CHAPTER 3

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
 3-1 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

The additional information provided in this chapter summarizes the ongoing coordination and 

documentation that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) have conducted since the publication of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in support of the selection process for the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is presented separately in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. 

Each section of this chapter covers a separate topic area that was relevant to the selection of the 

Preferred Alternative: clarifying historical context for communities within the corridor based on 

comments received on the Draft EIS and ongoing cultural resource coordination (Section 3.1); 

documentation of refined operations modeling performed after the publication of the Draft EIS 

(Section 3.2); and summary of community group, agency, and stakeholder considerations in the 

decision-making process (Sections 3.3 through 3.5). 

Note that due to the numerous sources that are provided to the reader in this additional 

information section, detailed technical references to other data sources are provided as footnotes 

at the end of this chapter in lieu of standard page footnotes. 

3.1 COMMUNITY/CORRIDOR HISTORICAL CONTEXT 

This section presents expanded discussions of three areas within the Project corridor: 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond. These discussions expand on the historical context of 

these areas and the relation of the history of these areas to the rail system and the DC2RVA 

Project. The discussions also demonstrate that full understanding of the historical context of these 

areas was taken into consideration in the selection of the Preferred Alternative, as detailed in 

Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. 

Effects of the Preferred Alternative on historic properties are presented separately within this 

Final EIS: Section 5.13 for impacts to archaeological and above-ground cultural and historic 

resources, and Chapter 6 for Section 4(f) implications of the Preferred Alternative. Future work 

to mitigate unavoidable impacts is outlined in a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

for the Project, a draft of which is Appendix K of this Final EIS. 

Background. The 123-mile long Project corridor traverses numerous localities, many of which 

have been thriving communities for centuries. This history has resulted in a densely populated 

corridor that also contains an extensive number of historic buildings, structures, objects, districts, 

and archaeological sites. Rail has been a distinct component in the establishment of “place” 

throughout this development—a backbone of the area economy and culture. The prominence of 

the rail in area heritage was at the forefront of the myriad of studies conducted as part of the 

environmental process for the DC2RVA Project. In addition to meeting state and federal 

3
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-2 

requirements during the study process, additional work was completed beyond the legal 

requirements to ensure that areas of historical significance were taken into consideration during 

all phases of Project planning. 

While every community along the corridor has a story, Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond 

have a specific, unique tie to the rail system physically and socially. The rail corridor is located in 

the center of each of these urbanized areas. The establishment of the rail system was, in large part, 

a distinct component of the development of each of these areas, and the railway continues to be 

a notable factor in area planning and daily life. All aspects of the tangible and intangible historical 

fabric of these localities were taken into consideration during Project planning. 

Content of this Section. The following information is presented for Fredericksburg (Section 

3.1.1), Ashland (Section 3.1.2), and Richmond (Section 3.1.3): 

1. An abbreviated history of each locale 

2. Background review and summary of previous cultural resource studies that have been 

conducted within and adjacent to the rail corridor 

3. Discussion of in-depth review and subsequent analysis of Project alternatives in relation 

to history of the area, recorded resources, and public concerns, including: 

a. The parameters of all Project construction alternatives under consideration 

b. Comments from those with a vested interest in each area regarding Project plans and 

their points of concerns 

4. Summary of efforts to avoid areas of concern to assure preservation in place and, if 

avoidance was not possible, minimize any potential impacts to cultural resources 

5. Potential future studies (i.e., separate from the DC2RVA Project) that can shed more light 

on the significant elements of each place 

As previously stated, it is important to note that effects of the Preferred Alternative on historic 

properties are presented separately in Chapters 5 and 6 of this Final EIS. 

Data Sources. The community and historic contexts presented in the following sections relied in 

part on the cultural resources studies conducted as part of the DC2RVA Project. DRPT has been 

conducting Phase I-level cultural resource studies for the entire 123-mile DC2RVA corridor since 

December 2014. These include Phase IA and Phase IB archaeological surveys, reconnaissancelevel architectural studies, and intensive-level architectural investigations. The findings have 

been detailed in two Phase IA cultural resource reports,1 three archaeology reports,2 15 

architectural reports reconnaissance-level architectural reports,3 and three intensive-level 

architectural reports.4 These technical reports resulted in the recordation of over 3,000 resources, 

and the technical studies are presented in their entirely in Appendix R of the Draft EIS and 

Appendix D of this Final EIS. 

3.1.1 Fredericksburg Area 

3.1.1.1 Abbreviated History of Fredericksburg 

The Fredericksburg portion of the DC2RVA corridor was highlighted as an area of ‘cultural 

resource sensitivity’. In order to understand the history of this region and lay a framework for 

further discussion of the resources present in the area, a brief history of Fredericksburg is 

presented here, including its connection with the railroad. This cursory synopsis of the town’s 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-3 

history is not meant to be comprehensive; more in-depth studies of the historical framework of 

Fredericksburg should be consulted for greater detail.5 

The future site of Fredericksburg was granted to John Buckner and Thomas Royston in 1671. 

Upon granting, they immediately leased the land to William and Sukey Livingston, which is how 

the area became known as The Leaseland from the 1670s through the 1720s.6 The community 

remained a small river enclave, situated at the falls along the Rappahannock River, through the 

first two decades of the eighteenth century. The county seat of Spotsylvania officially moved to 

Fredericksburg on October 1, 1732 for the convenience of citizens and county officials. A 

courthouse was built in town, as well as a church, prison, and other governmental and 

commercial structures.7 The town wharfs also provided the first public river docks in the area. 

Numerous warehouses developed around the Fredericksburg waterfront in the mid-eighteenth 

century to accommodate the new business, most of which were concentrated around what are 

today Sophia and Wolfe Streets. 

The period from the 1780s through the 1820s was marked by a dramatic increase in the shipping 

and milling industry in Fredericksburg and the nearby town of Falmouth. Whereas early 

shipping primarily concentrated on tobacco, by the end of the eighteenth century, soils in the area 

were depleted. Farmers turned to new crops to sustain the family plantations, primarily wheat. 

Grain mills and merchants’ warehouses were erected along the Rappahannock River, and the 

Fredericksburg Canal carried the water necessary to propel the mills’ waterwheels. The 

warehouses held flour, tobacco, and later cotton awaiting shipment as well as imported consumer 

and other goods, and farmers, haulers, and watermen took use of the town’s inns and taverns.8

Although flour export decreased after 1820, Fredericksburg continued to prosper as a port town. 

In 1822, it was made a postal center for distribution of all United States mail to five states, and 

goods from surrounding counties continued to be shipped from the busy wharves.9

Due to this growth and its proximity halfway between Richmond and Washington, D.C., 

Fredericksburg was selected as a stop along the new Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac 

Railroad (RF&P) when it was established in the mid-1830s. On January 23, 1837, the first 

passenger train stopped in Fredericksburg, ushering in a new age of transportation.10 This was 

the temporary northern terminus of the RF&P, as the route north of Fredericksburg was not 

completed for five years. Although trains stopped in town, Fredericksburg did not have a depot 

at that time. Passengers waited on an open platform with no shelter for people or goods. A small, 

one-story wood-framed structure was eventually built in the mid-1850s to function as an anchor 

to the train service in this area. Rail traffic was soon disrupted, though, by one of the most 

significant events in our nation: the Civil War. 

Numerous major Civil War battles occurred within and around Fredericksburg, including the 

First and Second Battles of Fredericksburg, as well as the Battle of Salem Church. The Civil War 

decimated the physical and cultural fabric of the Fredericksburg area. The rail bridge crossing the 

Rappahannock was destroyed, and large segments of tracks were pulled up. Despite the 

destruction, area inhabitants remained in town and were determined to rebuild their lives and 

their homes. Rail traffic was not fully restored until after 1870. 

The population of Fredericksburg grew greatly in the years just after the war. Emancipated slaves 

moved into town looking for employment, and white farmers looked to the area factories and 

commercial businesses for jobs after their farms were destroyed by Federal and Confederate 

troops. The town grew rapidly, becoming the City of Fredericksburg in 1879.11 Traffic along the 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-4 

RF&P was prolific. A new rail station was erected in 1888, and commerce continued to increase 

throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century. 

By 1900, Fredericksburg was a city of 5,068 people.12 The community prospered as industrial 

businesses and schools were opened in the downtown area. This growth once again outpaced the 

antiquated rail facilities. A new station was built in 1910, approximately one block east and one 

block north of the old station, closer to the core of commercial development. 

With the introduction of the automobile, Fredericksburg became an important stop along what 

became Route 1 when the north-south interstate roadway was established. The increase in road 

traffic, combined with a proliferation of rail service, led to numerous accidents and incidents 

along the at-grade tracks through town. It was determined that a raised system of rail tracks 

would expedite rail service and provide a safer environment for residents.13 

Fredericksburg continued to thrive until the mid-1950s when Interstate 95 was built, bypassing 

downtown. The development of the Spotsylvania mall in the 1970s, as well as an increase in 

personal auto usage in the second half of the twentieth century, brought hardships to 

Fredericksburg. The train station closed, and stores were shuttered. It was not until the 

development of the Virginia Rail Express (VRE) in the early 1990s that downtown was once again 

populated. Travelers returned to the rail, and numerous buildings were rehabilitated in the 

downtown core. 

3.1.1.2 Background Review/Summary of Previous Cultural Resource Studies 

Given its unique geographic location along the Fall Line of a major river, the Fredericksburg area 

was an appealing location for both prehistoric and historic peoples. As such, the area is rich with 

above- and below-ground cultural resources. Studies of the above-ground resources that 

constitute Fredericksburg as well as formal and amateur archaeological excavations have been 

occurring in and around the downtown area for decades. 

In 1970, the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132), located along the banks of the 

Rappahannock River, was nominated for NRHP listing. As noted on the NRHP form, the district 

“encompasses an important assemblage of eighteenth, nineteenth, and early-twentieth century 

architectural styles”.14 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. The 

Fredericksburg Historic District was listed in the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR) on March 

2, 1971 and the NRHP on September 22 of the same year; it currently has a period of significance 

of 1727 to 1927. Numerous buildings within the district are individually eligible for, or listed in, 

the NRHP. 

Early investigations of Fredericksburg’s archaeological resources were conducted by the prolific 

advocational archaeologist, Mr. Roy Butler. Mr. Butler recorded and excavated numerous historic 

sites in the Fredericksburg Historic District in the 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, few formal 

reports or project notes exist from his excavations, including details on excavation methodologies 

and artifact analysis from the numerous collections that he unearthed over his amateur career. 

Regardless, Mr. Butler was able to record several sites that were to be destroyed by development, 

thus saving at least the location and site typology data for future researchers. 

Formal archaeological inquiries began in the city in the late 1970s. In 1979, Kimberly Snyder 

conducted a preliminary archaeological investigation of the “Chimneys” House in the 

Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132). Although historic archaeological remains were 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-5 

recovered from the project area, no further cultural resources work was recommended, and the 

location was not recorded as an archaeological site with the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (DHR).15

In 1981, under contract from the City of Fredericksburg, Charles Troup conducted limited 

archival research and a pedestrian reconnaissance to ascertain the potential for intact 

archaeological sites along the Rappahannock River, notably within two areas referred to as the 

Riverfront and the City Dock.16 The project’s goal was to ascertain the amount of flooding and fill 

deposits in these areas and make recommendations on the need for additional archaeological 

study prior to any development. A total of 81 shovel tests and augurs were excavated in both 

areas, leading Mr. Troup to record the entire area bounded by Sophia Street and the 

Rappahannock River, between Charlotte Street on the south and Lewis Street on the North, as an 

archaeological site: 44SP0069. He suggested that historic remains may be present, but that fill was 

deep along the river’s edge. 

Subsequent archaeological work in Fredericksburg in the 1980s and 1990s was conducted and 

sponsored by four sources: Mary Washington College (now the University of Mary Washington 

[UMW]), the National Park Service (NPS), The George Washington Foundation (previously 

known as both The Kenmore Foundation and George Washington’s Fredericksburg Foundation), 

and Harrison and Associates, a local Cultural Resource Management (CRM) group. The Center 

for Historic Preservation at UMW conducted excavations at numerous Fredericksburg locales 

prior to area improvements, including investigations surrounding the masonry wall at the 

Masonic Cemetery in 1992, limited research into the parking lot adjacent to the Visitor’s Center 

on Caroline Street in the late-1980s, and excavations in Market Square and in the square alley on 

and off throughout the 1990s. 

In 1992, UMW archaeologists and historians explored the historical and physical fabric of Blocks 

48 and 49 just south of the railroad tracks in preparation for developments associated with 

parking areas for the new VRE service.17 Recovered artifacts ranged from Archaic-period lithic 

tools to mid-twentieth century domestic debris. The two most prominent occupations were lateeighteenth century domestic and commercial activity and nineteenth century industrial 

occupation.18 Like other large tracts of land in this area, the lots had been virtually abandoned by 

the 1950s when rail travel was on the decline in favor of the automobile. 

From 1995 through 1997, archaeologists from Harrison and Associates, aided by numerous 

volunteers, excavated inside the basement of the Old Stone Warehouse on Sophia Street, however 

no formal report exists summarizing these investigations. The original purpose was to excavate 

soils in areas where new floor supports were to be installed. The archaeologists found that over 

2 feet of silt had accumulated over the original flooring due to two hundred years of flooding 

along the Rappahannock River. Most of the vertical wood supports had completely rotted 

through. As such, the entire basement was excavated to create a stable surface upon which to 

rebuild the flooring supports in the building. Within the many micro-thin strata, archaeologists 

recovered thousands of artifacts that had been washed in with flood waters, including ceramics, 

glass, and metal such as barrel hoops. 

Concurrently to these archaeological projects, the NPS has been sponsoring excavations at 

Chatham and throughout the Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Military Park. Excavations 

have been conducted by NPS staff, various CRM firms, and state universities on both large-scale 

research projects and smaller area development plans. For example, excavations at Willis Hill 

have been conducted by James Madison University, on and off since 2000. Led by archaeologist 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-6 

Clarence Geier, students and professors from the University have been exploring the history and 

occupation of Willis Plantation and parts of Sunken Road, with a special emphasis on the place 

of the plantation and roadbed during the Civil War.19 Other NPS-sponsored projects include 

limited archaeology on the Innis House on Sunken Road and several small, utility-based projects 

in the Chancellorsville, Wilderness, Salem Church and Fredericksburg battlefields. 

In 1999, the Center for Historic Preservation at Mary Washington College completed 

archaeological excavations at the "Fielding Lewis Store" (111-0132-0033) at 1200 Caroline Street.20

Investigations focused on determining the building’s date of construction and understanding the 

sequence of alterations to the structure. No secure archaeological context was found that could 

firmly indicate the date of construction; however, artifacts and construction materials indicated 

it was built between 1740 and 1770. Various building features and materials recovered from 

excavations helped to understand the sequence of construction and provided clues as to the 

interpretation of the uses of the Fielding Lewis Store. 

Cultural Resources, Inc. (CRI) conducted a Phase I survey of the 29.3-acre Cobblestone Square 

Apartments south of Lafayette Boulevard within the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0009).21

The investigation identified one archaeological site, 44SP0451, which was defined as an 

ephemeral lithic scatter and was recommended not eligible for NRHP listing. 

