Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09)

TO: FHWA FROM: Nick Froelich DATE: 10/05/15

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CE)

Date CE level document approved by VA FHWA Division: 11/17/2014 FHWA Contact: John Simkins Route: 10 (W Hundred Road) Route Type: Primary Project Type: Construction State Project Number: 0010-020-R44 Federal Project Number: RSTP-5A27(176) UPC: 102952

From: 0.09 mile West of Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway) To: Interstate 95 (I-95) County/City: Chesterfield County District / Residency: Richmond/Chesterfield

Project in STIP: Yes Project in Long Range Plan: Yes No N/A Project Outside of MPO Area Next Phase of Funding Available: Yes No

Project Description: The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of Route 10 (W. Hundred Road) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1/301) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. Offset credits would be purchased from a nutrient bank to achieve stormwater quality requirements. The majority of the project area is included in the drainage area for Chesterfield County’s Route 10/I-95 Regional BMP located in the southeast quadrant of the I-95 and Route 10 Interchange. The storm system to the BMP from the eastern project terminus has been verified to be able to handle the increased stormwater from the project. A small portion of the project area(s) flows to the south and west. The storm sewer systems were verified to their ultimate outfall to be sure the man- made conveyances (i.e. storm sewer systems) were adequate. The flow to these outfalls was either decreased or deemed a negligible increase. Project figures are contained in Attachment A.

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve traffic operations and safety within the project corridor, and connect traffic on Interstate 95 with commercial, residential and industrial land uses along the Route 10 and Route 1 corridors. Improved traffic operations would be achieved through the provisions of additional roadway capacity and implementation of access management techniques. Safety improvements would be achieved by reducing conflict points and crashes (left-turn movements at median crossovers and congestion related at signalized intersections and crossovers).

Currently, traffic volumes within the corridor fall in the range between a 4-lane divided and 6-lane divided typical section. It is anticipated that traffic volumes and corridor congestion will increase from area

1 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) development and regional development impacts. In addition, corridor capacity is limited by turning movements at the driveways and crossovers (conflict points) and weaving movements.

CE Category 23 CFR 771.117: (d)(13) Description of CE Category: Actions described in paragraphs (c)(26), (c)(27), and (c)(28) of this section that do not meet the constraints in paragraph (e) of 23 CFR 771.117.

USGS Map Attached Yes

Logical Termini and Independent Utility: Yes N/A (For Non-highway construction only, explain in comments below) Comments: The proposed improvements address identified needs to improve traffic operations and safety between 0.09 mile west of the intersection of Route 10 and Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1/301) to the west and to I-95 interchange southbound ramps to the east. These improvements can be made independent of other improvements along Route 10 and still improve traffic operations and safety within the project corridor.

Typical Section: The typical section for the proposed project would consist of a six lane divided urban arterial with three 12-foot wide travel lanes in each direction with the inside lanes having an additional 1 foot shy distance from the curb, a 22-ft width median, a 2.5-ft wide curb and gutter, and 5-foot wide sidewalks on either side located within a variable width right-of-way ranging from approximately 90 feet to 180 feet.

Structures: There are no bridges or large diameter culverts associated with the project.

PRESENT IMPACTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC YES NO YES NO Minority/Low Income Populations Disproportionate Impacts to Minority/Low Income Populations: Yes No Existing or Planned Public Recreational Facilities Source: Census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010); Chesterfield County Comprehensive Plan, amended April 15, 2015; Chesterfield County Bikeways and Trails Plan (draft April 2015); preliminary project plans; preliminary right of way data sheets Community Services Source: Chesterfield County Comprehensive Plan, adopted October 24, 2012; Chesterfield County GIS Data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/) Consistent with Local Land Use: Yes No Source: Chesterfield County Comprehensive Plan, amended April 15, 2015 Existing or Planned Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities: Source: Chesterfield County Bikeways and Trails Plan (draft April 2015); preliminary project plans

2 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) Comments: Population demographics are available from the U.S. Census Bureau for Chesterfield County from the 2010 Census. Poverty data was obtained from the American Community Survey (ACS) through the U.S. Census Bureau for 5-year averages for census tracts located within the project corridor. The project corridor traverses census tract 1004.09 and 1005.05 and block groups 1 and 4 within tract 1004.09 and block group 3 within tract 1004.09. Figure 4 within Attachment A depicts the project corridor, census tracts and block groups. Population demographic data for the project area is summarized in Table 1 within Attachment B. According to the 2010 Census, the population of Chesterfield as a whole is composed of 68 percent white and 32 percent minority groups. Block group 3 within census tract 1005.05 has a higher minority population, block group 4 within tract 1004.09 has a higher Hispanic or Latino origin populations, and tract 1004.09 has a higher percent of the population below the poverty line than Chesterfield County as a whole. However, there are no residential properties within the project corridor and no business relocations or full property acquisitions are proposed as part of the project. It is anticipated that right-of-way would be required from two parcels – 0.053 ac from 2611 W Hundred Road (Parcel 002) and 0.019 ac from 12500 Jefferson Davis Highway (Parcel 003.) located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 10 and Jefferson Davis Highway. The right-of-way acquisition is limited to parcel frontage along Route 10.

No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of E.O. 12898 and FHWA Order 6640.23, no further Environmental Justice analysis is required. In addition, the proposed project would improve the transportation corridor by enhancing traffic capacity, improving safety, and providing for pedestrian access (sidewalks).

A Maintenance of Traffic plan will be prepared to ensure there are no disruptions to emergency services during construction. It is anticipated that two lanes of traffic will be maintained throughout construction. At times where only one lane of traffic can be maintained work would occur during the night.

SECTION 4(f) and SECTION 6(f) YES NO Use of 4(f) Property: Acres of use: 0 Name of Resource: NA Type of Resource: Individually Eligible Historic Property: Contributing Element to Historic District Public Recreation Area: Public Park: Public Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuge: Planned Public Park, Recreation Area, Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuge: Source: VDHR correspondence dated January 8, 2015; VDHR correspondence dated February 24, 2015; DCR Land and Water Conservation Fund GIS data; DCR Initial Project Review, dated 10/22/14; DCR Conservation Lands GIS Data (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/cldownload.shtml, dated 12-16-14); Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation (http://www.chesterfield.gov/Parks.aspx?id=6442484364); Chesterfield County GIS data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/) DeMinimis: Type of Use: Permanent:

3 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) Temporary: *Constructive: *Temporary Non 4(f) Use Section 4(f) Evaluation Attached: Conversion of 6(f) Property: Acres of Conversion: 0 Source: VDHR correspondence dated January 8, 2015; VDHR correspondence dated February 24, 2015; Land and Water Conservation Fund (http://waso- lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm; accessed 1-29-15); DCR Land and Water Conservation Fund GIS data; DCR Initial Project Review, dated 10/22/14; DCR Conservation Lands GIS Data (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/cldownload.shtml, dated 12-16-14); Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation (http://www.chesterfield.gov/Parks.aspx?id=6442484364); Chesterfield County GIS data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/)

Comments: This project will not result is use of 4(f) property or conversion of 6(f) property. *Note that a Constructive Use and a Temporary Non 4(f) Use do not apply with a De Minimis finding.

CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLETE N/A Source: Cultural Resources Survey, Widening of Route 10 from Route 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia (Consultant, October 2014); VDHR correspondence dated January 8, 2015; VDHR correspondence dated February 24, 2015. "No Effect" Pursuant to 1999 DHR Agreement Phase I Architecture Conducted Phase II Architecture Conducted Phase I Archaeology Conducted Phase II Archaeology Conducted

Section 106 Effect Determination: No Adverse Effect DHR Concurrence on Effect: Yes Date: 2/24/15 MOA Attached: Yes N/A Execution Date: NA Name of Historic Property: Ware Bottom Church Battlefield (VDHR #020-5319), Petersburg Battlefield II (VDHR #123-5025), Proctor’s Creek Battlefield (VDHR #020-5320)

Comments: None

4 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) PRESENT IMPACTS NATURAL RESOURCES YES NO YES NO Surface Water (Name: ) 0Linear ft. Source: U.S.G.S. topo quad Chester, VA; site visit, data points and mapping (Consultant, 2015) Federal Threatened or Endangered Species: Terrestrial: Bat, northern long-eared(see comments below) None Aquatic: None None Plants: None None Source: DGIF correspondence dated 2-5-15; DCR correspondence dated 11-18-14; USFWS correspondence dated 11-20-14 & 12-1-14 & 8-27-15 100 Year Floodplain: If "Yes" then identify the regulatory floodway zone: NA Source: FEMA FIRM Number 51041C0335D, dated December 18, 2012 Tidal Waters/Wetlands: No tidal waters or wetlands are located within the 0 Acres project corridor. 0 Type

Wetlands: No wetlands are present within the project corridor 0 Acres If yes, there are no practicable alternatives to the construction in wetlands 0 Type and the action will include all practicable measures to minimize harm to the impacted wetlands. Source: U.S.G.S. topo quad Chester, VA; site visit, data points and mapping (Consultant, 2015); COE correspondence dated 3-10-15

Permits Required: Source: U.S.G.S. topo quad Chester, VA; site visit, data points and mapping (Consultant, 2015); COE correspondence dated 3-10-15; DEQ correspondence 2-23-15; VMRC correspondence 12-18-14

Comments: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was identified on USFWS’ Official Species List. There would be no effect to critical habitat or bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). No bald eagle nests within 660 ft of the project corridor or eagle concentration areas were identified on the Bald Eagle Mapping Portal. Additional coordination was conducted with USFWS. In correspondence dated August 27, 2015, the USFWS agreed that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the Northern long-eared bat provided there is no tree clearing between April 15 and Sept. 15 of any year or that emergent surveys are conducted that result in no findings of the federally listed threatened Northern long-eared bat. Per the Memorandum of Understanding: Compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in Relation to the National Environmental Policy Act Process, Section 7 coordination is required to address species concerns and will be completed prior to beginning work. Based on experience consulting the Northern long-eared bat, a jeopardy opinion is highly unlikely.

5 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) PRESENT IMPACTS AGRICULTURAL/OPEN SPACE YES NO YES NO Open Space Easements Source: VOF Owned Lands (Virginia Outdoors Foundation http://www.vaconservedlands.org/gis.aspx); DCR’s GIS coverage of Conservation Lands in Virginia (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/cldownload.shtml & https://vanhde.org/content/map); Agricultural/Forestal Districts Source: Chesterfield GIS data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/)

Comments: None.

FARMLAND YES NO NRCS Form CPA-106 Attached: Rating: NA Alternatives Analysis Required: If Form CPA-106 is not attached check all that are applicable: Land already in Urban use: Entire project in area not zoned agriculture: NRCS responded within 45 days: NRCS Determined no prime or unique farmland in the project area. Source: Chesterfield GIS data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/)

Comments: Parcels located within the project corridor are zoned Community Business District (C-3) and General Business District (C-5) and are developed and in use for commercial purposes.

PRESENT INVASIVE SPECIES YES NO UNKNOWN Invasive Species in the project area: VDCR indicated that the potential exists for some VDOT projects to further the establishment of invasive species. All seeds used will be tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to ensure there are not prohibited Noxious Weed-Seeds in the seed mixes.

Comments: None.

6 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) AIR QUALITY Carbon Monoxide (CO) Yes No This project is located in a CO Attainment Area Maintenance Area CO Hotspot Analysis Required? (if “Yes”, please attach analysis) If "No", indicate which exemption it falls under: Exempt project under 40 CFR 93.126. Exempt project based on traffic volumes below thresholds in the current VDOT Project Level Air Quality Studies Agreement with FHWA/EPA. Ozone Attainment Area Maintenance Area This project is located in an Ozone Nonattainment Area Early Action Compact Area Only projects located in ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas must complete this box Exempt from regional emissions requirements under 40 CFR 93.126 or 40 CFR 93.127. Properly programmed in the 2035 CLRP and FY 12 - 15 TIP. The project is not regionally significant and/or is not of a type that would normally be included in the regional transportation model. This project is regionally significant; however the project was not modeled, or the scope of the project is not consistent with what was modeled in the currently conforming CLRP and TIP. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Yes No Nonattainment Area Maintenance Area This project is located in a PM 2.5 Attainment Area (if checked, do not fill out box below) PM2.5 Hotspot Analysis Required? (If “Yes”, Please Attach Analysis) Check all that apply; A. Exempt project under 40 CFR 93.126, Table 2. B. Not a project of air quality concern under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i) thru (v). C. Properly programmed in the CLRP and FY - TIP. D. This project is regionally significant; however the project was not modeled, or its scope is not consistent with what was modeled, in the currently conforming CLRP and TIP. If “B” is checked above, please indicate the following for highway projects; Design Year , Peak AADT , Peak Diesel Truck % Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) is exempt with no meaningful potential MSAT effects This project is one with low potential MSAT effects (attach qualitative MSAT analysis) is one with high potential MSAT effects (attach quantitative MSAT analysis) Check all that apply; Exempt project under 40 CFR 93.126, or qualifies as a CE under 23 CFR 771.117(c). Project with no meaningful impact on traffic volumes or vehicle mix. If a qualitative MSAT analysis is required, please indicate the following for highway projects; Design Year 2039, Peak AADT 48,000 Source: Air Report (VDOT, 2-5-15)

Comments: None.

7 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) NOISE YES NO Type I Project: Source: Noise Study Memorandum dated 3-16-15 (Consultant) Noise Analysis Attached: Barriers Under Consideration: Source: Noise Study Memorandum dated 3-16-15 (Consultant)

Comments: None.

RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATIONS YES NO Residential Relocations: If “Yes”, number: 0 Source: preliminary project plans; preliminary right of way data sheets Commercial Relocations: If “Yes”, number: 0 Source: preliminary project plans; preliminary right of way data sheets Non-profit Relocations: If “Yes”, number: 0 Source: preliminary project plans; preliminary right of way data sheets Right of Way required: If “Yes”, acreage amount: 0.072ac Source: preliminary project plans; preliminary right of way data sheets

PRESENT IMPACTS YES NO YES NO Septic Systems, Wells, or Public Water Supplies: Source: Corridor Hazardous Materials Reconnaissance Survey (CHMRS) dated 4-3-15 (Consultant); Chesterfield GIS data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/) Hazardous Materials: Source: CHMRS dated 4-3-15 (Consultant); Chesterfield GIS data (http://citizengis.chesterfield.gov/)

8 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) Comments: Septic Systems, Wells or Public Water Supplies: According to the property owner questionnaires that were completed as part of the CHMRS, one septic system located at 2400 W Hundred Rd is in use at an adjacent parcel to the project corridor. No potable drinking water wells or industrial production wells were observed within or adjacent to the corridor during the site visit that was conducted. In addition, none were reported in the questionnaires. The parcels located along the project corridor are served by public water and sewer.

Hazardous Materials: There are adjacent properties within the project corridor with reported petroleum releases which could have migrated into the right-of-way. Therefore, specifications would be developed detailing the procedure for identifying and managing contaminated soil generated during construction. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM standards will be performed for parcels proposed for right-of-way acquisition. Based on the depth of groundwater (25-35 ft below ground surface) and the deepest proposed improvements (8 ft below ground surface), it is not anticipated that the proposed project would require dewatering. Therefore, impacts to groundwater were not evaluated. If right-of-way acquisition or design changes occur, potential impacts would be reevaluated at that time.

CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS PRESENT YES NO N/A Present or reasonably foreseeable future projects (highway and non- highway) in the area: Impact same resources as the proposed highway project (i.e. cumulative impacts): Indirect (Secondary) impacts: Source: Chesterfield County Comprehensive Plan, amended April 15, 2015; plan2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Richmond Area

9 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09) Comments: There are two additional planned roadway improvement projects within the vicinity of the proposed project:

Route 10 Widening from Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Rd (UPC 101020) – this project would involve widening Route 10 from 6 lanes to an ultimate 8 lane right-of-way between Bermuda Triangle Road and Meadowville Road to the east of the proposed project. Two NRHP eligible properties were identified within the project’s APE - Fort Drake (44CF0184) and Bermuda Hundred Line (44CF0578). Coordination was conducted and the project was redesigned to avoid impacts to these features. It was determined that the proposed project will have a conditional no adverse effect on historic properties. Any impacts to wetlands or waters would require wetland and water quality permits and appropriate compensatory mitigation.

Route 1 and Old Bermuda Hundred Road Intersection Improvements (UPC 101021) – this project would involve intersection improvements and would result in minor impacts to wetlands and a stream which would be compensated for. No other environmental impacts were identified for this project.

The intensity of the incremental impacts of the project are considered small, when viewed in the context of impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and would not rise to a level that would cause significant cumulative impacts.

The proposed project would improve traffic operations and safety within the project corridor, and connect traffic on Interstate 95 with commercial, residential and industrial land uses along the Route 10 and Route 1 corridors. The project is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan (amended April 15, 2015) regarding land use and transportation goals. The proposed improvements are not anticipated to contribute to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT YES NO Substantial Controversy on Environmental Grounds: Source: No significant environmental impacts identified during coordination with the resources agencies identified below. Public Hearing: If “Yes”, type of hearing: Location/Design Other Public Involvement Activities: If “Yes”, type of Involvement: NA

Comments: A public hearing will be conducted in Fall 2015.

COORDINATION The following agencies were contacted during development of this study:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)

10 Form EQ-104 (Revised 05/07/09)

This project meets the criteria for a Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 40 CFR 1508.4 and 23 CFR 771.117 and will not result in significant impacts to the human or natural environment.

11 Attachment A

Figures ¹

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 01/28/15 FIGURE 1 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 4,000 FEET OVERALL VICINITY ¹

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 01/28/15 FIGURE 2 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET TOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY ¹

ROUTE 10 I-95

JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR DATA SOURCE: VBMP 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 01/28/15 FIGURE 3 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 500 FEET AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ¹

JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY

C.E. CURTIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!(

CHESTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH !( !( ROUTE 10 CHESTER LIBRARY SOUTHERN AREA POLICE STATION !( I-95 CHESTER FAMILY YMCA !( !( SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK !( DUTCH GAP FIRE STATION

JOHN TYLER COMMUNITY COLLEGE !(

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR

!( COMMUNITY FACILITIES

TRACT 1004.09 BG 1

TRACT 1004.09 BG 4

TRACT 1005.05 BG 3 DATA SOURCE: VBMP 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 01/28/15 FIGURE 4 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA CENSUS AREAS & UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET COMMUNITY FACILITIES Attachment B Socio Economic Data TABLE 1. POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ROUTE 10 WIDENING - CHESTERFIELD, VA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION TRACT 1004.09 1005.05 CHESTERFIELD BLOCK GROUP 1 4 3 TOTAL POPULATION 1,485 740 1,451 316,236 WHITE 1,254 623 914 215,954 NONWHITE 231 117 537 100,282 % MINORITY 15.56% 15.81% 37.01% 31.71%

TOTAL POP 1485 740 1,451 316,236 HISPANIC/LATINO 60 65 65 24,870 % HISPANIC/LATINO 4.04% 8.78% 4.48% 7.86%

LOW INCOME TRACT 1004.09 1005.05 CHESTERFIELD POVERTY TOTAL POP 6,161 5,043 315,276 BELOW POVERTY 591 334 21,240 % BELOW POVERTY 9.59% 6.62% 6.74%

* RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN DATA OBTAINED FROM 2010 **POVERTYCENSUS DATA DATA FOR WAS BLOCKS OBTAINED LOCATED FROM WITHIN AMERICAN THE PROJECTCOMMUNITY AREA SURVEY (ACS) 5-YEAR AVERAGES FOR TRACTS LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT PARKS & ATHLETIC COMPLEXES Chesterfield County, Virginia Department of Parks and Recreation

James River

Robious Landing Park S

Robious

Complex C Buford Rd R o Rd b t i o ou n s e 288 R g u d Hu Greenfield y

Complex N w Powhatan k Watkins Annex P te Park N hi County Huguenot w 60 Tnpk o ¤£ Midlothian Park C P

