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5C, and 5C–Ashcake, which do not 

add a third track through Ashland, would not result in a Section 4(f) use of these resources and, as 

such, would be the avoidance alternatives within this segment. In addition to these historic 

resources, FRA’s preliminary determination is that the Build Alternatives in Alternative Area 5, 

with the exception of Build Alternative 5A, also include certain de minimis uses of Section 4(f) 

resources, as well as use, or de minimis use, of the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed in Section 

5.5.2. This Draft EIS does not identify a recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 

5; therefore, FRA will defer determination of use of the resources in this area to the Final EIS. 

Ashland Historic District (166-0001): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, which add a third track through Ashland, would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of this historic district. The historic district is located on both sides of the existing 

tracks. Build Alternatives 5A and 5A–Ashcake, which do not add additional track, and Build 

Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake, which are a bypass on new alignment, would be the avoidance 

alternatives. 

Ashland Station Depot (166-0001-0008): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake, which add a third track through Ashland, would 

result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. Build Alternatives 5A and 5A–Ashcake, which do not 

add additional track, and Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake, which are a bypass on new 

alignment, would be the avoidance alternatives. 

5.5.8 Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternative 6A would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of three historic resources; Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6C would result in a Section 4(f) use 

of four historic resources; Build Alternative 6B–S-Line would result in the highest number of 

Section 4(f) uses of seven historic resources; Build Alternatives, 6D, 6F, and 6G would result in a 

Section 4(f) use of six historic resources; and Build Alternative 6E would result in a Section 4(f) 

use of two historic resources. 

Due to the extensive resources in Alternative Area 6, there is no avoidance alternative that would 

avoid all Section 4(f) use other than the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative does not 

meet the Project Purpose and Need and, therefore, is neither feasible nor prudent. Chapter 7 of 

this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred Alternative for 

Alternative Area 6, which includes certain use, or de minimis use, of Section 4(f) resources 

described below, as well as use of the RF&P Railroad (076-0301) discussed in Section 5.5.2.

Science Museum of Virginia (127-0226): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C, which serve new stations on either Boulevard or 

Broad Street, would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource due to the new Broad Street station 

or installation of new structures with accompanying new road patterns. All other Build 

Alternatives would result in no use. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as 

the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6; therefore, use of this resource 

would be avoided. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-110 

Main Street Station and Trainshed (127-0172): FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build 

Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, and 6C could result in a Section 4(f) use to this resource 

due to the discontinuation of passenger rail service at the station. Build Alternatives 6D, 6F, and 

6G would result in a Section 4(f) use to this resource due to physical alterations of the station. 

Build Alternative 6E would result in de minimis impacts. There is no prudent and feasible 

avoidance alternative for this resource. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F 

as the recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of 

this resource. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1095: These sites would be impacted due to piers for new 

Main Street Station platforms. FRA’s preliminary determination is that Build Alternatives 6B–SLine, 6D, 6F, and 6G, which expand intercity passenger rail service at Main Street Station, would 

result in a Section 4(f) use to these three resources. All other Build Alternatives would result in 

no use or de minimis impacts. There is no prudent and feasible avoidance alternative for these 

resources. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended 

Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. 

Atlantic Coast Line (ACL) Railroad Corridor (127-6251): FRA’s preliminary determination is that 

all Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. There is no avoidance 

alternative. Although use of the S-Line would minimize impacts to the A-Line, impacts to the ALine cannot be avoided. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the 

recommended Preferred Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this 

resource. 

Seaboard Air Line (SAL) Railroad Corridor (127-6271): FRA’s preliminary determination is that all 

Build Alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. There is no avoidance alternative. 

Although use of the A-Line would minimize impacts to the S-Line, impacts to the S-Line cannot be 

avoided. Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred 

Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. 

5.6 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

Section 4(f), as applied by FRA and in this document, requires a description of the measures 

undertaken to minimize harm where the preferred alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use. 

Minimization measures are not required when a finding of de minimis use is made for Section 4(f) 

resources because Section 4(f) is satisfied once de minimis applies. 

FRA’s preliminary determination is that all impacts to parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife 

refuges will result in de minimis impacts; therefore, no further minimization measures are 

required. 