In 2006, archaeologists from Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted Phase I—

Phase III large-scale investigations at the proposed Marriott hotel site at the corner of Caroline 

and Charlotte Streets. The work involved extensive archival research, historic map overlays, 

several months of archaeological fieldwork, and the production of a report on the investigations. 

In sum, the team uncovered the remains of Roger Dixon’s store (mid-eighteenth century), the 

Indian Queen Tavern (1771–1832), a likely slave quarter (1830s), and post-1830s domestic 

residences. In addition, the group collected tens of thousands of artifacts that spanned 

Fredericksburg’s entire occupation, from prehistoric inhabitants to today’s residents.22

On behalf of DHR, Dovetail conducted a metal detector survey of the proposed UMW—Lee Hall 

addition site in Fredericksburg, Virginia in March 2006.23 The survey included an examination of 

approximately 24,000 square feet through a pedestrian survey, surface observation and metal 

detecting. The metal detector survey did not locate any historic artifacts. In addition, no artifacts 

or features were noted on the surface. 

The William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research (WMCAR) conducted a 

reconnaissance-level architectural, cost-share survey sponsored by the City of Fredericksburg in 

partnership with DHR in 2008.24 The survey concentrated on the historic district and adjacent 

areas, and its purpose was to provide information and a NRHP eligibility recommendation for 

the existing listed historic district (Fredericksburg Historic District, 111-0132). Over a two-year 

period when the agreement between the City and DHR was established, a total of 1,000 resources 

were identified and surveyed. These resources included domestic, commercial, industrial, 

religious, social, governmental, and many more types of resources “related to the Settlement to 

Society Period through the New Dominion Period”.25 Nine hundred forty-two resources were 

recommended to be contributing to the Fredericksburg Historic District Extension (111-0009) 

under Criterion A for their overall contribution to the broad patterns of history and Criterion C 

for their contribution to the architectural integrity of the district. WMCAR recommended that a 

number of commercial blocks within the historic district expansion could benefit from state and 

federal rehabilitation tax credits. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-7 

In 2011, History Matters, LLC and Thunderbird Archeology conducted a Phase I cultural resource 

investigation of the 3.5-mile Virginia Central Railroad Trail project located within the City of 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County.26 During this survey, 23 historic resources were 

identified within the indirect APE, 11 of which are contributing resources to the historic and 

architectural integrity of the Fredericksburg Historic District Extension (111-0009). Among these 

resources within the indirect and direct APE for this project was the Virginia Central Railroad 

Historic District (VCRHD) (088-5346), a potentially eligible historic district under NRHP 

Criterion A for contribution to the broad patterns of history within Fredericksburg. Ten historic 

resources were identified within the direct APE and are contributing resource to the VCRHD, 

including archaeological sites and several structures related to the railroad. Two of the four 

archaeological sites are historic, previously recorded sites (44SP0142 and 44SP0159) contain 

culverts and piers related to the rail bed and are considered potentially eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. One site (44SP0211) has no eligibility determination but also contains a portion of the 

extant rail bed. During this project, they also recorded one newly recorded archaeological site 

(44SP0639), a multi-component site that extends across the VCRHD. 

Dovetail, HFFI, the City of Fredericksburg, Silver Companies, CRI, and the Fredericksburg Area 

Museum and Cultural Center joined together to perform a volunteer dig at the site of the EllisBell Stoneware Kiln, which culminated in a 2014 report summarizing the results of the 

excavation.27 Based on archaeological work done by Dovetail in 2007 at the Fredericksburg 

Hardware Site, archaeologists conducted salvage archaeology in a previously inaccessible area of 

the hardware store lot to uncover the remains of an 1820s stoneware kiln. Although it was 

discovered that the kiln itself had been destroyed when a warehouse was built on the lot in 1849, 

the team gathered thousands of waster fragments of stoneware to highlight the antebellum 

ceramic industry in Fredericksburg.28

Over the course of three separate investigations carried out on behalf of the City of 

Fredericksburg from 2013 to 2017, Dovetail conducted archival research and archaeological 

investigations on a portion of the former Prince Hall Lodge site (44SP0069-0001), located within 

the proposed Riverfront Park in Fredericksburg. In August 2013, the City commenced cultural 

resource studies of the entire proposed Riverfront Park, located along Sophia Street in downtown 

Fredericksburg.29 As part of this work, Dovetail conducted archival research and an intensive 

Phase I-level survey of the 3.5-acre park area, including the Prince Hall Lodge site. During the 

archaeological survey, 12 backhoe trenches and four test units were excavated within the project 

area to ascertain the integrity of subsurface deposits. The results proved that the project area 

contains numerous sections that are highly archaeologically sensitive, as well as several areas that 

are disturbed or covered in extensive fill. In 2015, Fredericksburg City Council approved 

demolition of the Prince Hall Masonic Lodge at 609 Sophia Street, the only extant building within 

the proposed Riverfront Park. The Lodge, constructed in 1921, sat atop a mound. The mound was 

once located in the rear yard of the Rowe-Goolrick House, which became the site of 609 Sophia 

Street. The mound was a natural landscape feature and was utilized by historic residents (and 

Civil War soldiers) for its topographic vantage point. Demolition of the building in September 

2015 resulted in a void in the earthen mound left by the building’s basement. Construction 

activities associated with the building demolition and filling of the basement resulted in the 

unexpected removal of a substantial portion of the earthen mound itself—an area partially 

deemed archaeologically sensitive during the Phase I survey and containing numerous 

archaeological features. Salvage archaeology was thus conducted on the site, where the team 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-8 

identified eight truncated archaeological features and recovered over 5,000 artifacts spanning all 

periods of the site’s occupation from prehistoric times through the late-nineteenth century.30

Finally, as aforementioned, DRPT conducted Phase I and Phase II cultural resource studies in the 

Fredericksburg area as part of the current rail Project. Archaeological studies included Phase IA 

and Phase IB surveys of the DC2RVA corridor, which included background review, historic 

research, GIS-based predictive modelling, and field investigations.31 These studies noted the 

presence of three previously recorded resources within the APE within Fredericksburg: 44SP0187, 

44SP0687, and 44SP0688.32 DC2RVA architectural studies in Fredericksburg included a Phase I 

investigation that encompassed a portion of the corridor from Dahlgren to Fredericksburg.33 In 

this portion of the APE, the team surveyed 271 historic architectural resources, of which 146 were 

previously recorded and 125 were newly recorded historic resources. These resources included 

battlefields, historic districts, sites, and individual properties. Based on this Phase I study and 

updates to the APE following the Draft EIS, Phase II architectural evaluations were completed 

and included 12 resources within Fredericksburg.34 

3.1.1.3 Discussion of In-Depth Review and Subsequent Analysis of Project 

Alternatives in Relation to History of the Area, Recorded Resources, and 

Public Concerns 

Potential impacts to cultural resources were considered at various stages in the alternatives 

development and selection process for the DC2RVA Project. Starting at the inception of the 

environmental study in 2014, cultural resources were at the forefront of the Project dialogue. The 

Project was initiated with DHR in November 2014 through a formal letter and a kick-off meeting. 

Since that time, almost 20 in-person meetings and dozens of phone calls have occurred between 

DHR, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), FRA, and DRPT. All aspects of the 

Project design have been through thorough review to assure that cultural resources have been 

recorded and considered during Project planning through open and ongoing dialogues between 

cultural resource specialists and engineers to ensure that design plans accommodate cultural 

resource concerns. 

Details on the Project have also been shared repeatedly with the public through a series of general 

Project public meetings and articles (refer to Appendix E for documentation). Specific to cultural 

resources, numerous consulting parties in the area were invited to participate in the process: NPS 

(Fredericksburg), City of Fredericksburg, Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc., and Central 

Virginia Battlefield Trust, as well as groups whose interests span the Commonwealth like 

American Battlefield Protection Program, Civil War Trust, National Trust for Historic 

Preservation, and Preservation Virginia. Adjacent localities were also invited to participate as the 

rail ties these communities together. The goal of this outreach was to collect information on 

significant historic properties in the area to assure they were considered during Project design. 

Beyond formal consulting party coordination, DRPT has also given several public talks 

specifically associated with the Project to inform residents of the Project and learn about issues 

they consider important (refer to Appendix E for specific documentation). This includes a 2015 

meeting in Mayfield, a 2016 presentation at the annual meeting of the Historic Fredericksburg 

Foundation, Inc., and several presentations on area archaeology focusing on the history of Sophia 

Street and the rail corridor in 2016 and 2017. These meetings allowed DRPT to garner details from 

the public on the resources the community considered most important. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-9 

Based on this coordination, DRPT conducted the following technical studies in Fredericksburg to 

aid in the analysis of alternatives in relation to the history of the area, recorded resources, and 

public concerns: 

 Archaeological predictive modelling on the corridor to identify locations with the high 

potential to un-recorded archaeological resources;35

 In-depth historic document and map review with georeferenced overlays to identify 

potential historic resources;36

 Phase I cultural resource surveys to identify above- and below-ground resources within 

the Preferred Alternative (see previous section for citations) resulting in the recordation 

of over 100 architectural resources and a dozen archaeological sites in the area of potential 

effect in Fredericksburg; 

 Intensive-level architectural studies on 20 resources within the city including archival 

research, architectural analysis, and evaluation of NRHP eligibility with determinations 

on resource boundaries; and 

 Integrated Project mapping and analysis to allow cultural resource specialists to provide 

input into engineering design based on the results of survey and historic map/document 

review to avoid and minimize impacts. 

3.1.1.4 Summary of Efforts to Avoid Areas of Concern to Assure Preservation in 

Place and, if Avoidance Was Not Possible, Minimize Any Potential Impacts 

to Cultural Resources 

Care was taken by DRPT to avoid areas of historic sensitivity in the Fredericksburg area as 

identified through cultural resource studies, historic document/map analysis, and public 

comment. The Phase IA archaeological study of the Project corridor aimed to predict areas of 

archaeological sensitivity and areas to be avoided based on a variety of cultural and 

environmental factors.37 This study was used to guide two Phase IB archaeological studies that 

included on the ground testing of areas within the archaeological APE to identify archaeological 

sites. Boundaries were created for each site and approved by DHR; these site boundaries were 

then shared with the environmental and engineering teams to determine potential avoidance and 

minimization of impacts in these areas. 

Phase I and II architectural studies identified and evaluated above-ground resources within the 

architectural APE. Studies included determinations on the boundaries of each resource as well as 

noting significant viewsheds that contribute to the eligibility of the resource. Upon approval by DHR, 

numerous in-person meetings were held between involved agencies and DRPT to compare the 

locations, character-defining elements of each resource, key viewsheds, and Project plans including 

side-by-side comparisons of the property and plans (see Appendix E for roster of meetings). As 

possible, plans were altered to avoid and minimize impacts on resources that were both individually 

eligible for the NRHP and contribute to the Fredericksburg Historic District, Fredericksburg District 

Expansion, and Civil War battlefields. Combined, these studies identified numerous cultural 

resources within Fredericksburg (see Figure 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 for historic overlap maps). The 

locations/boundaries of these resources were taken into consideration at various stages of the 

design/engineering process and each resource was examined to assure avoidance, as possible. In 

areas where avoidance in its entirety could not be achieved, DRPT and agencies worked together 

to minimize impacts that would adversely affect each resource. Additional details on Project 

effect can be found in Chapter 5. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-10 

Figure 3.1-1: Limits of Disturbance Overlaid on 1878 Grey Map of Fredericksburg 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-11 

Figure 3.1-2: Limits of Disturbance Overlaid on 1912 Sanborn Map of Fredericksburg 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-12 

3.1.1.5 Additional Studies Separate from the DC2RVA Project 

In places where resources could not be avoided and impacts minimized, mitigation measures 

have been outlined in the Section 106 Draft MOA for the Project (see Appendix K of this Final 

EIS) that include additional studies including research, architectural analysis, archeological 

excavations, public outreach and more. 

In addition to the mitigation measures identified in the Section 106 Draft MOA, the research 

conducted by DRPT and concerns noted during the various public comment and consultation 

periods highlighted opportunities for future historic research avenues outside the scope of the 

DC2RVA Project. One such topic for future research born out of research/work completed in 

both Fredericksburg and the Shockoe Bottom area of Richmond was the need for a historic context 

of the Virginia slave trade as related to the rail networks linking the major cities throughout the 

state. This concept is discussed more in Section 3.1.3.5 below. 

The depth of prehistory and history within the downtown Fredericksburg area provides ample 

opportunities for additional research in this area. Although the Project will have an adverse effect 

on resources in the Fredericksburg area, as discussed in Section 5.13 of this Final EIS, many 

NRHP-eligible individual properties are located in Fredericksburg that will not be impacted by 

the Project. Future studies could include NRHP nominations for these resources as well as 

interpretive signage and public talks to assure that information on these important resources is 

disseminated to residents and visitors of the area. 

While the Fredericksburg Historic District was listed on the NRHP in 1972, the Fredericksburg 

Historic District Expansion (111-0009), located to the west of the original district, was found to be 

NRHP eligible as part of the Project. As a general recommendation, outside the scope of the 

DC2RVA Project, a more comprehensive survey of this district should be completed, perhaps in 

conjunction with the City of Fredericksburg, to assure that character-defining features of the 

district are maintained and out-of-scale development is curtailed. This may include not only a 

formal NRHP catalogue and nomination, but also evaluating a potential overlay district to instill 

preservation guidelines. 