Mid-Lothian Davis Chippenham Pkwy Mines Park H Complex N RICHMOND Reams Rd Providence Monacan Complex C Complex N d ce R O viden ld ro Hu P nd T re d u Providence r R n d e Road Park C-U r Manchester R Middle Complex N d Clover Hill Clarendon Stratton Complex R Park N Rockwood Park C Gates Mill Genito Rd Providence Park R Park N Creek Park S-U Warbro Fernbrook Horner Complex C Park N Falling Creek Linear Park R-U Swift Creek Park / Ironworks S Reservoir Woodlake Bensley Atkins Acres Park C-U Park N Complex N Cogbill Henrico Park S-U Drewry's Bluff National Park County quarter Iron Bridge Skin Rd Park R 360 Manchester Fort Stevens S C ¤£ d High Complex C ou rth R o us k Presquile National e Hull Street Rd c R 95 o d Wildlife Refuge p Bird Complex C r ¨¦§

e Dutch Gap B t

e

n i James River a Pocahontas 288 Boat Ramp S v e W Fairgrounds S r Qualla Rd B State Park r Magnolia id g Grange S Castlewood S Henricus e R Beach Rd Park S d Chester Linear Battery 10 Goyne Park S Dantzler S Park C Dutch Gap Conservation Area S Nash Rd I Kiwanis Park S-U r on Bridg e 295 Rd Warebottom ¨¦§ Church S-U Brown and Williamson Lowe's Complex C Fort Wead / Conservation Area S-U d Sgt Engle Park S R o r o b Appomattox River l River Rd a 10 o Dodd Park R C Howlett Line S

Harrowgate Rd Historic Point of B Rocks Park S-U r a 1 n ¤£ d e Harrowgate r s Park C Swift Creek Eppington B r Appomattox River id Conservation Area S-U Plantation S Lake Chesdin g e R Linear Park S-U d W Lake Chesdin o o d Park C-U p e c k PARK CLASSES e r R Amelia d Lake Chesdin R - REGIONAL Boat Landing S Large Parks, Many Types of Facilities County Hicko ry Rd C - COMMUNITY Colonial Mid-Sized Parks, Several Types of Facilities Matoaca Park C Heights N - NEIGHBORHOOD Ettrick Park C Small Parks, Select Types of Facilities

River Rd S - SPECIAL PURPOSE Historical, Natural, or Cultural Interest Parks Dinwiddie Lake John J. Radcliffe Chesdin Conservation Area S U - UNDEVELOPED County Parks Open to Public by Appointment Only Appomattox River Appomattox River Canoe Launch S COUNTY PARK DATA Park and Program Information: 748-1623 Emergency: 911 Non-emergency: 748-1251 Miles Total Park Acreage: 4,333 Shelter Reservation: 751-4696 Website: www.chesterfield.gov/parks 01 2 4 6 8 Total Number of Park Sites: 51 Field Reservation: 751-4199 O Number of School Complex Sites: 11 Attachment C Section 4(f) & Section 6(f) Crystal Reports Viewer Page 1 of 1

Parameters Group Tree 1 / 1 100%

Main Report CHESTERFIELD

CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD 3 - XXX D POCAHONTAS STATE PARK DEPT. OF CONSERVATION & ECONOMIC $14,170.99 C 3/1/1966 3/1/1968 99 DEV 98 - XXX C CHESTERFIELD CO. PARK - A&D CHESTERFIELD COUNTY $246,550.00 C 3/23/1973 2/28/1975 4

148 - XXX C POINT OF ROCKS PARK CHESTERFIELD COUNTY $287,765.72 C 11/5/1975 12/31/1982 4

179 - E D STATE PARKS CONSOLIDATED GRANT DEPT. OF CONSERVATION & ECONOMIC $286,200.66 C 8/11/1978 12/31/1983 4 DEV 241 - XXX C HUGUENOT PARK CHESTERFIELD COUNTY $90,319.48 C 9/17/1981 12/31/1986 4

283 - XXX D IRON BRIDGE PARK CHESTERFIELD COUNTY $290,084.58 C 5/9/1984 12/31/1986 4

341 - XXX D Dutch Gap Conservation Area County of Chesterfield $33,632.57 C 9/18/2000 6/30/2003 4

353 - XXX D Robious Landing Park County of Chesterfield $213,651.00 C 9/15/2001 9/30/2006 4

363 - XXX D POCAHONTAS STATE PARK POOL DEPT. OF CONSERVATION AND $1,224,032.34 C 11/19/2001 12/31/2004 4 CONSTRUCTION RECREATION

CHESTERFIELD County Total: $2,686,407.34 County Count: 9

http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov:6405/CrystalReports/viewrpt.cwr?id=1223&wid=c59b32710cb6c535&init=dhtml&apstoken=lwc... 1/29/2015 Attachment D Cultural Resources

Coastal Carolina Research P.O. BOX 1198, Tarboro, North Carolina 27886 (252) 641-1444  (252) 641-1235 fax

www.ccrtarboro.com

November 21, 2014

Julie V. Langan, Director Attn: Marc Holma Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, VA 23221

RE: Route 10 (Route 1 to I-95) Widening Project, Chesterfield County, VA UPC # 102952; 0010-020-R446 VDHR File # 2014-3612

Dear Mr. Holma:

I am writing in reference to the Route 10 widening project located in Chesterfield County, VA. The project involves Federal Highway Administration Funding for widening from four to six lanes along approximately 2,500 feet of West Hundred Road (Route 10) between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and I-95. The project will also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, and signs. This project is a locally administered (Chesterfield County Department of Transportation) project. CCR is assisting Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and Chesterfield County in coordinating this federally-funded project with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations.

Cultural Resources Survey The cultural resources survey for this project was conducted by Coastal Carolina Research (CCR), and the enclosed report Cultural Resources Survey, Widening of Route 10 from Route 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia by Van den Hurk, Deetz, and Bamann contains the results and recommendations from the survey. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for this project was defined in consultation with VDHR (concurrence in Marc Holma to Katie Crum, letter, 25 September 2014) and includes areas of proposed direct disturbance and adjoining properties (approximately 65 acres). The survey was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. The investigations were conducted according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, September 1983, P. 44716-44742, et seq.) and the VDHR’s 2011 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia . Attached are two hardcopies and one digital copy of the report

CCR is a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of CCRG

Marc Holma November 21, 2104 Page 2

for your review as well as hardcopy documentation to accompany V-CRIS forms updated or created as part of the project.

Recommendations for Architectural Resources Four previously recorded resources are mapped within the APE. All four of these resources are Civil War battlefields (VDHR #020-5316, #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025). Three of the four battlefields (VDHR #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025) were determined eligible for the NRHP by VDHR staff, and one (VDHR #020-5316) was determined not eligible. Due to the high degree of modern development within the APE, none of the sections of the battlefields located within the APE are recommended as contributing to any eligibility or potential eligibility of the overall resources. The architectural survey also identified two previously unrecorded resources in the APE. These new resources are both gas stations that date to the second half of the twentieth century (VDHR #020-5654 and 020-5655). Both resources recorded during this survey lack significance and are recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Therefore, it is recommended that the project will have no effect on architectural resources.