Eleven historic resources located along the recommended Preferred Alternative wherein a Section 

4(f) use would occur were evaluated to minimize harm by the Project (presented below in north 

to south order). The minimization measures presented here only comprise efforts to date and do 

not represent the full suite of measures that will ultimately be undertaken by the Project during 

final design. They represent consultation to date based on coordination with FRA, DHR, 

cooperating agencies, and consulting parties. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-111 

5.6.1 RF&P Bridge over Naomi Road (089-0080) 

This is the existing railroad bridge over Naomi Road, located within the APE for Build Alternative 

3B. The current bridge is a double-vault arched structure constructed in 1931. Designs associated 

with the recommended Preferred Alternative require the replacement of this structure, resulting 

in a Section 4(f) use. Project engineers explored numerous options to incorporate the existing 

structure into the Project design, including reinforcing the current structure, widening the 

structure, and encasing the structure within a new bridge system; none of these options met 

engineering standards and safety protocols required by the Project design. Mitigation for the use 

of this structure, inclusive of all comments received from cooperating agencies and consulting 

parties, will be included in the Project Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The mitigation 

stipulations will outline steps to minimize harm. 

5.6.2 Site 44SP0187 (Stone Piers) 

Site 44SP0187 comprises a set of stone piers located within and directly adjacent to the 

Rappahannock River, just east of the rail trestle, in Fredericksburg. The piers may represent a mill 

once located in this area or be associated with the pre-1927 rail bridge, but additional research is 

needed to determine their exact use. The footprint of the site overlaps with the construction 

footprint for the new Rappahannock River rail bridge required as part of Build Alternative 3B. 

Construction of the bridge, and more specifically the approach to the structure, would physically 

impact significant archaeological deposits. Project engineers inspected alternatives to the currently 

designed bridge and approach to minimize harm to this archaeological site; however, other 

approaches caused greater disturbances to nearby historic properties. The footprint of the impact 

was lessened to the greatest extent possible to minimize impacts on the site. Mitigation of the 

impacts will be included in the MOA, likely to include additional archival research and a data 

recovery excavation. 

5.6.3 Doswell Historic District (042-5448) 

The Doswell Historic District is located at the intersection of the main rail corridor (historic RF&P) 

and the Buckingham Branch Railroad as part of Build Alternative 4A. The community developed 

around the two railroads, including a store, a bank, an inn, and numerous dwellings. The current 

rail station and associated track house were built in 1929. The district straddles the extant rail line 

and, as such, the Project runs through the center of the district. Project engineers have worked 

closely in this area to refine Project plans to minimize impacts to the district. Original design 

concepts ranged from a rail bridge spanning the historic district to enlarging the intersection to 

accommodate additional rail traffic. The engineering team conducted charrettes on the design of 

the rail in this location attended by DRPT. The resulting plans are greatly reduced and minimize 

the footprint in this area to the maximum extent practicable. Plans for utilities were also 

minimized to limit impacts. 

Despite these efforts, the rail would be widened on the east side of the railroad right-of-way in the 

vicinity of Squashapenny Junction Store—the original general store for the Doswell community. The 

store was purposefully built directly adjacent to the tracks to facilitate the movement of goods to and 

from the rail cars that stopped at the nearby station. Widening of the rails may require removal of the 

store or an associated outbuilding, which is a contributing element to the historic district. DRPT held 

meetings with the public to discuss the current design on June 1-3, 2015, and December 8-10, 2015. In 

addition, Hanover County is a consulting party to the Project, and their comments have been solicited 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-112 

for the cultural resource studies. Their comments, as well as those of all other consulting parties and 

cooperating agencies, will be included in the development of the Project MOA. The stipulations 

outlined to mitigate adverse effects will highlight efforts to minimize harm. 

5.6.4 Squashapenny Junction Store (042-0470) 

Squashapenny Junction Store, as mentioned above, is located in the Doswell Historic District as 

part of Build Alternative 4A. It is immediately east of the extant rail tracks and north of Doswell 

Road. The store property was designed to abut the rail tracks and face onto the main road through 

town to maximize exposure and accessibility for rail passengers and goods arriving by the rail 

system. Although DRPT has thoroughly revisited the design schematics for this area to minimize 

impacts, the limits of disturbance still extend onto the Squashapenny property, and relocation of 

the store is possible. A new utility line may also be installed under a contributing outbuilding 

and through the western edge of the property. Original plans for the Project included removal of 

the outbuilding for utility installation, but avoidance plans are now underway to minimize the 

impacts to the built environment. 