Beyond the built environment, archaeological sites in the corridor abound. This includes the sites 

of the 1850s and 1888 train stations once located on the south side of the tracks, numerous 

warehouses and factories once extant on the streets surrounding the rail, and many other nowgone resources. Particularly relevant to this study, an archaeological dig outside the scope of this 

Project could be completed around the duplex at 314-316 Frederick Street, which was used as a 

slave jail in the 1830s through the 1850s. A companion dig could occur in the yard at 300 Caroline 

Street, to the south of the tracks, which was another slave jail and pen. This data would be 

extremely informative when creating an archaeological context of the slave trade along the RF&P. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-13 

3.1.2 Ashland Area 

3.1.2.1 Abbreviated History of Ashland 

During consulting party and public consultation leading to the publication of the Draft EIS, the 

portion of the DC2RVA corridor within Ashland was highlighted as an area of cultural resource 

sensitivity. Various private citizens, organizations, and consulting parties voiced concerns about 

rail expansion in Ashland and how it may impact various historic resources. A brief history of 

the area is provided here to lay a framework for later discussions of these resources; however, the 

history of Ashland has been extensively documented and this cursory summary should not be 

viewed as comprehensive.38

The Town of Ashland was founded as a small mid-nineteenth century summer resort called ‘Slash 

Cottage.’39 Located only 12 miles north of the Virginia capital, the growth of Ashland as a resort 

community was possible in the mid-nineteenth century because of a well-constructed network of 

roads. The development of the town was further aided by the increasing rail system, which 

extended into Hanover County in the 1830s and led to greater accessibility. The RF&P opened in 

1836, quickly opening this area to those from Fredericksburg to the north and Richmond to the 

south. Due to increasing tourism and economic prosperity, the town of Ashland was established 

in the late 1840s as a mineral springs resort and grew rapidly.40 

Shortly after its formation as a town, the country was thrust into Civil War. During the war, the 

town of Ashland was frequently occupied by troops. The local racecourse served as a training 

field for Confederate troops and many prominent buildings were converted into hospitals and 

quarters. After the conflict, America temporarily entered a recession and the town’s resort 

experienced financial trouble. It was sold in 1868 to Randolph-Macon College, an all-male 

Methodist college then situated in Boydton, Virginia.41 The relocation of Randolph-Macon 

College to Ashland in the late 1860s and construction of new buildings on campus in the 1870s 

and 1880s fueled economic growth in town and facilitated better educational opportunities 

throughout Hanover County.42 This growth was supported by improvements to the RF&P rail 

system and the construction of the Richmond electric railway in the late-nineteenth century, 

which further connected Richmond and Ashland. As the economy was rebuilt and strengthened, 

Hanover County’s population increased substantially. Though it had dipped to 16,455 in 1870, 

the county population increased to 18,588 by 1880.43 

Economic growth in the town of Ashland gave rise to a significant building boom in the last 

quarter of the nineteenth century. By 1890, the population in town was six times that of 1860.44 In 

that year, a new rail station was built to help shelter passengers traveling on the RF&P. The 

community continued to thrive with support of the railroad, functioning as a resting place for 

many travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, with much activity taking place at the 

Georgian-Revival-styled Henry Clay hotel that was constructed in 1906.45 

In the years after World War I, the town of Ashland experienced another building boom as 

improvements were made to the local water facilities, new houses constructed, a tobacco 

warehouse built near the edge of town, and a new fairgrounds laid out. Prominent brick buildings 

were also constructed downtown at this time, including the Hanover National Bank and several 

church buildings.46 A devastating fire swept through downtown in the early 1920s, destroying 

the train station and several other buildings. During the rebuilding, the Town recognized that 

they needed a rail station that befitted their status as a primary stop along the RF&P. Located 

west of the tracks in the center of town, the new station, completed in in 1923, embraced Colonial 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-14 

Revival tenets seen at other stations along the corridor, such as Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and 

Doswell. 

The formal establishment of Route 1 to the east of downtown also brought additional people to 

the area in the first half of the twentieth century. Like many small towns in central Virginia, 

though, the establishment of I-95 in the 1950s brought a notable decrease in activity. Population 

growth stalled. Rail service ceased in 1967, and the train station shut its doors. It was not until 

1985 that intercity passenger services were restored in Ashland; the train station, however, was 

not reactivated for passenger use at that time. It was reopened as the Visitor’s Center in the early 

2000s. 

As defined in NHRP forms for the Ashland Historic District, currently the town includes a 

collection of late nineteenth- through mid-twentieth century residential and commercial 

architecture. These forms further define the oldest resources as “revival-style wood and brick 

structures, decorated with fanciful trim, that evoke the town’s resort origins and its earlytwentieth-century residential and commercial boom” and note “the residential neighborhoods 

that cluster around downtown, characterized by their large frame dwellings on spacious shaded 

lots, maintain Ashland's image as a nineteenth-century suburban community.”47 

3.1.2.2 Background Review/Summary of Previous Cultural Resource Studies 

Numerous cultural resource studies have been conducted in Ashland. These primarily consist of 

studies aimed at recording the town’s above-ground resources. The following summary of these 

research efforts focuses on compliance-based reporting that has been completed in the Ashland 

area. This discussion aims to better recognize the existing body of research and known resources; 

it also serves to frame a discussion of what factors informed DRPT’s initial fatal flaw review and 

subsequent analysis of alternatives in relation to the history of the area, recorded resources, and 

public concerns. 

The Ashland Historic District (166-0001) was defined, nominated, and listed in the Virginia 

Landmarks Register (VLR) in 1982 and in the NRHP in 1983.48 Based on the 1982 NRHP 

nomination, the district encompasses nearly 250 resources (201 of which were identified as 

contributing) and features a mix of residential, commercial, civic, educational, religious, and light 

industrial resources. Significant historic themes identified in its nomination included 

architecture, commerce, education, government, religion, transportation, residential and 

community development. At this time, few changes appear to have substantially impacted the 

built environment within the district. In 2017 the Ashland Historic District was resurveyed and 

the NRHP was updated to reflect changes in the district from its original recording in 1982.49 The 

2017 survey and expansion of the district resulted in the addition of 111 contributing resources to 

the original 201 identified in 1982. Additionally, the 2017 update outlined 170 noncontributing 

resources. 

The Randolph-Macon College Complex Historic District (166-0002), recorded in 1978, highlights 

a few of the oldest buildings at the core of this college campus, located in the historic town of 

Ashland.50 Three, late-nineteenth-century buildings were initially included in the district and two 

other early-twentieth-century buildings have since been surveyed in association with the original 

historic core. These resources and the district retain a high level of historic integrity and possess 

the same architectural characteristics that merited listing in the NRHP in 1979 under Criteria A 

and C.51 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-15 

In 1988, DHR awarded a matching grant to the Hanover County Board of Supervisors for a 

reconnaissance-level survey of Hanover County’s historic resources conducted by Land and 

Community Associates.52 This grant was specifically for the documentation and evaluation of 450 

historic architectural resources located in Hanover County. A second phase of survey 

commenced in June 1991 to document an additional 400 architectural resources.53 A combined 

report detailed the results of the Phase I survey for 950 properties, specifying exemplary and 

representative examples of several types of historic resources that existed in the county. Eligibility 

recommendations were made for all of the properties surveyed and of the 950 total, 

approximately 155 resources were recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

An archaeological investigation, led by staff at the Virginia Commonwealth University 

Archaeological Research Center, examined a 14-acre parcel of land at the southeastern end of the 

town of Ashland.54 This Phase I archaeological survey was conducted in advance of the 

construction of a swimming pool at Carter Park and indicated that much of the property had been 

previously disturbed, no archaeological sites were identified as part of the investigation. 

A Phase I archaeological investigation in the yard surrounding the Hanover Tavern (042-

0035/042-0086-0005) was completed in 1998.55 The investigation consisted of shovel testing and 

backhoe monitoring in advance on construction activities including buried utility installation, 

landscaping improvements, and curb installation. Numerous nineteenth-century artifacts were 

collected, and seven features were identified. Both identified features consisted of brick and 

mortar, presumed to be intact portions of brick foundations or walls related to no longer extant 

buildings on the property. Additional Phase II archaeological testing was recommended for 

portions of the Tavern property. 

Ashley Neville and Brenda Pennington, of Ashley Neville LLC, completed an update of Hanover 

County’s historic resources, which included an architectural survey of approximately 72,897 acres 

in western Hanover County in 2012.56 79 properties were recorded, and of those Neville 

recommended 10 for additional research to determine their NRHP potential: 042-5325, 042-5326, 

042-5347, 042-5353, 042-5362, 042-5370, 042-5374, 042-5376, 042-5378, and 042-5387. Neville and 

Pennington recommended that the Beaverdam village be studied as a potential district and a 

Multiple Property Documents investigation of rural stores in Hanover County be conducted. 

The DC2RVA Team conducted Phase I and Phase II studies in the Ashland vicinity. 

Archaeological studies included Phase IA and Phase IB surveys of the DC2RVA corridor, which 

included background review, historic research, GIS-based predictive modelling, and field 

investigations.57 These studies noted a great deal of near surface disturbance in the corridor, and 

did not result in the identification of any new archaeological sites within the archaeological APE 

in Ashland. DC2RVA architectural studies in Ashland included a Phase I investigation that 

encompassed a portion of the corridor from North Doswell to Elmont, south of Ashland.58 In this 

portion of the APE the team surveyed 264 historic architectural resources, 142 of which were 

previously recorded and 122 were newly recorded historic resources. These included the NHRP 

listed Ashland Historic District (166-0001) and Randolph-Macon College Complex Historic 

District (166-0002) in Ashland, and many individual properties within these districts. Based on 

this Phase I study and updates to the APE following the Draft EIS, Phase II studies were 

completed. Because changes to the APE eliminated Project-related improvements in Ashland, no 

Phase II investigation within the town were completed. However, Phase II investigations of 

nearby properties, including the Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073), were undertaken as 

part of this additional work.59 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-16 

Beyond compliance studies, an abundance of work on the town’s history has been done by local 

historians and volunteers. In particular, individuals associated with the Ashland Museum have 

compiled an abundance of data on area history and Ashland’s built environment. This 

information can be found on site at the Museum and it is often used to create a rotating set of 

displays highlighting key moments in Ashland’s past. 

3.1.2.3 Discussion of In-Depth Review and Subsequent Analysis of Project 

Alternatives in Relation to History of the Area, Recorded Resources, and 

Public Concerns 

Throughout the alternatives development, screening, and selection process for the Project, 

impacts to cultural resources were considered throughout the corridor. In Ashland particular 

concern was paid to existing above- and below-ground resources and to predicting the locations 

of yet un-identified areas of cultural sensitivity. Early in this review, the public raised concern 

about the impact rail infrastructure improvements would have on the known historic resources 

in Ashland, as much of the town and college historic districts are directly adjacent to the existing 

rail corridor. As such, DRPT took various steps to review and analyze alternatives in Ashland 

and their potential effect on cultural and historic resources. 

Cultural resources were at the forefront of the Project design as the extant rail line traverses 

through the center of Town. Through scores of meetings, telephone calls, and emails between 

agencies, consulting parties, interested parties, and DRPT, all aspects of the Project design have 

been through thorough review to assure that cultural resources have been recorded and 

considered during Project planning. Details on the Project have also been shared repeatedly with 

the public through a series of general Project public meetings and articles in the local paper (refer 

to Appendix E for detailed information). The concerns of the impacts of the rail in this area 

resulted in the formation of a community-based committee to advise and inform DRPT on 

DC2RVA alternatives and issues in the Town of Ashland/Hanover County area. 

The Town of Ashland, Ashland Museum, Hanover County, and Hanover County Historical 

Society, as well as statewide groups like American Battlefield Protection Program, Civil War 

Trust, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Preservation Virginia have all been involved 

in the cultural resource process. Information on the history of Ashland, its built environment, and 

resource significance at the local level was garnered through this outreach, including tours of the 

Ashland Museum and other on-site meetings to carefully consider the rail in relation to historic 

properties. This data was then presented to DHR to solicit feedback on resource eligibility and 

Project effect to assure that all concerns were thoroughly vetted. These meetings, calls, and other 

communication efforts allowed DRPT to listen to the public and understand the resources they 

considered the most important to the area and place them within the Project context. 

The coordination that occurred during this Project, along with guiding principles of the Section 

106 legislative process, guided the Project-based technical studies completed in Ashland. This 

work included: 

 Archaeological predictive modelling on the corridor to identify locations with the high 

potential to include unrecorded archaeological resources;60

 In-depth historic document and map review to create georeferenced overlays and identify 

potential historic resources;61
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-17 

 Phase I and IA cultural resource surveys to identify above- and below-ground resources 

along all Project alternatives (see previous section for citations); 

 Intensive-level architectural studies on five resources in the Ashland area including 

archival research, architectural analysis, and evaluation of NRHP eligibility with 

determinations on resource boundaries; and 

 Integrated Project mapping and analysis to allow cultural resource specialists’ input and 

agency in engineering design based on the results of survey and historic map/document 

review. 

The technical studies were modified in 2017 and 2018 once a Preferred Alternative was selected 

(refer to Chapter 4 for details) and it was decided to not add a third track through downtown 

Ashland. This action reduced the area of potential effects for cultural resources through the 

downtown core. Information on this change was disseminated to all consulting parties and other 

interested groups, and additional meetings and coordination were held to discuss what this 

action meant for Ashland’s historic properties. Details on the ensuing analysis can be found in 

Chapters 5 and 6 of this Final EIS. 

3.1.2.4 Summary of Efforts to Avoid Areas of Concern to Assure Preservation in 

Place and, if Avoidance Was Not Possible, Minimize Any Potential Impacts 

to Cultural Resources 

As a result of the analysis and public concern, FRA and DRPT selected a Preferred Alternative 

that does not include any rail infrastructure improvements between Vaughan Road and Ashcake 

Road, which includes the corporate limits of the Town of Ashland. The Ashland bypass 

alternatives were not selected. Refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS for details of the selection 

process. As such, the DC2RVA Project will avoid construction in all areas of concern regarding 

historic resources within the downtown Ashland core – refer to Chapter 5 for details. 

Due to the proposed Vaughan Road overpass, DRPT met repeatedly with town representatives 

and cultural resource consulting parties to review Project plans and the boundaries of the 

Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073), which is situated at the north end of the Town of 

Ashland (see Appendix E for list of meetings). To the greatest degree possible, impacts to the 

district were minimized and building demolition was avoided through careful planning efforts. 

Additional information on the impacts of the overpass to this district can be found in Chapter 5 

and 6 of this Final EIS. 

3.1.2.5 Additional Studies Separate from the DC2RVA Project 

Mitigation measures for resources that could not be avoided have been outlined in the Section 

106 Draft MOA for the Project (see Appendix K of this Final EIS). They include additional studies 

including research, architectural analysis, archeological excavations, public outreach and other 

tasks. Beyond these mitigation measures, information shared by agencies and the public, 

combined with the research conducted by DRPT, reveal many future historic research projects 

outside the scope of the DC2RVA Project that may be completed by the locality or others with a 

vested interest in the area history. While no resources specifically associated with the slave trade 

were identified during this study in Ashland, the community was in existence as a thriving resort 

town during the antebellum period. 

The extensive history of this area leads to numerous other avenues for historical inquiry. Future 

studies on individual resources that are not adversely affected by the Project could include NRHP 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-18 

nominations as well as interpretive signage. Work on the districts could involve working with 

the Town to use the 2017 Project survey data to expand their NRHP boundaries and helping 

Randolph-Macon College get NRHP listing for their campus district expansion. 

Archaeologically, the background review illustrates that few formal archaeological studies are on 

file with DHR and only a handful of Ashland archeological sites have been recorded in the area. 

The potential for intact, significant sites is moderate to high throughout town. Sites that may 

reveal data on Ashland’s past include the site of the 1880 train station, the location of the original 

1840s resort complex, and surrounding fields once occupied by Civil War soldiers. 

Beyond technical studies, information derived from various stages of research can also be 

displayed at the Ashland Museum. The staff has a robust collection of rotating exhibits, and data 

on ongoing studies can be added to this roster to create new presentations to help teach the public 

about the important history of this area. 

3.1.3 Richmond Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom Area 

3.1.3.1 Abbreviated History of Richmond and Shockoe Bottom 

As noted above, the portion of the DC2RVA Preferred Alternative within the Shockoe Bottom 

portion of Richmond was highlighted as an area of cultural resource sensitivity. As such, a brief 

history of the area is provided here, however, the history of Richmond and Shockoe Bottom has 

been extensively documented.62 Richmond was founded at the falls of the James River by William 

Byrd II in 1733 and was laid out by Major William Mayo in 1737.63 The main focus of economic 

and governmental activity in newly established Richmond was concentrated in the eastern 

portion of the city, along the banks of Shockoe Creek and adjacent Church Hill. Shockoe, also 

known as Rock Landing, a granite outcropping at the confluence of Shockoe Creek and the James 

River, marked the upper limit of navigation on the James. Given its geography and physiographic 

location this landing, and others, made Richmond an important port city that served to connect 

the fertile Virginia Piedmont with the James River and eventually ocean ports.64 As such, the area 

surrounding this historic location of Shockoe Creek (including Shockoe Valley, Shockoe Slip, and 

Shockoe Bottom) encompasses some of Richmond's earliest residential, commercial, and 

manufacturing activity. 