Recommendations for Archaeological Resources The entire APE has been disturbed and developed. Five judgmental shovel tests were excavated in open grassy areas in the eastern portion of the APE to confirm the disturbed nature of the soils. No new archaeological sites or artifact locations were recorded during the current archaeological survey, and no previously recorded sites are located within the current APE. Therefore, it is recommended that the project will have no effect on archaeological resources.

We invite you to concur with these recommendations by completing the attached signature block, and returning to the attention of Katie Crum at Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 4500 Main St., Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462, within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Please contact me at (252) 641-1444 x. 21 or [email protected] should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Susan E. Bamann, Ph.D., RPA CCR Project Manager and Director

Marc Holma November 21, 2104 Page 3

********************************************************************************************************* The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) concurs with the following recommendations for resources within the APE for the Route 10 (Route 1 to I-95) Widening Project, Chesterfield County, VA:

Previous Determination of Eligibility or Recommended Eligibility or VDHR # Resource Name, Location Date Status Current Status The portion within the APE would not contribute to eligibility and supports the previous determination 020-5316 Chester Station Battlefield 1864 Not Eligible of not eligible The portion within the APE does not 020-5319 Ware Bottom Church Battlefield 1864 Eligible contribute to eligibility The portion within the APE does not 020-5320 Proctor’s Creek Battlefield 1864 Eligible contribute to eligibility Gas Station, 2421 West Hundred 020-5654 Road ca. 1961 Newly Recorded Not Eligible Gas Station, 2320 West Hundred 020-5609 Road ca. 1961 Newly Recorded Not Eligible The portion within the APE does not 123-5025 Petersburg II Battlefield 1864 Eligible contribute to eligibility

For Project 0010-020-R44 (UPC # 102952), VDHR File Number 2014-3612.

______Ms. Julie V. Langan, Director Date Virginia Department of Historic Resources

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY WIDENING OF ROUTE 10 FROM ROUTE 1 TO I-95 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA (0010-020-R44; UPC# 102952; VDHR File #2014-3612)

PREPARED FOR: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Phone: (757) 355-6672

PREPARED BY: COASTAL CAROLINA RESEARCH A wholly owned subsidiary of Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc. P.O. BOX 1198 201 WEST WILSON STREET TARBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27886

Jeroen van den Hurk, Ph.D. J. Eric Deetz, M.A., RPA Principal Investigator and Susan E. Bamann, Ph.D., RPA

NCR-0700

OCTOBER 2014 ABSTRACT

In October 2014, Coastal Carolina Research (CCR), a wholly owned subsidiary of Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc., conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey for the proposed widening of Route 10 (West Hundred Road) from Route 1 to I-95 in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The survey was conducted for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800.

The purpose of the cultural resources survey was to determine if above-ground architectural resources or archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for, or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). The proposed improvements to Route 10 involve the expansion of the roadway from four lanes to six lanes between Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway) and I-95. The APE was defined in consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) and addresses direct and indirect effects by including areas of proposed direct disturbance and adjoining properties. This APE includes approximately 65 acres, most of which is heavily developed with modern structures.

Four previously recorded resources are mapped within the APE. All four of these resources are Civil War battlefields (VDHR #020-5316, #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025). Three of the four battlefields (VDHR #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025) were determined eligible for the NRHP by VDHR staff, and one (VDHR #020-5316) was determined not eligible. Due to the high degree of modern development within the APE, none of the sections of the battlefields located within the APE are recommended as contributing to any eligibility or potential eligibility of the overall resources. The architectural survey also identified two previously unrecorded resources in the APE. These new resources are both gas stations that date to the second half of the twentieth century (VDHR #020-5654 and 020-5655). Both resources recorded during this survey lack significance and are recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The entire APE has been disturbed and developed. Five judgmental shovel tests were excavated in the open grassy areas in the eastern portion of the APE to confirm the disturbed nature of the soils. No new archaeological sites or artifact locations were recorded during the current archaeological survey, and no previously recorded sites are located within the current APE.

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... i

ILLUSTRATIONS ...... iv

TABLES ...... vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPLIANCE ...... 1-1 1.2 PROJECT TIMELINE AND STAFF ...... 1-1 1.3 REPORT CONTENTS ...... 1-1

2.0 NATURAL SETTING ...... 2-1 2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY ...... 2-1 2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 2-1 2.3 HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION ...... 2-1

3.0 CULTURAL OVERVIEW ...... 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3-1 3.2 PRECONTACT BACKGROUND ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (11,500-8000 B.C.) ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Archaic Period (8000-1200 B.C.) ...... 3-2 3.2.3 Woodland Period (1200 B.C.-A.D. 1600) ...... 3-3 3.3 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ...... 3-5 3.3.1 Settlement to Society (1607-1750) ...... 3-5 3.3.2 Colony to Nation (1750-1789) ...... 3-6 3.3.3 Early National Period (1789-1830) ...... 3-6 3.3.4 Antebellum Period (1830-1861) ...... 3-7 3.3.5 Civil War (1861-1865) ...... 3-8 3.3.6 Reconstruction and Growth (1865-1917) ...... 3-10 3.3.7 World War I to World War II (1917-1945) ...... 3-10 3.3.8 The New Dominion (1945-Present) ...... 3-12

4.0 ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS ...... 4-1 4.1 METHODS ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Background Research ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Architectural Field Methods ...... 4-1 4.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-1 4.3 NEWLY RECORDED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-11 4.4 SUMMARY ...... 4-13

5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS ...... 5-1 5.1 METHODS ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Background Research ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Field Methods ...... 5-1

ii

5.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ...... 5-2 5.2.1 Archaeological Sites and Surveys in the Vicinity of the Archaeological APE...... 5-2 5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ...... 5-3 5.3.1 Overview of Survey Results ...... 5-3

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6-1 6.1 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ...... 6-1 6.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ...... 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED ...... 7-1

APPENDIX A RECORD OF CONSULTATION ON THE APE FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

APPENDIX B VDHR V-CRIS FORMS FOR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES RECORDED OR UPDATED DURING THE CURRENT SURVEY

iii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1.1-1 General Location of Project Area at West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Chesterfield County, Virginia ...... 1-2

Figure 1.1-2 View of Project Area or APE for Direct and Indirect Effects (ArcGIS Image Service 2014)...... 1-3

Figure 3.3-1 Detail of an 1862-63 Map of the Region, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE (Gilmer 1863)...... 3-9

Figure 3.3-2 Detail of an 1888 Map of the Region, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE (LaPrade 1888) ...... 3-11

Figure 3.3-3 Detail of a 1944 7.5’ USGS Chester, Virginia, Topographic Quadrangle, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE ...... 3-13