As with the larger Doswell Historic District, discussions are ongoing with the public and 

consulting parties regarding additional ways to minimize harm to this resource. The historic 

property will be included in the Project MOA, and stipulations to mitigate any adverse effects 

will be clearly outlined. 

5.6.5 Site 44HE1098 (Main Street Station Parking) and Site 44HE1097 (Railroad, 

Warehouse) 

Both of these resources are archaeological sites located within and adjacent to the west side of 

Main Street Station. They are currently covered in pavement and used as parking lots. The exact 

details of the subsurface integrity of the sites, as well as their temporal associations, are not 

known; additional research is needed. These two sites will be impacted by construction associated 

with Build Alternative 6F, the recommended Preferred Alternative identified in Chapter 7 of this 

Draft EIS, which requires new structural supports for an expanded rail platform. Construction of 

the supports will require subsurface disturbances within the mapped boundary of each site, thus 

removing significant archaeological data. Project engineers have worked to minimize the 

footprint of each structural support and place the supports as close to the existing structural 

system as possible. These actions have minimized the footprint of the Project impacts on these 

sites, but disturbances are still anticipated. Mitigation of the impacts will be included in the MOA, 

likely to include additional archival research and a data recovery excavation. 

5.6.6 Main Street Station Trainshed (127-0172) 

Main Street Station was built in 1901 as the main terminal for the SAL, a competitor to the ACL. 

Both lines ran from Richmond to Florida during the first half of the twentieth century, capitalizing 

on America’s desire for travel during this period. The property includes the Beaux Arts-style 

station as well as the associated trainshed, platform, and other landscape elements. Build 

Alternative 6F, the recommended Preferred Alternative identified in Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, 

has the potential to diminish the characteristics that render this property eligible for the NRHP 

due to modifications to the building, platform, trainshed, and other contributing elements. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-113 

The area around Main Street Station was the subject of numerous meetings between the Project team, 

the City of Richmond, other cooperating agencies, consulting parties, and the public. Build 

Alternative 6F would minimize harm to this historic property as it will have the least amount of 

impacts to this resource. In addition, Project engineers worked to minimize the extent of the changes 

to the resource and its contributing elements by making the footprint of the changes as minimal as 

possible, reducing the size of the new platforms as they could, and committing to include specific 

design criteria in the final designs to minimize harm to this resource. Stipulations related to this 

resource will be included in the Project MOA, including mitigating effects to the resource and criteria 

to ensure a sympathetic design to any new construction associated with this resource. 

5.6.7 Site 44HE1095 (Storage Facility) 

Site 44HE1095 is located south of Main Street Station. The site represents a possible 

warehouse/storage facility dating to the nineteenth century. Additional research is needed to 

determine its exact use and temporal association. The site will be impacted by construction 

associated with Build Alternative 6F, the recommended Preferred Alternative identified in 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS, which requires new structural supports for an expanded rail platform. 

Construction of the supports will require subsurface disturbances within the mapped boundary 

of the site, thus disturbing significant archaeological deposits. Project engineers have worked to 

minimize the footprint of each structural support. While these actions have minimized the 

footprint of the Project impacts on the site, disturbances to significant archaeological deposits are 

still anticipated. Mitigation of the impacts will be included in the MOA, likely to include 

additional archival research and a data recovery excavation. 

5.6.8 Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad (076-0301) 

The recommended Preferred Alternative is parallel to, and in some instances encapsulates, the 

historic RF&P Railroad corridor between the Potomac River on the north and Main Street Station 

on the south. The design team has minimized impacts on the extant rail corridor to the maximum 

extent practicable through retention of the general alignment, maintenance of existing tracks, and 

minimizing the limits of disturbance (LOD) outside of the current right-of-way. Project impacts 

come through replacement of several contributing bridges and culverts—replacements that are 

required to bring the alignment in compliance with current safety standards and operational 

protocols. Steps to mitigate the adverse impacts will be stated in the Section 106 MOA. 