The Virginia General Assembly voted to move the state capital from Williamsburg to Richmond 

in 1799, as Richmond was considered more secure from British invasion and more centrally 

located.65 During the first half of the nineteenth century, with the aid of slave labor, Richmond 

continued to grow as a city by expanding trade, manufacturing, and transportation 

infrastructure. The James River served as the epicenter for economic and commercial 

development; as such, warehouses were constructed along the waterfront to house materials that 

moved through the docks.66 The construction of the James River and Kanawha Canals, along with 

the 1834 completion of the first railroad lines in the city, continued to make Richmond an essential 

node in the regional transportation system. Trade goods primarily included agricultural products 

of sugar and tobacco, but also encompassed the buying and selling of enslaved individuals. As 

noted by Chen and Collins, “the presence of slavery and the business of buying and selling 

bondsmen was an essential element in Richmond’s development as one of the preeminent cities 

in the south during the antebellum period.”67 By the turn of the nineteenth century the center of 

the slave trade in Richmond was concentrated along the north bank of the James River, in the 

vicinity of Shockoe Bottom. This trend continued through the first half of the nineteenth century, 

with the most prolific activity occurring in the 1830s and 1840s. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-19 

During the mid-nineteenth century, Richmond “played a unique role in the Civil War, serving 

not only as the Confederate capital, but also as the chief manufacturer for the Southern war 

effort.”68 Richmond’s population swelled as government officials and politicians of the newly 

established Confederacy and their families relocated.69 Capturing the capital was a main objective 

of the Union Army, and the Peninsula and Petersburg Campaigns were fought largely with that 

goal in mind. After repelling the Federals during the 1862 Peninsula Campaign, the Confederates 

constructed a ring of fortifications around the city. Despite the defenses, repeated pounding from 

northern artillery erased large stretches of Richmond. In 1865, the City was on the verge of falling. 

Just prior to the Union capture of the City, fires were set by Richmonders in many of the riverside 

warehouses to prevent the Union Army from taking possession of the contents. Fires ignited to 

destroy the tobacco warehoused along the James spread west beyond Shockoe Bottom into the 

business district. Explosions demolished the powder magazine and fire destroyed over 900 

buildings, three bridges, several tobacco warehouses and two railroad depots.70

At the close of the Civil War, the rebuilding of Richmond, with a concentration on the scorched 

business district, began in earnest. By 1870, the riverfront was up and running again, with the 

tobacco industry once again returning as the mainstay of Richmond’s economy. The railroad lines 

were also quickly repaired, helping to slowly revive Richmond’s post-war economy.71 As the 

nineteenth century drew to a close, Richmond’s presence as a prominent southern port city began 

to decline. The decline of the port combined with local politics and competition between the 

various rail lines serving Richmond shifted the focus from water-based to rail-based 

transportation of goods. The improvements in the rail system had a notable effect on the physical 

fabric of the Shockoe Bottom area. The Seaboard Air Line Railroad selected this area as the site of 

their new Richmond station. Construction of the station, associated train shed, rail lines, 

warehouses, and other facilities required extensive reworking of the landscape, including 

channeling Shockoe Creek through concrete culverts and bringing in 40 to 50 feet of fill to level 

the landscape. This activity buried the remaining historic and prehistoric deposits in this area 

below many feet of earth. Buildings were demolished, and archaeological sites were destroyed. 

The new station, completed in 1901, changed the Shockoe Bottom area, bringing many passengers 

to this part of town and elevating the economy and enriching the building stock. 

During the twentieth century, Richmond’s geographical extent expanded. The retail and office 

district downtown continued to grow, with Jackson Ward, a neighborhood directly northwest of 

the downtown core, becoming a center of African-American commerce and culture. Similarly, 

construction of both houses and apartments rose east of Shockoe Bottom in the OakwoodChimborazo district during the 1920s, notably in Glenwood Park.72 The Shockoe Bottom area was 

notably impacted in the mid-twentieth century through the construction of I-95, which bisected 

the city and required the demolition of numerous buildings. Lying east of I-95, the Shockoe 

Bottom area was, in essence, cut off from the remainder of the downtown core to the west of I-95. 

Partially as a result of this new highway, there was a resurgence of building in the downtown 

area, though the residential population continued to move westward, as more and more of the 

western “suburbs” became part of the City. In the 1970s and 1980s, downtown became less and 

less the center of Richmond’s commercial life, as strip malls and office parks were built farther 

out into the counties of Henrico, Hanover, Chesterfield, Powhatan and Goochland. In the 1990s, 

however, developers began once again to focus on the historic downtown area, gradually 

expanding north and east to Church Hill and Shockoe Bottom. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-20 

3.1.3.2 Background Review/Summary of Previous Cultural Resource Studies 

Given its location, just east of the heart of downtown Richmond, and its rich history, the Shockoe 

Bottom area has been the subject of numerous cultural resource studies. As such, the area consists 

of a myriad of overlapping historic districts, known above-ground resources, and recorded 

archaeological sites. For the purposes of this discussion, efforts will focus on the robust body of 

research and compliance-based reporting that has been completed in the general vicinity of Main 

Street Station and the greater Shockoe Bottom area. This discussion aims to better recognize the 

existing body of research, the known resources, and frame a discussion for understanding what 

factors informed DRPT’s initial fatal flaw review and subsequent analysis of alternatives in 

relation to the history of the area, recorded resources, and public concerns. 

Main Street Station (127-0172; 127-0344-0117), at times referred to as the Seaboard Airline Station, 

Chesapeake & Ohio Station, or Main Street Station and Trainshed, was listed in the VLR in 1970 

and the NRHP places in 1976.73 As recorded, the resource includes the terminal building of Main 

Street Station and a trainshed to the north of the terminal. As noted in significance statement in 

the NRHP form, the resource is “one of Richmond’s most renowned buildings” and “symbolizes 

the importance of the rail terminal as an entrance gateway to the city”. Its style is a significant 

example of the influence of the French Ecole des Beaux Arts on American architecture. The 

trainshed is one of the earliest examples of rigid truss construction, which has become standard 

in modern trussed structures of all types. The facility ceased being used as a rail stop in the 1970s. 

It was briefly used as a shopping mall and to house the public health department in the 1980s 

prior to a commitment from the City to reuse the building in its original transportation capacity. 

In 1997 a historic structures report was completed for Main Street Station in support of 

multimodal transportation center renovations/upgrades related to expanded passenger service.74

This study found that the Main Street Station and the Trainshed retain the character and essence 

of their original design. Phased renovations were proposed in an effort to revitalize the building 

and spur economic activity within the larger Shockoe Bottom area. 

The Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344) was defined, nominated, and 

listed in the VLR in 1981 and in the NRHP in 1983.75 Based on the NRHP nomination, the district 

encompasses nearly 129 acres inclusive of 400 resources, within the low-lying area surrounding 

Shockoe Creek along the James River, including portions of Union and Church Hill. In 2008 and 

2015, the building inventory of the Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District was 

updated through a windshield survey of all extant resources in the district.76 This 2015 update 

concluded that there are 244 resources that contribute to the district’s NRHP eligibility, while 

there are 140 resources that do not contribute to the NRHP eligibility. The DC2RVA Preferred 

Alternative is within the viewshed of several contributing resources within the district and within 

the district itself. 

In the early 1990s, a number of archaeological sites were identified, evaluated, and monitored in 

association with the Richmond Floodwall project and in support of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

permitting of the project. Project construction was completed in 1994, however, various 

archaeological studies were completed in support of the construction efforts in the late-1980s and 

early 1990s. Unfortunately, archaeological reports were never completed in association with the 

Richmond Floodwall project, so little is known about parameters of the investigations or their 

detailed results. DHR site records do indicate that there are three archaeological sites (44HE1094, 

44HE1097 and 44SHE1098) associated with this project recorded within the footprint of the 

DC2RVA Preferred Alternative. Site 44HE1094 is recorded in DHR site files as a nineteenth-
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-21 

century Commissary Warehouse, site 44HE1097 is recorded as a railroad warehouse dating to the 

nineteenth century, and site 44HE1098 is classified as a railroad site. 

The Southeast High Speed Rail corridor between Richmond and Raleigh was the subject of 

several cultural resource investigations. These included the APE surrounding the rail corridor 

itself as well as the APE of all road modification areas surrounding the rail line. Work was 

conducted between 2004 and 2012 by Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc., Louis Berger 

Group, Inc. (Berger), and Dovetail.77 The results of these studies have been individually 

coordinated with DHR, including the submission of reports and Digital Sharing Service (DSS)/ 

Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (V-CRIS) forms to the agency as well as formal 

resource eligibility recommendations for listing in the NRHP. Project effect determinations, on 

individual historic properties as well as the Richmond to Raleigh (R2R) segment of the SEHSR 

project as a whole, were acquired in 2009 and 2013. A total of 74 historic properties listed in or 

eligible for the NRHP were identified within the DC2RVA Project APE. Specifically, in the City 

of Richmond, these studies identified 10 historic properties, of which one is an archaeological site 

and nine are above-ground resources. A Memorandum of Agreement associated with the R2R 

project to outline stipulations to mitigate adverse effects to these resources and the larger project 

was completed in 2017. 

In 2006 and 2008, the James River Institute for Archaeology conducted archaeological 

investigations at the Lumpkins Slave Jail site (44HE1053).78 The larger Lumpkins Jail project was 

initiated in 2005 when DHR and the Alliance to Conserve Old Richmond Neighborhoods 

embarked in a partnership to locate the site, known only at that time by historical accounts and 

records. The site, which was located using georeferenced historic maps and targeted 

archaeological investigations, is located approximately 130 feet west of the DC2RVA Preferred 

Alternative limits of disturbance (LOD). The archaeological investigations at site 44HE1053, 

which included preliminary investigations (2006) and subsequent data recovery investigations 

(2008), documented a portion of the former Lumpkins Slave Jail property (including a kitchen, 

the jail building, several outbuildings and landscape features) and unearthed over 16,000 artifacts 

related to the occupation of the property from the 1830s through the twentieth century. 

Archaeological investigations at the Lumpkins Slave Jail site documented the presence of intact 

nineteenth century deposits almost 15 feet beneath the modern ground surface. 

In 2006 and 2007 the Johannas Design Group compiled a draft multiple property documentation 

form for what they termed the “Slave Trade as a Commercial Enterprise in Richmond, Virginia” 

(127-6196).79 The property form establishes a historic context for the commercial industry of slave 

trade in Shockoe Bottom and along Shockoe Creek. It additionally defines property types 

characteristic of the slave trade in Richmond including residences, hotels and meeting halls, jails, 

auction houses, and offices. Given the nature of the multiple property listing and the lack of 

above-ground components, no geographic footprint is represented in DHR geospatial dataset 

available online or in the archives. As such there is no physical resource recorded at DHR or any 

other repository that is associated with this topic. The form concludes that extant above-ground 

resources associated with the commercial enterprise of the slave trade within the geographic area 

are extremely limited due to historic fires and modern development. The form also highlights 

that the potential for yet-undiscovered archaeological sites associated with this context are high. 

Work at the Lumpkins Slave Jail/Devil’s Half-Acre site (44HE1053) and research associated with 

the Slave Trade as a Commercial Enterprise NRHP form brought to light the presence of the 

former Richmond free black and slave burial ground known as the “Burial Ground for 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-22 

Negroes” and associated gallows, reported in the historical record to be located just north of the 

Lumpkins Slave Jail site, some 350 feet from the DC2RVA Preferred Alternative LOD. In 2007 and 

2008, the presumed general location of the burial ground was at least partially on a lot owned by 

Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), at 1554 East Broad Street and 1520 East Marshall 

Street. In 2007, VCU hired Draper Aden Associates to conduct an environmental assessment of 

the parcel, which was at that time in use as a parking lot.80 As part of this environmental work a 

series of soil cores were extracted to examine the structure of the deposits underlying the asphalt 

parking area. At least three of these cores (recorded as MW-1, MW-4, and MW-5) were excavated 

within 100 to 150 feet of the presumed burial ground. All three cores showed the presence of 8 to 

9 feet of dark fill below the asphalt. In one core, MW-1, the fill deposits capped 1.5 feet of clay, 

beneath which was 1 foot of black organic deposits that rested on sand. The remaining two cores 

showed fill resting immediately on basal sand deposits. Interpretations of the organic deposits in 

MW-1 suggested an intact and preserved historic layer underneath twentieth century fill. The 

assessment of thick deposits of fill capping historic deposits is consistent with the conclusions 

drawn at Lumpkins Slave Jail site. 

In 2008, DHR gathered a variety of historical maps and documents in an effort to better locate the 

former “Burial Ground for Negroes” (ca. 1750-1816).81 This work resulted in the verification of 

the past presence of the resource, the location of its assumed boundaries on the modern 

landscape, and recommendations about the potential integrity and treatment of the resource. 

Also as a result of this work, the Burial Ground for Negroes was assigned an archaeological site 

number, 44HE1089. Based on historic map projections, archival research, and informant 

interviews, Stephenson concluded that the majority of the site lies underneath I-95, however, it is 

possible that the site extends approximately 50 feet to the east into an adjacent parcel (at the time 

of the Stephenson report the adjacent parcel was a paved parking lot owned by VCU, however it 

has since transferred ownership to the City of Richmond and has been converted into a green 

space with interpretative signage). Stephenson used soil core samples (see discussion above 

pertaining to the Draper Aden Associates 2007 report) from the site and compared the landform 

of 44HE1089 to that of Lumpkins Slave Jail site (44HE1053), concluding that both locations likely 

underwent similar filling episodes as a result of the infill of Shockoe Creek in 1900 as well as the 

1950s construction of I-95. As such, it is assumed that burials may still be intact within the mapped 

site boundaries beneath a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of historic fill; however, no archaeological 

investigations were undertaken to confirm the presence of interments. Site 44HE1089 is located 

approximately 350 feet from the DC2RVA Preferred Alternative. 

In response to Stephenson’s 2008 validation and assessment of the Burial Ground for Negroes, 

the Institute for Historical Biology at the College of William and Mary reviewed DHR’s and 

Stephenson’s findings.82 Although this review agreed with many key findings of Stephenson’s 

report, the review took issue with the eastern boundary previously established and contended 

that given the ambiguity of the historic record, there is insubstantial documentary evidence to 

conclude that the burial ground only extends 50 feet outside of the I-95 footprint. Instead, Blakey 

concluded that the primary resource data, or lack of clear data, points clearly to the need to 

archaeological testing to determine the extent of the burial ground east of I-95. 

Based on the 2008 work completed by Stephenson and Blakey, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. 

(CRA), completed archaeological monitoring of the asphalt removal overlying the potential 

Burial Ground for Negroes (44HE1089).83 The project involved the removal of asphalt from the 

approximately 2.5-acre former VCU parking lot located at North 16th and E. Broad Streets. 