Figure 3.3-4 Detail of a 1952 7.5’ USGS Chester, Virginia, Topographic Quadrangle, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE ...... 3-14

Figure 4.2-1 Locations of Previously and Newly Recorded Resources, Shown on Aerial (ArcGIS Image Service 2014) ...... 4-2

Figure 4.2-2 ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and Potential National Register Boundary (PotNR) Areas for the Chester Station Battlefield (VDHR #: 020-5316; VA 051) (from ABPP 2009) ...... 4-3

Figure 4.2-3 View of Interchange of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) with I-95 Looking Northeast ...... 4-4

Figure 4.2-4 View of Interchange of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) with I-95 Looking South ...... 4-4

Figure 4.2-5 View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking West Towards Route 1 ...... 4-5

Figure 4.2-6 View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking Southeast Towards I-95 ...... 4-5

Figure 4.2-7 View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking Northwest Towards Route 1 ...... 4-6

Figure 4.2-8 View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking East ...... 4-6

iv

Figure 4.2-9 View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking Southwest ...... 4-7

Figure 4.2-10 View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking Northeast ...... 4-7

Figure 4.2-11 ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and PotNR Areas for the Ware Bottom Church Battlefield (VDHR #: 020-5319; VA054) (from ABPP 2009) ...... 4-9

Figure 4.2-12 ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and PotNR Areas for the Proctor’s Creek Battlefield (VDHR #: 020-5320; VA053) (from ABPP 2009)...... 4-10

Figure 4.2-13 ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and PotNR Areas for the Petersburg II Battlefield (VDHR #: 123-5025; VA063) (from ABPP 2009) ...... 4-12

Figure 5.3-1 Archaeological Survey Strategies Within the APE ...... 5-4

Figure 5.3-2 Disturbed Area Near a Large Oak Tree South of Route 10 at the East End of the APE ...... 5-5

Figure 5.3-3 Disturbed Area North of Route 10 at the East End of the APE ...... 5-5

Figure 5.3-4 Depression in a Field North of Route 10 at Location of Shovel Tests 4 and 5 ...... 5-6

v

TABLES

Table 4.4-1 Previously and Newly Recorded Architectural Resources Within the Current APE...... 4-14

vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND COMPLIANCE

In October 2014, Coastal Carolina Research (CCR), a wholly owned subsidiary of Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc., conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey for the proposed widening of Route 10 (West Hundred Road) from Route 1 to I-95 in Chesterfield County, Virginia. (Figure 1.1-1). The survey was conducted for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. The investigations were conducted according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, September 1983, P. 44716-44742, et seq.) and Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ (VDHR’s) Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (VDHR 2011) including the Guidelines for Conducting Archaeological Investigations. The report was prepared in accordance with the “Preparing Identification and Evaluation Reports Pursuant to Local, State, or Federal Laws and Regulations” (found in VDHR 2011).

The purpose of the cultural resources survey was to determine if there are any architectural resources or archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for, or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). The proposed improvements to Route 10 involve the expansion of the roadway from four lanes to six lanes between Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway) and I-95. The APE was defined in consultation with VDHR and addresses direct and indirect effects by including areas of proposed direct disturbance and adjoining properties (Figure 1.1-2; Appendix A). This APE, also referred to as the project area, includes approximately 65 acres, most of which is heavily developed with modern structures.

1.2 PROJECT TIMELINE AND STAFF

Fieldwork for the project was conducted on October 16, 2014. Susan E. Bamann, Ph.D., RPA, was the project manager, J. Eric Deetz, M.A., RPA, was the archaeological principal investigator and Jeroen van den Hurk, Ph.D., was the architectural historian. J. Eric Deetz and Jeroen van den Hurk conducted background research. D. Allen Poyner was the GIS coordinator, and he, along with Jeroen van den Hurk, prepared the report graphics.

1.3 REPORT CONTENTS

This report contains the background, methods, and results for the architectural and archaeological resources survey. Following this introduction, Sections 2 and 3, respectively, present the environmental and historic backgrounds for the project area. Section 4 includes the results of the architectural resources survey, and the results of the archaeological survey are presented in Section 5. The conclusions and recommendations for the architectural and archaeological surveys are presented in Section 6. Section 7 contains the list of references cited throughout the report. Appendix A includes a record of consultation one the APE for direct and

1-1

Figure 1.1-1: General Location of Project Area at West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Chesterfield County, Virginia.

1-2

1 - 3

Legend APE

Figure 1.1-2: View of Project Area or APE for Direct and Indirect Effects (ArcGIS Image Service 2014).

indirect effects. Appendix B contains the V-CRIS forms for the newly recorded architectural resources.

1-4

2.0 NATURAL SETTING

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The current project area is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. This province is generally described as an area of low elevation consisting of relatively unconsolidated beds of terrestrially and marine-deposited sand, gravel, and clay sediments (Fenneman 1938; Thornbury 1965). The boundaries of the Coastal Plain are commonly defined as sea level to the east and the Fall Line to the west. The Fall Line, which roughly corresponds to the location of I-95, is the transition zone approximately 5 to 10 miles wide between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain and characterized by the Coastal Plain sediments dipping below the Piedmont formations (Fenneman 1938). Within this transition zone, as rivers and streams pass over the crystalline rocks, they are sometimes marked by falls and rapids (Fenneman 1938; Thornbury 1965). In some cases, the Fall Line formed an obstruction to river travel between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. The transition zone between the two regions was an important area for the development of settlements, trade, and other forms of cultural interaction (Thornbury 1965). Significant lithic resources that are not available in Coastal Plain formations, such as quartz and quartzite, are available at or near the Fall Line (Egloff 1989).

The project area lies near the eastern border of the Piedmont physiographic region. The Piedmont, considered a nonmountainous part of the Appalachian Highlands, is characterized by gently rolling topography and deeply weathered bedrock of igneous and metamorphic rock (Thornbury 1965; Fenneman 1938).

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The current project area is underlain by the Bacon’s Castle Formation. This specific unit of the Bacon’s Castle Formation is described as gravel grading upward into sand and sandy clayey silt, poorly sorted sand and laminated sand, and clay and silt. (Berquist 1993).

The soils within the current project area are from the Lucy-Orangeburg-Rumford association and are more specifically comprised of Rumford loamy fine sand. The soils from this association are typically found on uplands and upland flats. They are deep and include well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soils that have a dominantly loamy subsoil (Hodges 1978).

2.3 HYDROLOGY AND VEGETATION

The current project area is located within the James River drainage basin. The project area is drained by two creeks. The north side of Route 10 is drained by an unnamed tributary of Redwater Creek that drains to the north into the James River. The south side of Route 10 is drained by an unnamed tributary of Ashton Creek which drains to the southeast into the Appomattox River, which in turn drains into the James River.