5.6.9 Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL) Corridor (127-6251) 

The ACL Corridor includes the linear railroad footprint from what was Broad Street Station (now 

the Science Museum of Virginia) to the south to cross the James River. It merged with the main 

line in Centralia and continued to Florida. Today, this is referred to as the “A-Line.” The ACL 

and SAL (see below) merged in 1967. Like the RF&P, the rail corridor as a historic property 

includes the rail alignment itself, as well as numerous bridges, culverts, track houses, rail stations, 

and more. DRPT has sought out engineering solutions to avoid or minimize impacts to 

contributing elements to the rail district; however, due to the nature of the current Project—

parallel to this historic rail alignment—some impacts will be unavoidable. In order to meet 

modern safety standards and proposed operational functions, all of the alternatives will require 

removal or replacement of some elements, most notably bridges and culverts, that contribute to 

the significance of this resource. FRA’s preliminary determination is that improvements 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-114 

associated with Build Alternatives 6A through 6G will result in a use of the ACL Corridor. 

Chapter 7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred 

Alternative for Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. Minimization of the 

adverse effects will be outlined in the Project MOA. 

5.6.10 Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) Corridor (127-6271) 

The SAL was a competing company to the ACL. This operation also ran between Richmond and 

Florida, commencing at Main Street Station and crossing the James River, then running parallel to 

the ACL before veering west in Petersburg. When the ACL and SAL merged in 1967, trains for the 

new company operated out of both Broad Street Station and Main Street Station and shared the 

same tracks. Known today as the “S-Line,” this historic property is composed of the rail itself, 

stations, track houses, and structures. As with the RF&P and the ACL, DRPT vigorously sought to 

minimize harm by narrowing the LOD where possible, maintaining historic bridges, and reusing 

the extant corridor. Despite these efforts, several structures—and Main Street Station itself—

require modifications to meet ridership needs and safety features. As such, avoidance of all 

contributing elements is not possible. FRA’s preliminary determination is that improvements 

associated with Build Alternatives 6A through 6G will result in a use of the SAL Corridor. Chapter 

7 of this Draft EIS identifies Build Alternative 6F as the recommended Preferred Alternative for 

Alternative Area 6, which will result in a use of this resource. Due to the adverse effect/use of the 

property, the Project MOA will contain stipulations to mitigate the harm. 

5.7 COORDINATION 

DRPT coordinated with numerous property owners and officials with jurisdiction over resources 

protected under Section 4(f) and further coordination will take place as necessary. Additional 

coordination with owners and officials with jurisdiction over impacted parkland and recreational 

areas will take place after issuance of the Draft EIS. If FRA determines that the Project will result 

in a Section 4(f) use and there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, FRA will provide 

individual Section 4(f) evaluations to the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) Office of 

Environmental Compliance and Policy for review and concurrence with the Final EIS. 

5.7.1 Consulting Parties 

While FRA continued to be the primary point of contact for all federally recognized tribes, FRA 

delegated state agency and consulting party coordination to DRPT in 2014. As such, DRPT sent 

invitation letters to agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders in the Section 106 

consultation process. FRA sent a letter to the one federally recognized tribe along the DC2RVA 

corridor⎯Pamunkey Indian Tribe. Table 5.7-1 provides information on the 39 distributed 

consulting party invitations. Of these, 14 have elected to participate in the process; Table 5.7-1 

lists these groups, along with their response dates. For an additional six, DRPT assumed that they 

would want to participate and has treated them as consulting parties. Although a formal response 

was not received from these six groups, they have requested participation on similar projects and 

have shown a noted interest in the current undertaking through telephone calls or attendance at 

associated meetings. These six are noted by “assumed yes” in the table on the next page. 
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-115 

Table 5.7-1: List of Invited Consulting Parties 

Stakeholder Invite Letter Date Response (Date) 

American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−Fredericksburg January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−National Capital Region January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

Quantico Marine Corps Base January 6, 2015 Assumed Yes 

NPS−Washington-Rochambeau NHT January 22, 2015 Assumed Yes 

Pamunkey Indian Tribe1 April 17, 2017 Assumed Yes 

City of Fredericksburg January 6, 2015 Yes (January 12, 2015) 