Archaeological monitoring was undertaken as the former parking lot was converted into a green-
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-23 

space, this conversion required the removal of approximately 10 inches of the asphalt and gravel. 

As noted by Laird and by Draper Aden Associates, Simpson concluded that the historic site 

44HE1089 is likely buried under 15 to 20 feet of fill, deposited during former occupations and the 

construction of I-95. As such, no archaeological features or deposits were noted during the work, 

which reached a maximum depth of 10 inches below the modern surface. 

In April of 2008, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) conducted a Phase I 

archaeological survey of an entire city block in the Shockoe Bottom area.84 The block, bound by 

Marshall, East Broad, 18th, and 19th Streets, is situated approximately 1,000 feet northeast of Main 

Street Station. The objective of this survey was to determine the presence and integrity of any 

archaeological deposits within the block. To this end, extensive archival research was completed 

and was followed with trench excavation to expose and assess deposits within the project area. 

Three trenches were excavated, exposing 0.05 percent of the project area. All three showed 

evidence of cultural features and buried ground surfaces, intact beneath the modern surface. 

Cultural deposits were noted 1.2 to 1.33 feet beneath the asphalt covering the block. 

In 2010 Dovetail conducted a Phase I cultural resource survey of the Broad Street Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT) project area in the City of Richmond and Henrico County, Virginia.85 This 

undertaking included an architectural survey of the 7-mile project corridor along Broad Street 

and archaeological survey in areas with the potential for intact soils. The project corridor was 

split into nine areas (A through I) with each area representing a geographical segment of the 

larger project APE. The segment spanning the Shockoe Bottom area was identified as Area I and 

included a survey of all above-ground resources in the vicinity. Dovetail surveyed 145 

architectural resources within the APE of the Broad Street corridor in Area I, all of which had 

been previously recorded. Of these 145 properties, Dovetail recommended 133 as not eligible for 

individual listing on the NHRP. Two previously recorded properties were determined eligible by 

DHR, but are recommended not eligible as a result of that survey (043-0306 and 127-0413). 

Furthermore, it was recommended that eight previously determined eligible resources remain 

eligible for NRHP listing: 127-0100, 127-0172, 127-0192, 127-0219, 127-0344/127-6169, 127-0257, 

127-0854, and 127-6271 and that four resources be considered potentially eligible for NRHP 

listing: 127-0192-0322, 127-0219-0059, 127-0282, and 127-0344-0123. DHR concurred with these 

recommendations in a letter dated January 20, 2011. The BRT project corridor was revisited in 

2015, based on the selection of BRT station locations which expanded the APE.86 The APE 

expansion included the location of a BRT station at the intersection of E. Main Street and 24th

Street within the vicinity of Shockoe Bottom. The 2015 architectural survey in support of this 

station location identified three industrial properties: the Tobacco Factory (127-0018; 127-0192-

0279), Cameron Building (12-0344-0039), and Leaf Storage Building (127-0344-0393), all of which 

were recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as individual resources. 

In advance of the proposed widening of Interstate 64, Dovetail and CRA completed 

archaeological investigations and a geoarchaeological assessment of the purported “Slave and 

Free Black Burying Ground” (44HE1203), a second interment area used after the “Burial Ground 

for Negros” was closed.87 The archaeological investigation, completed on behalf of VDOT, 

included the excavation of a series of backhoe trenches used to assess the stratigraphy and 

presence of archaeological features within the 0.68-acre project area. The project area was situated 

immediately underneath the I-64 overpass over Shockoe Valley, north of Hospital Street. This 

project area lies partially within the DC2RVA archaeological APE and thus the footprint of the 

Preferred Alternative. Extensive documentary, map, and background research as to the location 

and extent of the purported “Slave and Free Black Burying Ground” was conducted by VDOT in 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-24 

advance of the archaeological investigation.88 Despite overwhelming documentary evidence of 

the “Slave and Free Black Burying Ground,” no physical archaeological evidence was 

documented in the project area. Instead, the geoarchaeological assessment indicated that the 

project area stratigraphy consisted of varying degrees of modern fill deposited on top of truncated 

ancient marine soils. No interment features or nineteenth century artifacts were noted in the 

project area, and the authors concluded that the documentary and geoarchaeological analysis 

indicated the cemetery was likely located outside the project area, at the crest of the valley slope 

immediately to the west of the project area and east of the extant Shockoe Hill Cemetery (127-

0389) and Hebrew Cemetery (127-6166). This location, as proposed by Calhoun, is currently 

recorded as Talley’s Auto Service Center, located at 1305 N 5th Street (127-6660). 

In 2014 Dutton + Associates completed a cultural context and thematic study in association with 

the Revitalize RVA project.89 This research defined a study area in Shockoe Bottom to the east and 

outside of the current DC2RVA Preferred Alternative and aimed to establish a comprehensive 

history of the area. Beyond the background review data assembled, the study identified slave 

trade sites, ethnic/cultural heritage sites, commerce sites, and railroad sites within the study area. 

These identified locations were then synthesized into areas of archaeological interest, which were 

areas thought to potentially represent significant and yet undiscovered archaeological resources. 

As a part of DC2RVA, DRPT conducted Phase I and Phase II studies in Shockoe Bottom and 

vicinity. Archaeological studies included Phase IA and Phase IB surveys of the DC2RVA corridor, 

which included background review, historic research, GIS-based predictive modelling, and field 

investigations.90 These studies noted a great deal of near-surface disturbance in the corridor, yet 

resulted in the identification of four previously recorded archaeological sites (44HE0357, 

44HE1097, 44HE1098, and 44HE1094) and two newly recorded archaeological sites (44HE1203 

and 44HE1204) within the archaeological APE in the Shockoe Bottom area. DC2RVA architectural 

studies in the Shockoe Bottom area included a Phase I investigations.91 This Phase I study resulted 

in the recordation 96 historic architectural resources and of these, 9 previously recorded and 87 

newly recorded historic resources were identified. Based on the results and recommendations 

put forth during this Phase I investigation, a Phase II architectural evaluation was completed on 

five resources (127-0197, 127-0344-0102, 127-0344-0123, 127-6129, and 127-6793).92 

The most recent studies separate from the DC2RVA Project have included investigations to 

ascertain the potential for a memorial park in this area. The City of Richmond and numerous 

private interest groups have sponsored studies to identify components to include in a park 

highlighting the significance of the slave trade in this area and general African-American 

history.93 Studies are ongoing. 

3.1.3.3 Discussion of In-Depth Review and Subsequent Analysis of Project 

Alternatives in Relation to History of the Area, Recorded Resources, and 

Public Concerns 

Potential impacts to cultural resources were considered at numerous stages in the alternatives 

development, screening, and selection process starting at the inception of the environmental 

document in 2014. Over the past four years, almost 20 in-person meetings and dozens of phone 

calls have occurred between DHR, ACHP, FRA, and DRPT. All aspects of the Project design have 

been reviewed to assure that cultural resources have been studied and taken into consideration 

during Project planning. This includes constant dialogues between cultural resource specialists 

and engineers to ensure that design plans take cultural resources into account during planning. 

Additional details on evaluation of all alternatives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-25 

Information on the Project has also been shared with the public through a series of general Project 

public meetings and area-specific meetings. Specific to cultural resources, numerous consulting 

parties with an interest in this area have been participating in the process including: NPS 

(Richmond), City of Richmond, and Historic Richmond Foundation, as well as groups whose 

interests span the Commonwealth like American Battlefield Protection Program, Civil War Trust, 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, and Preservation Virginia. In addition, numerous other 

groups were invited to share their comments on the significance of the area and provide ideas on 

mitigation to impacts, including the Shockoe Bottom Neighborhood Association, Historic 

Shockoe Partnership, Elegba Folklore Society, Sacred Ground project, Black History Museum 

Virginia, Untold RVA, Virginia African American Cultural Resources Task Force, Southern 

Environmental Law Center, Community Unity in Action, Richmond Branch of the NAACP, 

Wesley Memorial United Methodist Church, VCU Department African American Studies, 

Richmond Crusade for Voters, First Unitarian Universalist Church, and Sacred Ground Historical 

Reclamation project. The goal of this outreach was to harness information on significant historic 

properties in the area to assure it was adequately considered during Project design. 

Beyond formal consulting party coordination, DRPT has attended numerous meetings with local 

groups and localities to understand the public’s interest in this area. Meetings with the City of 

Richmond have focused on an understanding of their ongoing preservation initiatives in this area 

and establishment of archaeological easements and protection zones. DRPT also sought to 

understand their initiatives for other improvements in the Shockoe Bottom area to place the 

current Project in context, including upcoming road modification projects, new parking areas, 

improvements to the 17th Street Market, and the recently completed Pulse Bus Rapid Transit 

system. VDOT was also consulted to understand future plans regarding I-95 access ramp 

upgrades. Beyond these, DRPT participated in the Urban Land Institute/Rose Center forum 

initiated by the mayor of Richmond to help organize future planning initiatives in this area, 

attended meetings with Richmond Archaeology, and others. 

Based on the known history of this area and extensive coordination, DRPT conducted the 

following technical studies in Richmond to aid in the analysis of alternatives in relation to the 

historic context, recorded resources, and public concerns: 

 Archaeological predictive modelling on the corridor to identify locations with the high 

potential for un-recorded archaeological resources;94

 In-depth historic document and map review with georeferenced overlays to identify 

potential historic resources;95

 Phase I cultural resource surveys to identify above- and below-ground resources within 

the Preferred Alternative (see previous section for citations) resulting in the recordation 

of over 100 architectural resources and half a dozen archaeological sites in the area of 

potential effect in the Shockoe Bottom area; 

 Intensive-level architectural studies on over 20 resources within the city including 

archival research, architectural analysis, and evaluation of NRHP eligibility with 

determinations on resource boundaries; and 

 Integrated Project mapping and analysis to allow cultural resource specialists to provide 

input in engineering design based on the results of survey and historic map/document 

review to avoid and minimize impacts. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-26 

3.1.3.4 Summary of Efforts to Avoid Areas of Concern to Assure Preservation in 

Place and, if Avoidance Was Not Possible, Minimize Any Potential Impacts 

to Cultural Resources 

Great care was taken by DRPT to avoid areas of historic sensitivity unidentified via cultural 

resource studies, historic document/map analysis, and public comments. The Phase IA 

archaeological study of the Project corridor aimed to predict areas of archaeological sensitivity 

based on a variety of cultural and environmental factors.96 This study was used to guide two 

Phase IB archaeological studies that included on the ground testing of areas within the 

archaeological APE to identify archaeological sites. Phase I and II architectural studies identified 

and evaluated above-ground resources within the architectural APE. Combined, these studies 

identified numerous cultural resources within the Shockoe Bottom area. The 

locations/boundaries of these resources were taken into consideration at various stages of the 

design/engineering process and the Project’s footprint was minimized to the greatest degree 

possible to avoid archaeological sites and potential impacts to above-ground resources. 

During the course of the above-mentioned cultural resource studies, historic documents and 

maps were consulted and analyzed to understand the complex history of the Shockoe Bottom 

area. To this end, GIS software was employed to georeference these historic documents to the 

modern landscape, in an effort to further identify yet undiscovered archaeological sites within 

the archaeological APE. Based on this mapping exercise, the locations of historic buildings, which 

are no longer visible above ground, were identified and additional archaeological sites were 

recorded. Maps from various time periods were consulted and georeferenced to the modern 

landscape in an effort to capture yet unrecorded archaeological resources throughout the historic 

use of the Shockoe Bottom area, as shown in Figure 3.1-3, 3.1-4, and 3.1-5.97 The results of this 

historic document analysis were closely coordinated with engineering/design and, where 

possible, were used to reconfigure Project design to minimize Project impacts on identified 

resources. For example, historic maps and overlays were carefully analyzed in association with 

Project plans near the early-nineteenth century “Slave and Free Black Burying Ground” 

(44HE1203) located near Hospital Street. Through this dialogue, the Project design was altered to 

reduce the footprint to ensure that no potential portions of the cemetery would be touched during 

the Project (see Figures 3.1-3 through 3.1-5). 

Additional avoidance measures were taken based on comments from the Project consulting 

parties and the general public. Dozens of in-person meetings, conference calls, letters, and emails 

were exchanged to thoroughly understand public concerns in the Shockoe Bottom area, 

culminating in an on-site meeting with vested groups on October 12, 2018. Through these 

dialogues, the Area of Potential Effects was expanded as appropriate to include the study of a 

wider geographic area and an expanded definition of the Area of Potential Effects within the 

Shockoe Bottom area. In particular, the Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre archaeological site 

(44HE1053), the Slave and Free Black Burying Ground site mentioned above (44HE1203), and 

Masons Hall (127-0019) were added to the roster of historic properties. In addition, several 

additional resources are being considered as contributing elements to the Shockoe Valley and 

Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344), which includes most of the Shockoe Bottom area. All 

of these resources were evaluated for both Section 106 effect and 4(f) use as part of the Project to 

minimize impacts. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-27 

Figure 3.1-3: Limits of Disturbance Overlaid on 1835 Bates Map of Richmond 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-28 

Figure 3.1-4: Limits of Disturbance Overlaid on 1889 Baist Map of Richmond 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-29 

Figure 3.1-5: Current Limits of Disturbance Overlaid on 1905 Sanborn Map of Richmond 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-30 

3.1.3.5 Additional Studies Separate from the DC2RVA Project 

In places where resources could not be avoided and impacts minimized, mitigation measures 

have been outlined in the Section 106 Draft MOA for the Project (see Appendix K of this Final 

EIS) that include additional studies including research, architectural analysis, archeological 

excavations, public outreach and more. Beyond these mitigation measures, the public comment 

and consultation process as part of the DC2RVA Project highlighted the need for 

future/additional historical studies of the Shockoe Bottom area that may be completed by the 

City or others with a vested interest in area history. Although beyond the scope of the DC2RVA 

studies, it is important to recognize and explore the significant history of Shockoe Bottom and 

especially the lives of enslaved individuals. To this end, four areas of additional studies have been 

identified: research, archaeological studies, public interpretation, and planning initiatives, which 

are outlined in Table 3.1-1. 

Table 3.1-1: Summary of Additional Studies Separate from the DC2RVA Project 

Research

Propose, delineate, and evaluate a Shockoe Valley Slave Trade District Evaluation to record the locations of potential sites 

with DHR; to be done in concert with existing City of Richmond research and preliminary draft multiple property 

documentation on file with DHR, done by Johannas Design Group in 2007. 

If the district listed above is determined to be eligible for the NRHP and pending City and property owner approval, the 

Shockoe Slave Trade Historic District would be nominated to the NRHP. 

Creation of a compendium of literature, including diaries, letters, quotes, imagery, maps, oral histories, etc., on the 

experience of the enslaved individual in Richmond. 

Creation of historic context of the RF&P Railroad and its association with the Virginia slave trade, linking locations including 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Alexandria. 

Archaeological Studies

Investigations, including additional archival research, at the “Slave and Free Black Burying Ground” (44HE1203) near Hospital 

Street to identify the location of potentially intact interments.

Additional archaeological studies on known sites, including Devil's Half Acre/Lumpkins Jail (44HE1053) and “Burial Ground 

for Negroes” (44HE1089). 