The Coastal Plain generally supports coniferous, mixed coniferous/deciduous, deciduous hardwood, and mixed deciduous/broad-leafed evergreen forest communities (Braun 1950). A pollen-based reconstruction of forest types suggests that the Mid-Atlantic coastal region featured

2-1 an Oak-Hickory-Southern Pine forest up to 5,000 years ago (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). The adjacent Piedmont and the region around the Fall Line feature the Oak-Hickory-Pine forest described by Braun (1950). However, approximately 10,000 years ago the entire area was covered by a Mixed Conifer-Northern Hardwoods forest type (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981).

Modern land use in project area is almost entirely retail development and transportation corridors.

2-2

3.0 CULTURAL OVERVIEW

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The project area falls at the northern limits of the Southern Coastal Plain cultural/geographic region as defined by VDHR (2011:115). The Southern Coastal Plain is defined as extending from the Fall Line to the Blackwater River along the boundaries of Sussex and Southampton Counties. However, the region north of the Appomattox River is culturally similar to the Northern Coastal Plain cultural/geographic region (VDHR 2011).

Before Europeans ventured into the current project area, Native Americans inhabited the region. Written documents suggest that the first Europeans to explore the project area were the English settlers that settled at Jamestown in 1607. The English soon migrated upriver, and settlement began in the region that would become Chesterfield County in 1611.

3.2 PRECONTACT BACKGROUND

3.2.1 Paleoindian Period (11,500-8000 B.C.)

Native American occupation of eastern North America dates to at least 12.8 to 13.1 thousand years ago, the conventional temporal boundary associated with the Clovis tradition (Anderson et al. 2014; Waters et al. 2011). The evidence for occupations at this time includes fluted projectile points (i.e., the Clovis type) (Griffin 1967; Justice 1987). These points are generally scarce and often occur as isolated finds in disturbed surface contexts. Geographic concentrations of fluted points, including the Clovis type and related types such as Cumberland, occur in the eastern half of the United States. Nearly 1,000 fluted projectile points have been reported from Virginia (Anderson and Faught 1998). Other Paleoindian projectile point types found in Virginia are Mid-Paleo, Dalton, Hardaway-Dalton, and a type with affinities to Folsom (Barber and Barfield 1989; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McCary 1996). In Virginia, the majority of these points were manufactured from cryptocrystalline lithic material. Tools associated with the Paleoindian period include scrapers, gravers, wedges, unifacial tools, hammerstones, abraders, and a variety of “banging, smashing, chopping, and hacking tools” (Gardner 1989:18). The points and tools were used in the context of a mobile subsistence pattern based upon hunting and gathering in a boreal forest environment.

Evidence for much earlier New World lithic industries suggests that the makers of fluted points may represent relatively late migrations to the New World. Alternatively, the distinct fluted point technology may have developed within the New World in the context of Late Pleistocene populations established prior to the Clovis temporal boundary (Anderson and Faught 1998; Goebel et al. 2008; Meltzer 1989; Waters et al. 2011). The Cactus Hill site in southeastern Virginia has produced lithic artifacts (prismatic blades, polyhedral cores, and bifaces) from sandy deposits below intact Clovis horizons (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:179-180). Radiocarbon dating suggests that the sub-Clovis material may date to as early as 17,000 radiocarbon years before present (RCYBP), which is significantly earlier than the Clovis temporal boundary (Goodyear 2006; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:179-180). This stratified site is situated on a sand dune along the Nottoway River. Stratification was the result of relatively

3-1 steady aeolian sand deposition throughout the occupation of the site (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:8-10; Wagner and McAvoy 2004). The Topper site, located in the Piedmont of South Carolina, has also been discussed as a possible site of pre-Clovis occupations (Goodyear 1999, 2000, 2006), but the potential evidence including concentrations of unusual microlithic artifacts reflecting a “smash-core” technology is less well understood. The SV-2 site, located in the Saltville Valley (Ridge and Valley province) of southwestern Virginia, has yielded a distinctive concentration of proboscidean bone in association with a possible bone tool yielding a collagen date of 14,510±80 RCYBP (Goodyear 2006; McDonald 2000). In the western United States, recent work at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas, is providing conclusive evidence for human occupation dating to at least 15.5 thousand years ago. The site has yielded over 15,000 artifacts defining the pre-Clovis Buttermilk Creek Complex; this assemblage includes bifaces, blades, bladelets, and edge-modified tools and could be ancestral to the recognized Clovis tool kit (Waters et al. 2011:1602). Programs for the identification and testing for appropriate landforms with Pleistocene-aged deposits are now considered key in developing a better understanding of when, how, and why the New World was populated.

Stratified sites in Virginia containing Paleoindian occupations include the Williamson site and the Thunderbird and Fifty sites of the Flint Run Complex in the Shenandoah Valley (Barber and Barfield 1989; Carr 1975; Gardner 1974; Johnson 1996; McAvoy and McAvoy 2003). Evidence from these sites has been used to construct what has been referred to as the “Flint Run Lithic Deterministic Model” of Paleoindian settlement strategies (Anderson and Sassaman 1996:23). In this model, Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement patterns were driven by the locations of the high-quality lithic material. Five functionally distinct site types have been identified in the Flint Run Complex: quarries, reduction sites, quarry-related base camps, maintenance camps, and non-quarry associated base camps (Gardner 1989). The small, highly mobile bands characteristic of Paleoindian times were also focused on food collection and the hunting of animals such as caribou, deer, elk, and moose (Boyd 1989; Turner 1989). Therefore, hunting and gathering, as well as lithic procurement played a significant role in settlement patterns. Sites such as base camps are often found on resource-rich floodplains and adjacent alluvial fans (Turner 1989). Additionally, at the Williamson site (44DW1), an association has been made between site activity areas and topography (McAvoy and McAvoy 2003).

3.2.2 Archaic Period (8000-1200 B.C.)

The Archaic period is divided into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late. A shift from boreal forests to northern hardwoods occurred at the onset of the Early Archaic period (8000-6500 B.C.). The Early Archaic is typified by small corner-notched projectile points, such as Palmer Corner Notched and Kirk Corner Notched, and an increase in the use of hafted endscrapers (Coe 1964). The tool kits from the Early Archaic, however, are similar to those from the end of the Paleoindian tradition, as are the settlement and subsistence patterns (Claggett and Cable 1982).

The Middle Archaic period (6500-3000 B.C.) coincides with a shift in climatic conditions to the warmer and drier climates that are prevalent today. Settlement and subsistence patterns show a high degree of continuity with those of the Early Archaic period, but Middle Archaic bands may have expanded their territories to make use of new environmental settings created by the change in climatic conditions (Custer 1990). Projectile point types characteristic of this period include

3-2 Stanly Stemmed, Morrow Mountain I and II Stemmed, Guilford Lanceolate, Halifax Side- Notched, St. Albans, LeCroy Bifurcated Stem, and Kanawha Stemmed (Custer 1990).