NPS−Richmond January 6, 2015 Yes (January 14, 2015) 

Arlington County January 6, 2015 Yes (January 14, 2015) 

City of Richmond January 6, 2015 Yes (January 16, 2015) 

Alexandria Archaeology January 6, 2015 Yes (January 21, 2015) 

Ashland Museum January 6, 2015 Yes (January 21, 2015) 

NPS−Captain John Smith Chesapeake NHT January 6, 2015 Yes (January 22, 2015) 

Central Virginia Battlefields Trust January 6, 2015 Yes (January 22, 2015) 

Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. January 6, 2015 Yes (January 9, 2015) 

Civil War Trust January 6, 2015 Yes (February 11, 2015) 

Prince William County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 13, 2015) 

Caroline County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 3, 2015) 

Hanover County January 6, 2015 Yes (February 3, 2015) 

NPS−Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail January 22, 2015 Yes (March 4, 2015) 

City of Alexandria January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Fairfax County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Henrico County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Spotsylvania County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Stafford County January 6, 2015 No reply received 

ACL & SAL Railroad Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Center for Neighborhood Revitalization January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Arlington Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Caroline Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Chesterfield Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Hanover County Historical Society, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Henrico County Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Alexandria Foundation January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Prince William, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Historic Richmond Foundation January 6, 2015 Yes (December 2016) 

Historical Society of Fairfax County, Virginia, Inc. January 6, 2015 No reply received 

National Trust for Historic Preservation January 6, 2015 Yes (December 22, 2016) 

Stafford County Historical Society January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Catawba Indian Tribe January 6, 2015 No reply received 

Note: 1. The letter to the Pamunkey Indian Tribe was sent by FRA. The Pamunkey were not a federally recognized tribe at the time the initial 

letters were disseminated. They were recognized at a later date, at which time the FRA invited them to participate. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-116 

5.7.2 Meetings 

DRPT has held several in-person and telephone-based meetings with DHR, ACHP, and other 

consulting parties. They included a Section 106 kick- off and several follow-up meetings to update 

participating agencies and parties on the Project initiation; determination of APE; cultural resource 

methodology for the reconnaissance predictive model, identification surveys, and evaluation 

studies; survey results; Project effect on historic properties; stipulations to mitigate adverse effects; 

and crafting the Project MOA. Table 5.7-2 highlights the meetings held with these groups. 

Table 5.7-2: Section 106 and Section 4(f) Meetings 

Date Attendees Topics 

November 7, 2014 DHR, DRPT Kick-off meeting; discussions on APE, methodology, reporting 

March 19, 2015 VDOT, DRPT Roadway bridges and Section 106 coordination 

February 18, 2016 DHR Update on corridor and status of studies 

June 14, 2016 Civil War Trust General discussion on results to date; Richmond to Raleigh 

Memorandum of Agreement 

August 10, 2016 DHR Preliminary dialogue on historic properties and project effect 

TBD FRA, DRPT, DHR Project PA; mitigation of adverse effects 

TBD FRA, DRPT, Consulting Parties, DHR, 

ACHP 

Review of studies and discussion of historic properties and 

Project effect 

5.7.3 Correspondence 

Since the Project’s initiation, repeated correspondence has occurred between DRPT and the 

cultural resource agencies, localities, and consulting parties to keep them informed on the 

progress of the studies, resource eligibility, and the Project’s potential effects on historic 

properties, and DRPT will continue to hold meetings at milestones or as necessary throughout 

the Project. In particular, meetings and e-mail exchanges with DHR have occurred regularly to 

provide information on Project plans. Data on the study results in specific Project areas were also 

sent to corresponding consulting parties to garner comments on the Project results. The 

architectural reports were posted on the Project’s webpage for general public comment as well. 