Archaeological excavations (Phase I, II, and III as appropriate) on areas identified during the Shockoe Slave Trade Historic 

District evaluation study to potentially contain sites.

Public Interpretation

Work with James River Institute for Archaeology, RVA Archaeology, Dutton+Associates, and others with knowledge of this 

area to create an interactive webpage on the history and significance of this area.

Use the data gathered during the webpage development to create a booklet on the history and significance of this area.

Work with the City of Richmond, Richmond City Council Slave Trail Commission, Historic Richmond, RVA Archaeology 

and others to add to the existing Richmond Slave Trail walking tour and interpretative signage on the history of this area 

inclusive of historic overlay maps to recreate the antebellum landscape.

To accompany the walking tour listed above, creation of a mobile application with map overlays to allow the visitor to 

experience the landscape in a digital medium.

Creation of additional interpretive signage on the history of this area.

Area Planning Initiatives 

Work with the City on a continued holistic preservation and interpretive plan for the Shockoe Bottom area.
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-31 

3.2 REFINED OPERATIONS ANALYSIS MODELING 

DRPT conducted computer-based operations simulations (also known as operations modeling) 

to estimate rail performance in the corridor in order to estimate if Build Alternatives defined in 

the Draft EIS might be anticipated to provide the infrastructure capacity and service performance 

necessary to meet the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project. This work was conducted using 

Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) simulation software. 

This section summarizes the results of that analysis, both within the DC2RVA corridor as well as 

in the larger CSX Transportation (CSXT) network, to inform the selection of a Preferred 

Alternative. It builds on previous operations simulation modeling conducted during preparation 

of the Draft EIS and incorporates subsequent revisions to the infrastructure and operating plans 

that were developed to improve operational consistency and reduce delays associated with 

schedule conflicts within the DC2RVA corridor. 

Full details of the refined operations analysis modeling are provided in the technical memos in 

Appendix F of this Final EIS; description of how the refined operations analysis modeling led to 

the selection of a Preferred Alternative is provided in the DC2RVA Recommendation Report, 

which is Appendix I of this Final EIS. 

3.2.1 Overview of Preliminary Operations Modeling Conducted in the Draft EIS 

During the preparation of the Draft EIS, DRPT conducted several preliminary operations 

simulations that evaluated multiple infrastructure alternatives, including alternatives with two 

tracks and three tracks, potential two track bypasses in Fredericksburg and Ashland, and 

alternate routes through Richmond. DRPT evaluated these preliminary operations simulations 

against the Project’s Purpose and Need to: accommodate 9 new daily intercity passenger round 

trips (18 total trains per day); accommodate projected CSXT freight growth; accommodate 

planned and funded Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail growth; and meet the federal 

passenger and freight train on-time performance targets through 2045 as set forth in the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA).98

The train performance estimates derived by DRPT from this preliminary comparison of 

alternatives suggested that either a third main track through Fredericksburg and/or Ashland or 

a two-track bypass around Fredericksburg and/or Ashland would provide the highest likelihood 

that trains throughout the Project corridor would meet their performance goals under the service 

level and schedule projected. The train performance estimates also informed the selection of the 

Richmond-area Build Alternative 6F, Staples Mill Road Station and Main Street Station (Full 

Service) as the Recommended Preferred Alternative for the Draft EIS, which by having both a 

downtown station and a suburban station was determined to best meet the Purpose and Need. 

These preliminary modeling results are presented in Chapter 2.6 of the Draft EIS and its 

Appendix I. 

3.2.2 Refined Operations Analysis Modeling Methodology 

After submission of the Draft EIS, DRPT followed its preliminary operations simulation efforts 

with two phases of refined operations analysis modeling to help inform the selection of a 

Preferred Alternative for the entire corridor, each of which are summarized below. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-32 

3.2.2.1 Two Phases of Refined Operations Modeling 

The two phases of refined operations modeling encompassed the following work: 

Phase 1: Refined Operations Analysis. The purpose of the refined operations analysis was to 

improve the performance results of all trains operating on the corridor by applying modifications 

to the proposed infrastructure and operating plan based on assessments of the preliminary 

operations modeling assumptions and results from the Tier II Draft EIS. The levels of service for 

all trains were not changed from the preliminary analysis, which are summarized in Section 4.2.2 

of this Final EIS. The refined operations analysis simulations had the following objectives and 

characteristics: 

 Measure passenger and freight train performance focused on performance within the 

DC2RVA corridor, and not include analysis of contiguous sections of shared-use track 

north and south of the corridor. 

 Review and revise the configuration of the proposed infrastructure to improve 

operational consistency and performance along the corridor, including 

- Changes to the Project’s proposed track infrastructure, in particular reconfigured 

crossovers, sidings, and station platforms, including: 

 Changes to interlocking configurations to provide full universal access to all tracks 

at certain locations. 

 Infrastructure changes and additional infrastructure to allow for the staging of fulllength freight trains at various locations in the corridor. 

 Review and revise the operating characteristics and assumptions applied to the model to 

reduce delays associated with schedule conflicts: 

- Incorporation of a platform assignment plan for intercity passenger and commuter 

trains operating within the corridor. The platform priority assignment was applied to 

all intercity passenger and commuter trains along the DC2RVA corridor from 

Washington, D.C. to Centralia, VA to represent a “typical” operating condition with 

minimal passenger-commuter train interference; however, the operations analysis 

allowed intercity passenger trains in certain sections of the corridor to use another track 

or serve a different station platform if required due to capacity constraints or 

interference with commuter trains. 

- Revision of intercity passenger train schedules between Washington and Richmond, 

where feasible, to capture changes in passenger train running times and recovery times 

made to enable trains to achieve PRIIA-mandated (see Section 3.2.1) and Projectspecific on-time performance goals in normal real-world operation under the revised 

corridor infrastructure and platform assignment plan described above. 

Phase 2: Network-Wide Analysis. The work in this phase consisted of running operations 

simulations to estimate potential effects to passenger, freight, and commuter train performance 

within a larger territory of the CSXT and connecting Buckingham Branch (BBRR) networks in the 

Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States, to estimate the potential effects of the Project on 

rail operations in territory adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor. The Network-Wide Analysis 

simulations had the following characteristics: 

 The revised infrastructure, operating, and train schedule modifications made for the 

Phase 1 modeling were applied in the Phase 2 modeling. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-33 

 Passenger and freight train performance were measured across a larger portion of the 

shared-use rail network, which included contiguous sections of the CSXT and BBRR 

networks in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States programmed into the 

simulation software that constituted the DC2RVA Modeling Limits. 

- Performance was measured on a shared-use network of track from Philadelphia, PA, 

and Cumberland, MD, to Newport News, VA, and Rocky Mount, NC. 

 Additional freight train performance outputs were generated. 

3.2.2.2 Modeling Scenarios for Phases 1 and 2 

The modeling scenarios simulated by DRPT were identical for Phases 1 and 2 and consisted of 

the following four Build cases and one No Build case. 

 2045 No Build. This case measured performance on the DC2RVA corridor with the No 

Build infrastructure and no-build train operations (without adding 18 new intercity 

passenger trains) identified in the DC2RVA Draft EIS, including freight traffic levels 

forecasted for the year 2045. This case did not include maintenance-of-way outages. 

 2045 Build. This Build case measured performance on the DC2RVA corridor with 

infrastructure that reflects the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA corridor, with a test 

of the three-track alternatives in Area 5 (i.e., Build Alternatives 5B and 5D-Ashcake as 

analyzed in the Draft EIS) through Ashland. This case included 9 new daily intercity 

passenger round trips (18 total trains per day) in addition to the No Build train operations. 

This case did not include maintenance-of-way outages. 

 2045 Build, 2 Tracks Ashland. This Build case measured performance on the DC2RVA 

corridor with infrastructure that reflects the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA 

corridor, with a test of the two-track alternative in Area 5 (i.e., Build Alternative 5A, also 

known as “3-2-3,” as analyzed in the Draft EIS) through the Town of Ashland. This case 

included 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day) in addition 

to the No Build train operations. This case did not include maintenance-of-way outages. 

 2045 Build, 2 Tracks Ashland + Track Out of Service North (Maintenance-Of-Way 

Outage). This Build case measured performance on the DC2RVA corridor with 

infrastructure that reflects the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA corridor, with a test 

of the two-track alternative in Area 5 (i.e., Build Alternative 5A, also known as “3-2-3,” as 

analyzed in the Draft EIS). This case included a randomly selected segment of 

approximately 10 miles in length between Alexandria and Crossroads that would be taken 

out of service in order to test the response of the network to a daytime maintenance-ofway (i.e., rail upkeep and repair) outage. This case included 18 new daily intercity 

passenger trains (9 round-trip) in addition to the No Build train operations. For 

comparison to the other four scenarios listed, this is the only scenario that included 

maintenance-of-way outages. 

 2045 Build, 2 Tracks South of Crossroads. This Build case measured performance on the 

DC2RVA corridor with infrastructure that reflects a modification to the Preferred 

Alternative with three main tracks from Alexandria to Crossroads and reduced to two 

main tracks from Crossroads to Richmond Staples Mill Road. This case included 18 new 

daily intercity passenger trains (9 round-trip) in addition to the No Build train operations. 

This case did not include maintenance-of-way outages. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-34 

In all cases described above, the infrastructure alternatives were tested for proposed operations 

in the year 2045, which represents the concluding year of a 20-year horizon for the Project, based 

on the Project’s proposed implementation year of 2025 (refer to Section 1.3.6 for details on Project 

planning dates). Refer to Appendix F of this Final EIS for full details on modeling scenarios. 

3.2.3 Refined Operations Modeling Results 

The performance estimates generated during the refined operations analysis simulations were 

benchmarked against performance goals for freight and passenger trains that were established 

by DRPT for the DC2RVA Project and by FRA under PRIIA. 

In the corridor-wide modeling simulation testing the Preferred Alternative for the full length of the 

DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill Road except 

for a constrained two-track alignment in Area 5 through Ashland (i.e., Alternative 5A, also known 

as “3-2-3”) without maintenance-of-way outages (“2045 Build, 2 Tracks Ashland”), passenger trains 

exceeded the Project’s endpoint station and all-stations performance goal of 90 percent on-time 

performance. Comparative to the No Build 2045 freight operating condition without maintenanceof-way outages (“2045 No Build”), the estimated cumulative freight train performance with two 

tracks through Ashland (measured in delay minutes per 100 train-miles) had a reduction of 2.4 

minutes. 

In the network-wide modeling case testing the Preferred Alternative for the full length of the 

DC2RVA corridor with three main tracks from Alexandria to Richmond Staples Mill Road except 

for a constrained two-track alignment in Area 5 through Ashland (i.e., Alternative 5A, also known 

as “3-2-3”) without maintenance-of-way outages (“2045 Build, 2 Tracks Ashland”), passenger 

exceeded the Project’s endpoint station performance goal of 90 percent on-time performance. The 

network-wide simulation estimated that two tracks through Ashland could increase freight delay 

per 100 train-miles by 0.5 minutes from the No Build 2045 freight operating condition without 

maintenance-of-way outages. 

Based on the refined operations analysis, DRPT and FRA have determined that the Build Case with 

two tracks through Ashland under 2045 freight traffic, and with 9 new daily intercity passenger 

round trips (18 total trains per day) from the DC2RVA Project (“2045 Build, 2 Tracks Ashland” 

without maintenance-of-way outages), provides the infrastructure required to meet the Purpose 

and Need of the Project while not unduly impacting CSXT’s forecasted future freight operations in 

the No Build case (“2045 No Build” without maintenance-of-way outages). 

Passenger Service Operating in the DC2RVA Corridor 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-35 

3.3 TOWN OF ASHLAND/HANOVER COUNTY COMMUNITY ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The purpose of this section is to report the recommendations of the Town of Ashland/Hanover 

County Community Advisory Committee (CAC) that supported the selection of the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is presented separately in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. For 

summary of the CAC and its activities, refer to Section 2.1.4.3 of this Final EIS. Additionally, 

Appendix G of this Final EIS provides full detail of CAC purpose and approach, members, 

meeting dates, and review of alternatives that were considered by the CAC. 

Shortly before the publication of the Draft EIS, DRPT established the CAC to advise and inform 

DRPT on DC2RVA alternatives and issues in the Ashland/Hanover County area. Over the course 

of five months, the CAC reviewed and fully evaluated over 30 different alternatives for the Town 

of Ashland/Hanover County area, including alternatives suggested by the public and 

alternatives developed by the CAC, in addition to alternatives and options that were considered 

in the Draft EIS (refer to Appendix G). During this time, DRPT continued to refine the operations 

analysis modeling of alternatives (as described in Section 3.2 above), and a qualitative 

presentation of draft preliminary passenger train performance estimates from the corridor-only 

simulations was made to the CAC. The CAC determined that many of the alternatives were not 

practical and also recognized that all of the alternatives would have substantial adverse impacts 

to residents, commercial interests, and communities, and would be objectionable to one or more 

groups of stakeholders. 

Passenger Service through Downtown Ashland, Virginia (Area 5) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-36 

After careful and deliberate consideration of the options for increased rail capacity in the 

Ashland/Hanover area, the CAC chose not to endorse any specific alternative and instead 

provided recommendations for three “least objectionable” alternatives: 

 Modified Alternative 5A. The “3-2-3” option (i.e., maintaining two tracks through Town) 

was determined by the CAC to be the least objectionable option for adding rail capacity 

through the Town of Ashland at-grade. In this option, a third track would be added to the 

existing CSXT right-of-way north and south of the Town of Ashland, while the existing 

two tracks would remain in service through Ashland. If necessary to meet passenger and 

performance goals, the downtown Ashland station could be closed, based on analysis at 

the time of that decision. Road overpasses would be added at Vaughan Road and Ashcake 

Road. The crossing at England Street would remain at-grade. [This option is similar to Build 

Alternative 5A that was evaluated in the Draft EIS, with further minimization of infrastructure 

and associated potential impacts within downtown Ashland.]

 Three-Track Trench. A three-track trench through the Town of Ashland was determined 

by the CAC to be the least objectionable option for adding capacity below-grade. A trench 

would be constructed through Ashland approximately 50 feet wide and 33 feet deep, 

extending from north of Vaughan Road to south of Ashcake Road. The two existing tracks 

through the Town of Ashland, along with a third new track, would pass through Ashland 

within the trench. The trench would be provided with strategically placed covers 

interspersed with open areas, allowing for motor vehicle and pedestrian crossings, 

landscaping, and other amenities. Details associated with the placement and length of 

covered spaces would be determined in final design. The downtown Ashland station 

would be closed. [This below-grade option followed a through-town alignment similar to Build 

Alternatives 5B or 5D as evaluated in the Draft EIS, but was considered and dismissed in the Draft 

EIS alternatives development process.]

 Modified Alternative 5C and 5C-Ashcake. The western bypass closest to the Town of 

Ashland, identified as AWB 1 in the Draft EIS alternatives development process, was 

determined by the CAC to be the least objectionable option for adding rail capacity 

outside the Town of Ashland—with the provision that the alignment would be adjusted 

to avoid directly impacting a children’s daycare facility on State Route 54, and to minimize 

impacts to residential properties. In this option, a two-track bypass approximately seven 

miles long would extend around the Town of Ashland to the west, along the town/county 

border. Roads bisecting the new bypass alignment would be re-routed or grade-separated 

to avoid creating any new at-grade road/rail crossings. The Ashland station could remain 

in service. [This bypass alignment is reflective of Build Alternative 5C as evaluated in the Draft 

EIS, but with a modified alignment. The AWB1 alignment was considered and dismissed in the 

Draft EIS alternatives development process.]

The CAC also recognized that regardless of the alternative ultimately recommended, mitigation 

for the adverse impacts would need to be considered, and the CAC members committed to 

working with DRPT and other stakeholders on the mitigation. 

Refer to Section 3.4 below for summary of selection of the Preferred Alternative by the 

Commonwealth. 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-37 

3.4 COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD RESOLUTION 

The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) passed a resolution for the recommendation of 

a Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Tier II EIS on December 6, 2017, referred to as the 

Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred Alternative, as presented in Table 3.4-1 below. The 

resolution is included in this Final EIS as Appendix H. The CTB issued the resolution following 

review of the Draft EIS and agency, stakeholder, and public comments on the Draft EIS received 

during the public comment period, plus ongoing coordination with DRPT and other stakeholders 

and the public (refer to Section 2.3 of this Final EIS for details). The CTB resolution aligned with 

DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative as presented in the Draft EIS. Additionally, the CTB 

resolution aligned with the CAC Recommendation (as described in previous Section 3.3): 

Alternative 5A meets the Purpose and Need for the DC2RVA Project with the least amount of 

impacts in the Ashland/Hanover area, and would have no Section 106 or Section 4(f) impacts 

(where all other alternatives considered or developed by the CAC included at least some impacts 

to cultural or historic resources). Per Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966, unless the use of 

such a property is determined to have a de minimis impact, FRA must determine that no feasible 

and prudent avoidance alternative exists before approving the use of such land (see Chapter 6 of 

this Final EIS for further details). 

Table 3.4-1: CTB Recommended Preferred Alternative

Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) * 

1A Add Two Main Tracks on the East 

1B* Add Two Main Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Main Track East and One Main Track West 

Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia 

2A Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg 

3B Add a Third Main Track Through City 

Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia 

4A Add a Third Main Track 

Alternative Area 5: Ashland 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements), Add a Third Main Track North and South of Town 

Alternative Area 6: Richmond 

6F Staples Mill Road Station and Main Street Station Full Service with S-Line Improvements 

* The CTB recommended selection of the Preferred Alternative to be based on compatibility with the Long Bridge EIS alternatives. 

Subsequent to the CTB resolution, FRA selected Alternative 1B as the Preferred Alternative, to align with the Long Bridge 

alternatives – refer to Section 4.1 of this Final EIS for details.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-38 

Further, the CTB resolved the following directives to DRPT in regard to future rail improvements 

in Alternative Area 5: 

 If DRPT determines that additional rail capacity is needed in Alternative Area 5 to meet 

the performance standards required for additional passenger trains, DRPT shall conduct 

a new study based on updated information. 

 DRPT shall avoid and/or minimize any permanent property acquisitions, to the extent 

practicable, in areas where only two mainline tracks on the current alignment are 

recommended, and to avoid any permanent property acquisitions related to the DC2RVA 

Project that would affect the operations of Randolph-Macon College. 

 DRPT shall explore the need for other potential improvements in downtown Ashland 

(Alternative Area 5) that will help protect the safety of motorized and non-motorized 

roadway users, and to facilitate emergency access, separate from the DC2RVA Project. 

3.5 DC2RVA RECOMMENDATION REPORT 

DRPT prepared a Recommendation Report to present the Commonwealth’s Recommended 

Preferred Alternative for the Project to FRA for inclusion in this Final EIS. The Recommendation 

Report is Appendix I of this Final EIS and includes an acceptance letter of the report from FRA. 

The purpose of the report was to summarize the Commonwealth’s Recommended Preferred 

Alternative and rationale leading to the selection of the Preferred Alternative for each area. The 

Recommendation Report includes a summary of comments received on the Draft EIS, other 

public involvement, and additional refined operations analysis modeling that provided input 

into the selection process. The content of the Recommendation Report is presented in Chapter 4 

(Selection of the Preferred Alternative) of this Final ES.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-39 

1 Staton, Heather Dollins, and Earl E. Proper. 2016. Archaeological and Architectural Phase IA Study for the Washington, 

D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Ashland Bypass (ASBP) Segment, Hanover County. DC2RVA Team, 

Richmond, Virginia; Staton, Heather Dollins, D. Brad Hatch, and Emily Calhoun. 2017. Archaeological and 

Architectural Phase IA Study for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Fredericksburg 

Bypass (FBBP) Segment, Stafford, Caroline, and Spotsylvania Counties. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia. 

2 Klein, Mike, Emily Calhoun, Marco González, and Earl E. Proper. 2015. Archaeological Background Review and 

Predictive Model for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia, Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. DC2RVA Team, 

Richmond, Virginia; McCloskey, Kevin, Earl Proper, Curtis McCoy, Emily Calhoun, Morgan MacKenzie, and 

Joseph Blondino. 2016. Phase IB Archaeological Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail 

Project Rosslyn to Alexandria (ROAF) through Buckingham Branch/Hospital Wye (BBHW) Segments. DC2RVA Team, 

Richmond, Virginia; McCloskey, Kevin, Emily Calhoun, Kerry González, and Mike Klein. 2018. Phase IB 

Archaeological Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Preferred Alternative Limits 

of Disturbance. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia.

3 Anderson, Emily K., and Heather D. Staton. 2016a. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Fredericksburg to Hamilton (FBHA) and Hamilton to Crossroads (HAXR) 

Segments, Spotsylvania County. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Anderson, Emily K., and Heather D. Staton. 

2016b. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project AM 

Jct to Centralia - S Line (AMCE) and AM Jct to Fulton Yard (AMFY) Segments, City of Richmond and Chesterfield County. 

DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Chase, Kristine A. Lesiuk, Adriana T., and M. Chris Manning. 2016. 

Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Elmont to 

Greendale (ELGN) Segment, Hanover and Henrico Counties. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, 

Virginia. Anderson, Emily, 2017. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington to Richmond, Virginia High 

Speed Rail Project Rosslyn to Alexandria (ROAF) through Buckingham Branch/Hospital Wye (BBHW) Segments. DC2RVA 

Team, Richmond, Virginia; Lesiuk, Adriana T., and Heather D. Station. 2016. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for 

the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project WAY to Centralia – A Line (WACE) Segment, 

Chesterfield County and City of Richmond. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Manning, M. Chris, Earl Proper, 

Adriana Lesiuk, and Heather Dollins Staton. 2016. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Lorton to Powells Creek (LOPC) Segment Prince William and Fairfax Counties. 

DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Manning, M. Chris, and Michelle Salvato. 2016. Architectural Reconnaissance 

Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Crossroads to Guinea (XRGU), Guinea to 

Milford (GUMD), and Milford to North Doswell (MDND) Segments Spotsylvania, Caroline, and Hanover Counties. 

DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Moss, Adriana T., and Kerri S. Barile. 2018. ADDENDUM: Architectural 

Reconnaissance Survey of the LOD Expansion Area for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, High Speed Rail Project, 

Arlington, Caroline, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, Fairfax, Prince William, Stafford, and Spotsylvania Counties and the 

Cities of Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Richmond, Virginia. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Peckler, Danae. 

2016. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project North 

Doswell to Elmont (NDEL) Segment, Hanover County. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Staton, Heather Dollins, 

Adriana T. Lesiuk, and Emily K. Anderson. 2016a. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Rosslyn to Alexandria (ROAF) Segment Arlington County and the City of 

Alexandria. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Staton, Heather Dollins, Adriana T. Lesiuk, Emily K. Anderson, 

and Earl P. Proper. 2016b. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High 

Speed Rail Project Alexandria to Franconia (AFFR) Segment City of Alexandria and Fairfax County. DC2RVA Team, 

Richmond, Virginia; Staton, Heather Dollins, Adriana Lesiuk, and M. Chris Manning. 2016c. Architectural 

Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Arkendale to Dahlgren 

Junction (ARDJ) Segment Stafford County. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Staton, Heather Dollins, M. Chris 

Manning, and Adriana Lesiuk. 2016d. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, 

Virginia High Speed Rail Project Lorton to Powells Creek (LOPC) Segment Prince William and Fairfax Counties. DC2RVA 

Team, Richmond, Virginia; Staton, Heather Dollins, and Adriana Lesiuk. 2016. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey 

for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project Dahlgren Junction to Fredericksburg (DJFB) 

Segment, City of Fredericksburg and Stafford County. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Sylvester, Caitlin C., and 

Heather D. Staton. 2016. Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed 

Rail Project Greendale to SAY/WAY (GNSA), SAY/WAY to AM Jct (SAAM) and Buckingham Branch/Hospital Wye 

(BBHW) Segments, Henrico County and City of Richmond. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia. 

 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-40 

 

4 Barile, Kerri S., Kristine A. Chase, Sean Maroney, Adriana T. Moss, Danae Peckler, and Heather Dollins Staton. 

2018a. Architectural Intensive Investigations for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) 

Project (Report A). DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; Barile, Kerri S., Melissa Butler, Adriana T. Moss, Danae 

Peckler, Heather Dollins Staton, Caitlin Sylvester, and Lenora Wiggs. 2018b. Architectural Intensive Investigations for 

the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Project (Report B). DC2RVA Team, Richmond, 

Virginia; Barile, Kerri S., Melissa Butler, Adriana T. Moss, Heather Dollins Staton, Caitlin Sylvester, and Lenora 

Wiggs. 2018c. Architectural Intensive Investigations for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 

(DC2RVA) Project (Report C). DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia. 

5 Alvey, Edward. 1978. The Streets of Fredericksburg. Mary Washington College Foundation, Inc., Fredericksburg, 

Virginia; Alvey, Edward. 1988. The Fredericksburg Fire of 1807. Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc., 

Fredericksburg, Virginia.; Aubrecht, Michael. 2008. Historic Churches of Fredericksburg: Hoses of the Holy. Shiloh 

Baptist Church (Old Site). The History Press, United Kingdom; Felder, Paula S. 1982. Forgotten Companions: The First 

Settlers of Spotsylvania County and Fredericksburgh Town. Historic Publications of Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg, 

Virginia; Goolrick, John T. 1922. Historic Fredericksburg: The Story of an Old Town. Whittet & Shepperson Press, 

Richmond; Howison, Robert Reid. 1898. Fredericksburg: Past, Present, and Future. J. Willard Adams Press, 

Fredericksburg, Virginia; Johnson, John Janney. 1997. The Falmouth Canal and Its Mills: An Industrial History. 

Journal of Fredericksburg History 2. On file at the Central Rappahannock Regional Library, Fredericksburg; 

Mansfield, James R. 1977. A History of Early Spotsylvania. Virginia Book Company, Berryville, Virginia; Shibley, 

Ronald E. 1976. Historic Fredericksburg: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company/Publishers, Inc., Norfolk, 

Virginia; Willis, Barbara, and Paula Felder. 1993. Handbook of Historic Fredericksburg, Virginia. Historic 

Fredericksburg Foundation, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

6 Alvey 1978, p. 1; Mansfield 1977, p. 11. 

7 Mansfield 1977, p. 89. 

8 Johnson 1997. 

9 Willis and Felder 1993. 

10 Griffin, William E., Jr. 1994. Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad: The Capital Cities Route. TLC Publishing, 

Inc., Lynchburg, Virginia, p. 5;. Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, Inc. 2014. Fredericksburg: The Official Guide. 

Donning Publishers, Virginia Beach, Virginia, p. 26. 

11 Willis and Felder 1993. 

12 Shibley 1976, p. 19. 

13 Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star [Fredericksburg, Virginia]. 1927. “First Train Over New Level Tracks.” February 

18. 

14 Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission Staff. 1970. Fredericksburg Historic District National Register of Historic 

Places Nomination. Electronic document, http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Fredericksburg/ 

111-0132_Fredericksburg_HD_1971_Final_Nomination.pdf, accessed September 2018. 

15 Snyder, Kimberly A. 1979. A Preliminary Archeological Resources Reconnaissance of the Fredericksburg Historic District 

"Chimneys" House, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Thunderbird Research Corporation, Front Royal, Virginia. 

16 Troup, Charles G. 1982. An Assessment of Archaeological Resources Along the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg, 

Virginia. Copy on file, Planning Department, City of Fredericksburg. 

17 Sanford, Douglas, Gary Stanton, Karen France, and Carter Hudgins. 1992. Archaeological and Historical Assessment of 

Blocks 48 and 49 in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Center for Historic Preservation, University of Mary Washington, 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

18 Sanford et al. 1992, pp. 2–3 

19 Geier, Clarence. 2001. Archaeology at Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park. 2001 Season. 

http://www.nps.gov/archive/frsp/jmu.htm, accessed June 2007; Geier, Clarence, and Stephen Lotts. 2004. An 

Overview of Archaeological Resources and Landscapes within Lands Managed by Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National 

Military Park- Volume II: the Battlefields of Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg and the Associated National Park Properties 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-41 

 

of "Stonewall" Jackson Shrine and Chatham; Report of Findings and Archaeological Site Descriptions. Department of 

Sociology and Anthropology James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 

20 Klein, Mike, Emily Lindtveit, and Tyler Theriot. 1999. Archaeological Excavation at 1200 Caroline Street: The "Fielding 

Lewis" Store. Center for Historic Preservation at Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

21 Cooke, John, Lily Richards, and Taft Keiser. 2002. Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cobblestone Square 

Apartments, City of Fredericksburg, Virginia. Cultural Resources, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. 

22 Barile, Kerri S., Kerry Schamel-Gonzalez, and Sean P. Maroney. 2008a “Inferior to None in the State”: The History, 

Archaeology, and Architecture of the Marriott Hotel Site in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

23 Maisano, Jacelyn, and Michael L. Carmody. 2006. Metal Detector Survey of the Proposed University of Mary 

Washington—Lee Hall Addition Site, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, 

Virginia. 

24 Andre, Elizabeth, and William Moore. 2008. Comprehensive Survey Report: Reconnaissance Survey of 1,000 Resources 

within the Fredericksburg Historic District and Potential Expansion Area, Fredericksburg, Virginia. William and Mary 

Center for Archaeological Research, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

25 Andre and Moore 2008. 

26 Mullen, John P., Kathryn Gettings Smith, Evelyn Causey, Julia Claypool, and Erik Nelson. 2011. Phase I Cultural 

Resources Investigations of the ±3.5 Mile Virginia Central Railroad Trail Project, City of Fredericksburg, Virginia. History 

Matters, LLC, Washington, D.C., and Thunderbird Archeology, Gainesville, Virginia for William H. Gordon 

Associates, Chantilly, Virginia. 