The archaeological reports were only distributed to the agencies, localities, and consulting parties 

as requested due to the sensitivity of site location mapping. Table 5.7-3 includes correspondence 

conducted to date and lists the additional anticipated correspondence that will occur at Project 

milestones as required. Copies of relevant correspondence are included in Appendix R, Cultural 

Resources Reports and Appendix U, Section 106 and 4(f) Coordination Documents. 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence 

Date Medium Recipient Topic 

September 25-

October 15, 2014 

E-mail; Letter DHR, FRA, DRPT Initiation of Section 106 Process 

January 5- 

February 2, 2015 

E-mail, Letter DHR, FRA, DRPT Defining Project APE 

June 8, 2015 E-mail VDOT VDOT/DHR PA on Historic Bridges 

June 22, 2015 Letter Civil War Trust, DRPT Receipt of comments on Project screening review 

 Continued
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

 5-117 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence 

Date Medium Recipient Topic 

July 30, 2015 E-mail Consulting Parties, DRPT Distribution of Archaeological Predictive Model 

report for review 

July 17, 2015; 

August 28, 2015 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Archaeological Predictive Model Report; 

DHR Reply 

August 3- 

September 4, 2015 

E-mail Arlington County, City of

Alexandria, Prince William 

County, City of 

Fredericksburg, DRPT 

Receipt of comments on Archaeological IA Predictive

model 

August 28, 2015 E-mail Consulting Parties, DRPT Reminder to submit comments on Predictive Model 

Report 

October 20, 2015; 

December 18, 2015 

Letters NPS (FSNMP) Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) permit 

to dig on federal land (Segment 7) 

December 9, 2015; 

February 5,2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 7); 

DHR Reply 

December 15, 2015 Letter DHR Application to conduct archaeology on state lands

(Segment 11) 

March 18-31, 2016 E-mail; Memo DHR Discussion of alternative methodology for 

architecture in Segment 18 

April 13- 

April 26, 2016 

E-mail David Hamilton (Consulting 

Party), DHR, DRPT, FRA 

Mr. Hamilton is a private property owner along the 

Ashland Bypass. Numerous emails were exchanged

with Mr. Hamilton regarding his concerns, his position 

as a consulting party, and distributing Project data 

May 20, 2016; 

June 8, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 6); 

DHR Reply 

May 31, 2016; 

June 22, 2016 

Letter, 

E-mail 

DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 3); 

DHR Reply 

May 31, 2016; 

June 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 4); 

DHR Reply 

June 21, 2016; 

June 28, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

8-9); DHR Reply 

July 6, 2016; 

July 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 1); 

DHR Reply 

July 6, 2016; 

July 15, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 2); 

DHR Reply 

July 25, 2016; 

August 15, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

10-12); DHR Reply 

December 21, 2016; 

February 21, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 

13); DHR Reply 

August 3, 2016; 

August 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 

14); DHR Reply 

October 21, 2016; 

November 30, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

15, 16, 20); DHR Reply 

November 14, 2016; 

December 22, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segments 

17, 19); DHR Reply 

October 21, 2016; 

November 3, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Segment 

18); DHR Reply 

January 20, 2017; 

March 1, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase I Report (Structures); 

DHR Reply 

February 24, 2017; 

TBD 

E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Architectural Reports for Review; 

Consulting Party Comments 

 Continued
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 5-118 

Table 5.7-3: Project Correspondence 

Date Medium Recipient Topic 

April 14, 2017; TBD Letter Consulting Parties Distribution of All Phase IA and IB Reports for 

Review; Consulting Party Comments 

September 6, 2016; 

October 11, 2016 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Archaeological Phase I Report (Segments 

1-20); DHR Reply 

January 20, 2017; 

February 3, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Phase IA Fredericksburg Bypass Report; 

DHR Reply 

January 6, 2017; 

February 3, 2017 

Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Phase IA Ashland Bypass Report; DHR 

Reply 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of LOD Expansion Areas Report; DHR 

Reply 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of LOD Expansion Areas Report for

Review; Consulting Party Comments 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Architectural Phase II Report; DHR Reply 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Architectural Phase II Report for

Review; Consulting Party Comments 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Project Effects Letter; DHR Reply 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Project Effects Letter for Review; 

Consulting Party Comments 

TBD Letter, E-mail DHR Submittal of Draft MOA for Review 

TBD E-mail Consulting Parties Distribution of Draft MOA for Review; Consulting 

Party Comments 

5.8 FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 

The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be completed for the Final EIS for the Project. Included will 

be an analysis to determine the Preferred Alternative in each of the six alternative areas of the 

Project that has the least overall harm on Section 4(f) resources. All possible planning measures 

to minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources will be undertaken and documented in this evaluation.