27 Krofft, Heidi E., Elizabeth Caufield, and Kerri S. Barile. 2014. Addendum To Cultural Resource Survey of the 

Fredericksburg Hardware Store Lot: Archival and Archaeological Analysis of the Marshall-Bell Kiln Site, City of 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

28 Krofft et al. 2014. 

29 Barile, Kerri, Earl Proper, Caitlin Oshida, and Kerry Gonzalez. 2014. Phase I Archaeological and Historical 

Investigations at the Riverfront Park Area (44SP0069) in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

30 Hatch, D. Brad, Kerry S. González, Emily Anderson, Kerri S. Barile, and Joseph R. Blondino. 2016. Archival Research 

and Archaeological Fieldwork at the Prince Hall Lodge Site (44SP0069-0001), Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural 

Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Blondino, Joseph R., Kerry S. González, D. Brad Hatch, Kevin 

McCloskey, and Kerri S. Barile. 2017. Additional Archaeological Fieldwork at the Prince Hall Lodge Site (44SP0069-0001), 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

31 Klein at al. 2015; McCloskey et al. 2016; McCloskey et al. 2018. 

32 Site 44SP0187 represents a nineteenth century mill. Sites 44SP0687 and 44SP0688 represent Blocks 48 and 49 within 

the City of Fredericksburg and were found to contain Archaic through twentieth century components. 

33 Staton and Lesiuk 2015. 

34 Barile et al. 2018a; Barile et al. 2018b. 

35 Klein at al. 2015. 

36 Klein et al. 2015; McCloskey et al. 2018. 

37 Klein et al. 2015. 

38 Keller, Genevieve P. 1990. Survey of Historic Resources, Hanover County, Virginia. Land and Community Associates, 

Charlottesville, Virginia; Knott, Laura, Sarah Traum, and Chistina Osborn. 2017. Ashland Historic District Update, 

National Register Nomination. Electronic document, drive.google.com/file/d/0B174RsbdkN4Z 

Ql9fakhkZEZoeUE/view, accessed September 2018; Shalf, Rosanne Groat. 1994. Ashland, Ashland: The Story of a 

Turn-of-the Century Railroad Town. Brunswick Publishing Co., Lawrenceville, Virginia; Town of Ashland. 2016. 

History of Ashland. Town of Ashland, Virginia. Electronic document, 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-42 

 

http://www.town.ashland.va.us/index.aspx? 

NID=177, accessed February 2016. VHLC. 1982a Ashland Historic District, National Register of Historic Places 

nomination. Copy on file at Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. 

39 Knott et al. 2017. 

40 Town of Ashland 2016. 

41 VHLC 1982a. 

42 VHLC 1982a. 

43 United States Census of Population and Housing. 2004. Historical Census Browser. The University of Virginia, 

Geospatial and Statistical Data Center. Electronic document, http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/, accessed 

February 2016. 

44 VHLC 1982a. 

45 VHLC 1982a. 

46 VHLC 1982a. 

47 VHLC 1982a; Knott et al. 2017. 

48 VHLC 1982a. 

49 Knott et al. 2017. 

50 VHLC 1978. 

51 VHLC 1978. 

52 Neville, Ashley M., Heather E. Maginniss, Katharine T. Lacy, J. Timothy Keller, and Gregory L. Brittingham. 1990. 

Survey of Historic Resources, Hanover County, Virginia. Prepared for Hanover County Planning Department, 

Hanover, Virginia by Land and Community Associates, Charlottesville, Virginia. 

53 Neville, Ashley M., Julie Gronlund, Heather Maginnis, Margarita Wuellner, J. Timothy Keller, and Katherine Lacy. 

1992. Survey of Historic Resources, Hanover County, Virginia: Phases I and II. Prepared for Hanover County Planning 

Department, Hanover, Virginia. Land and Community Associates, Charlottesville, Virginia. 

54 McLearen, Douglas C., and Beverly J. Binns. 1992. Phase I Archaeological Survey of Carter Park, Town of Ashland, 

Virginia. Virginia Commonwealth University Archaeological Research Center, Richmond. Copy on file at 

Department of Historic Resources Archives, Richmond, Virginia. 

55 Neville, Ashley M., Robert D. Clarke, and Bradley Brown. 1998. Phase I Archaeological Investigations in the Front, Side, 

and Rear Yards of the Hanover Tavern, Hanover County, Virginia. Gray and Pape, Inc. Richmond, Virginia. 

56 Neville, Ashley, and Brenda Pennington. 2012. Update of Hanover County’s Survey of Historic Resources. Ashley 

Neville, LLC, Ashland, Virginia. 

57 Klein at al. 2015; McCloskey et al. 2016; McCloskey et al. 2018. 

58 Peckler 2016. 

59 Barile et al. 2018c.

60 Klein at al. 2015. 

61 Klein et al. 2015; McCloskey et al. 2018. 

62 Chen, Kimberly. 2003. Oakwood-Chimborazo Historic District. National Register for Historic Places Nomination 

Form. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, Richmond, Virginia Electronic document, 

http://dhr.virginia.gov/registers/register.htm, accessed January 2018; Chen, Kimberly Merkel, and Hannah W. 

Collins. 2007. The Slave Trade as a Commercial Enterprise in Richmond, Virginia, MPS #127-6196, National 

Register for Historic Places Nomination Form. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, Richmond, Virginia. 

Electronic document, https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/MultipleCounty/127-

6196Slave_Trade_In_Richmond_MPS_2008_Final.pdf, accessed November 2017; Chesson, Michael B. 1981 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-43 

 

Richmond After the War, 1865–1890. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia; Dabney, Virginius. 1990. Richmond: 

The Story of a City. Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville; Deetz, Kelley F., 

Ellen Chapman, Ana Edwards, and Phil Wilayto. 2015. Historic Black Lives Matter: Archaeology as Activism in the 

21st Century.; Gibson, Langhorne, Jr. 2000. Cabell’s Canal: The Story of the James River and Kanawha Canal. The 

Commodore Press, Richmond, Virginia; Jacobe, Stephanie A.T. 2015. Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic 

District (DHR # 127-0344), Update to the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources. Electronic document, 

https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/places/pdfs/AD_83003308_12_29_2015.pdf, accessed November 2017; Kimball, 

Gregg D. 2000. American City, Southern Place: A Cultural History of Antebellum Richmond. The University of Georgia 

Press: Athens, Georgia; Mebane, Liz. 2009. History of Broad Street Station. Electronic document, 

http://www.smv.org/blog/2009-12-30/history-broad-street-station, accessed May 2015; Richardson, Selden. 2008. 

Built by Blacks: African American Architecture and Neighborhoods in Richmond. The History Press, Charleston, South 

Carolina.VHLC. 1982b. Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District, National Register for Historic Places 

Nomination Form. Copy on file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond. 

63 Dabney 1990. p. 12; Stanard, Mary N. 1923. Richmond, its people and it story. Lippincott Publishing, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, p. 20. 

64 Jacobe 2015. 

65 Dabney 1990. 

66 Chesson 1981; Kimball 2000, p. 3–80. 

67 Chen and Collins 2007. 

68 Jacobe 2015. 

69 Chesson 1981, p. 48. 

70 Dabney 1990, pp. 190–198; Thomas, Emory M. 1971. The Confederate State of Richmond: A Biography of the Capital. 

Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp. 179–198. 

71 Chesson 1981, pp. 130–139. 

72 Chen 2003. 

73 Zembala, Dennis M., and Eric DeLony. 1976. Seaboard Airline/Chesapeake & Ohio: Main Street Station and 

Trainshed, National Register for Historic Places Nomination Form. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, 

Richmond, Virginia. Electronic document, https://npgallery.nps.gov/pdfhost/docs/NHLS/Text/70000867.pdf, 

accessed November 2017. 

74 Harry Weese Associates and Sorg and Associates, P.C. 1997. Main Street Station, Richmond, Virginia, Multimodal 

Transportation Center. Sorg and Associates, Washington, D.C. 

75 VHLC 1982b. 

76 Jacobe 2015; Striker, Arthur. 2008. Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District (DHR # 127-0344), Update to 

the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, 

Virginia. Electronic document, http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Richmond/127-

0344_Shockoe_Valley_Tobacco_Row_HD_amendment_2008.pdf, accessed November 2017. 

77 Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. 2004. Phase I Architectural Resource Survey Report: Southeast High Speed Rail 

Corridor From Petersburg, Virginia (Collier Yard), to Raleigh, North Carolina (Boylan Wye). Mattson, Alexander and 

Associates, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina; Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger). 2007. Architectural and Battlefield 

Surveys, Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Cities of Petersburg and Richmond, and Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, and Henrico 

Counties, Virginia. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia; Dixon, Stuart, Brad Duplantis, Megan 

Rupnik, Lee Tippett, and Eric Voigt. 2005. Archaeological Survey and Architectural Survey and Evaluation, Southeast 

High Speed Rail Corridor, City of Petersburg, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and Mecklenburg Counties, Virginia. The Louis 

Berger Group, Inc., Richmond, Virginia; Barile, Kerri S., and Carthon Davis, III. 2013. Addendum: Phase I 

architectural Survey and Evaluation for the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Chesterfield, Dinwiddie, Brunswick, and 

Mecklenburg Counties, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Barile, Kerri S., 

Carthon Davis, III, Kathleen Hughes, Caitlin Oshida, Danae Peckler, and Aubrey Von Lindern. 2013. Reconnaissance 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-44 

 

and Intensive Studies of Bridges and Other Structures Along the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Richmond, Virginia, to 

the North Carolina State Line. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia.Carmody, Mike, Kerry 

Schamel-González, Marco González, and Gregg Harmon. 2008. Phase I Archaeological Survey: Southeast High Speed 

Rail Corridor, Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, and Chesterfield County, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural 

Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia; Dollins, Heather, Kerri Barile, and Claire Lanier. 2009. Phase I 

Architectural Survey of Road Construction Areas Associated with the Southeast High Speed Rail Project, Cities of Richmond, 

Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, and Chesterfield and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, 

Fredericksburg, Virginia; Dollins, Heather, Andrew Stempel, and Kerri S. Barile. 2008. Intensive Architectural 

Investigations Along the Richmond-To-Petersburg Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, 

Petersburg, and Chesterfield County, Virginia. DC2RVA Team, Richmond, Virginia; González, Kerry S., Marco 

González, Brad Hatch and Michael Carmody. 2009. Phase I Archaeological Survey of Road Construction Areas 

Associated With The Southeast High Speed Rail Project, Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights, and Petersburg, and 

Chesterfield and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

78 Laird, Mathew R. 2006. Preliminary Archaeological Investigation of The Lumpkin’s Jail Site (44HE1053) Richmond, 

Virginia. James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia; Laird, Mathew R. 2010. Archaeological 

Data Recovery Investigation of the Lumpkin’s Slave Jail Site (44HE1053) Richmond, Virginia, Volume I: Research Report. 

James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia. 

79 Chen and Collins 2007. 

80 Draper Aden Associates. 2007a. Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1 (ASTM E1527-05), 1554 East Broad Street, 1520 

East Marshall Street, Richmond, Virginia. Draper Aden Associates, Richmond, Virginia; Draper Aden Associates. 

2007b. Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 2, 1554 East Broad Street, 1520 East Marshall Street, Richmond, Virginia. 

Draper Aden Associates, Richmond, Virginia 

81 Stephenson, Christopher M. 2008. Burial Ground for Negroes, Richmond, Virginia: Validation and Assessment. Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia. 

82 Blakey, Michael L. 2008. Institute for Historical Biology (IHB) Review of the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (DHR) Validation and Assessment Report on the Burial Ground for Negroes, Richmond, Virginia, by C. 

M. Stephenson, 25 June 2008. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 

83 Simpson, Kay. 2011. Archaeological Monitoring, Site 44HE1089 Slave Burial Ground Greening Project. Cultural 

Resource Analysts, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. 

84 Reid, Dawn, and Bobby Southerlin. 2008. Phase I Archaeological Study of the Cedar and Broad Block Richmond, Virginia. 

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, North Carolina. 

85 Peckler, Danae, Tom Roberts, and Kerri Barile. 2010. Cultural Resource Survey of The Broad Street Bus Rapid Transit 

System Project, City of Richmond and Henrico County, Virginia, Volumes I–V: Areas A–I and Archaeological 

Reconnaissance. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

86 Peckler, Danae, and Adriana Lesiuk. 2015. Addendum to Phase I Architectural Survey of the Broad Street Bus Rapid 

Transit Project, City of Richmond, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

87 Calhoun, Emily. 2013. Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Assessment of The Slave and Free Black Burying Ground, I-64 

Shockoe Valley Bridge Project, City of Richmond, Virginia. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Richmond, Virginia; Klein, 

Mike. 2012. Memorandum: VDOT Project 0064-M11-002, P101; UPC No. 92212 (Hospital Street Auguring). Dovetail 

Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

88 Calhoun 2013. 

89 Dutton, David, Dara Friedberg, and Robert J Taylor. 2014. Cultural Context and Thematic Study for the Proposed 

Revitalize RVA Project. Review Draft. Dutton+Associates, Richmond, Virginia. 

90 Klein at al. 2015; McCloskey et al. 2016; McCloskey et al. 2018. 

91 Anderson and Staton 2016. 

92 Barile et al. 2018a, Barile et al.2018b, Barile et al. 2018c. 

93 Krupczynski, Joseph, Max Page, Randy Crandon, Nick Jeffway , Camesha Scruggs. 2017. A Community Proposal for: 

Shockoe Bottom Memorial Park. Center for Design Engagement, Department of Architecture, University of 
 A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N 

 3-45 

 

Massachusetts Amherst. Richmond Comprehensive Plan. 2000. City of Richmond’s Master Plan 2000–2020. 

Electronic document, http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/PlanningAndDevelopmentReview/PlansMaster .aspx, 

accessed December 2008; SmithGroupJJR. 2017. Lumpkin’s Jail Site and Museum Development. SmithGroupJJR, 

Washington, D.C. Electronic document, 

http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionSlaveTrail/documents/LumpkinsJailPressPacket.pdf, accessed 

November 2017. 

94 Klein at al. 2015. 

95 Klein et al. 2015; McCloskey et al. 2018. 

96 Klein et al. 2015. 

97 Bates, Micajah. 1835. Plan of the City of Richmond Drawn From Actual Survey and Regional Plans. Electronic 

document, search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:1003728#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&xywh=-1404%2C1453%2C23619 

%2C17511, accessed January 2018; Beers, F.W. 1877. Map of the City of Richmond. F.W. Beers, Richmond, Virginia. 

Electronic document, www.loc.gov/item/2005630891, accessed January 2018; Baist, George. 1889. Atlas of the City 

of Richmond, Virginia, and Vicinity. G. W. Baist Publishing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic document, 

catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchCode=LCCN&searchArg=unk81004088&searchType=1&permalink=y, 

accessed January 2018; Ludwig, Charles. 1865. Map of a Part of the City of Richmond Showing the Burnt Districts. 

Willian Ira Smith Publisher, Richmond, Virginia. Electronic document, www.loc.gov/item/lva0000012/, accessed 

January 2018; Randall, R.H. 1922. Topography Area Surrounding City of Richmond. Randall & Company, Toledo, 

Ohio. Electronic document, search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/u4868094#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=2&xywh=-246%2C3907%2C17097%2C21114, accessed January 2018; Sanborn Map Company. 1905. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from 

Richmond, Independent Cities, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company. Electronic document, 

www.loc.gov/item/sanborn09064_003/, accessed January 2018. 

98 FRA published proposed “Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service” in the Federal Register on 

 May 12, 2010, which is available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02875