Relatively few Early and Middle Archaic sites have been recorded on Virginia’s Coastal Plain. Because of the rise in sea level that occurred during the Holocene, many Early and Middle Archaic sites may have been inundated. However, the scarcity of recorded sites may instead be evidence of low population levels as Gardner (1989) maintains, or may be the result of poor survey coverage, as Custer (1990) suggests. Existing data suggests that Early and Middle Archaic settlement is associated with freshwater wetlands, swamps, and bogs (Custer 1990). Custer (1990) hypothesizes that coastal resources were not as rich during the Early and Middle Archaic periods as they were at later times because the rise in sea level may have been too rapid to allow for the formation of large shellfish beds.

The Late Archaic period (3000-1200 B.C.) is poorly understood in the Coastal Plain of Virginia. Although it is marked by distinctive projectile point types, adaptations of this time differ little from those of the Middle Archaic period. According to Mouer (1991:10), the primary attributes of Late Archaic culture are “small-group band organization, impermanent settlement systems, infrequent aggregation phases, and low levels of regional or areal integration and interaction.” Coastal Plain sites of this period are divided fairly evenly between upland and riverine settings, and may be indicative of a more generalized adaptation than that of inland peoples (Mouer 1991). Characteristic projectile points of the Late Archaic include the Halifax Side-Notched, Lamoka, Merom Expanding Stemmed, Lackawaxen, and Brewerton Side- and Corner-Notched types.

By 2500 B.C., the rise in sea level had dramatically altered the Atlantic coast, creating large estuaries and tidal wetlands that, in turn, vastly increased coastal resources such as fish and shellfish. Anadromous fish runs extended up the rivers to the foothills of the Blue Ridge. With this environmental change came a marked change in adaptation. Populations living in this Transitional period (2500-1200 B.C.) developed estuarine and riverine adaptations, and sites of this period are located primarily in river valleys, at the lower reaches of inner Coastal Plain tributaries of major rivers, and near swamps. It is assumed that fish began to play a significantly larger role in the subsistence system. Although population increased and sites tend to be larger than those of previous periods, there is no evidence of year-round sedentism (Mouer 1991). Broad-blade or “broadspear” types such as Savannah River Stemmed are frequently associated with soapstone vessels and other soapstone objects. Fire-cracked rock concentrations and platform hearths are also common on Transitional period sites (Mouer 1991; Dent 1995). The intrusive Perkiomen Complex is found during the Transitional period in southeastern Virginia along the western margins of the Great Dismal Swamp (McLearen 1991). Perkiomen Broad points are found at sites located around large swamps and are typically associated with soapstone bowls, net sinkers, slate bar gorgets, and cremation burials (Mouer 1991).

3.2.3 Woodland Period (1200 B.C.-A.D. 1600)

The Early Woodland period is marked by the emergence of sedentary lifeways and the use of ceramics. The population growth that began in the Middle Archaic period appears to have continued into the Early Woodland, as does the trend toward greater utilization of estuarine

3-3 habitats of the outer Coastal Plain (Klein and Klatka 1991). Large, broad projectile points were replaced by smaller notched, stemmed, and lanceolate points; ceramics were introduced ca. 1200 B.C. (McLearen 1991).

While Marcey Creek ware is thought to be the earliest ceramic ware in the Coastal Plain north of the James River, the contemporaneous clay-tempered Croaker Landing ware was the earliest in the southern Coastal Plain (Egloff and Potter 1982). Stony Creek ware is found in the Coastal Plain south of the James River from ca. 800 B.C. and into the Middle Woodland period. Ceramics of this ware are sand- or small-particle-tempered with conoidal bases and fabric- impressed, cord-marked, or net impressed surfaces. Prince George ware, a pebble-tempered ware with fabric-impressed, cord-marked, or net-impressed surfaces, develops on the interior Coastal Plain during the Early Woodland and also extends into the Middle Woodland (Egloff 1985; Egloff and Potter 1982).

During the Middle Woodland period (300 B.C.-A.D. 900), the largest sites appear to be located in the transition zones between fresh and salt water, where the greatest diversity of resources could be obtained. Smaller exploitive sites along streams in the interior and along the coast seem to have been occupied sporadically (Stewart 1992). In the area south of the James River, relationships appear to have been oriented to the south rather than towards the Chesapeake area (McLearen 1992).

Shell-tempered Mockley ware is commonly found in most of the Coastal Plain of Virginia during the Middle Woodland period, although is not often found south of the James River (Egloff and Potter 1982). In addition to the Stony Creek and Prince George wares, Middle Woodland ceramics found south of the James include Hercules ware. This ware, found mostly on the interior Coastal Plain, features crushed granite and gneiss temper along with cord-marked and fabric-impressed surfaces (Egloff 1985).

The Late Woodland period (A.D. 900-1600) of the Virginia Coastal Plain is characterized by an increased reliance on agriculture and by population growth, larger villages, and increased sociocultural complexity (Turner 1992). Ceramics of this period include Townsend ware, which is shell-tempered and features fabric-impressed, incised, and/or punctated surfaces. This ware is recovered from sites all along the Virginia coast, much like the earlier Mockley ware. By the latter part of the Late Woodland, however, there is increased evidence of territoriality, and ceramic types become more localized. Ceramics found south of the James River include the Gaston, Cashie, and Roanoke wares (Turner 1992). The Gaston and Cashie wares, which are granule-tempered and include simple-stamped surfaces, are found along the fall line transition and in the interior Coastal Plain, respectively (Egloff 1985). Roanoke ware is characterized by shell tempering and simple-stamped exteriors. The Townsend and Roanoke wares are comparable to the Colington series defined for the northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Egloff and Potter 1982; Green 1986).

At the time of European contact, the southern Coastal Plain of Virginia was occupied by Algonquian groups living in relatively dispersed, seasonal camps and semipermanent villages located near sounds, estuaries, rivers, and streams (Phelps 1983). The Algonquians lived in societies featuring “rank-differentiated roles and functions, dress, and burial customs; polygyny;

3-4 matrilineal descent of chieftains; tribute systems; and trade monopolies” (Potter 1989:152). Archaeologically, the southeastern coastal area of Virginia is more similar to the northern North Carolina Coastal Plain than to areas to the north of the James River. After the arrival of Englishmen at Jamestown in 1607, traditional traits of aboriginal pottery were gradually replaced by traits patterned after European and African ceramics (Egloff 1985).

At the time of the first English settlement in Virginia, the Lower Tidewater region was politically dominated by the Powhatan chiefdom. By 1608, Powhatan controlled all the coastal groups with the exception of the Chickahominies. The Chesapeakes, who occupied the region now known as the Tidewater of Virginia, were conquered between the late 1500s and 1608 (Potter 1993).

3.3 HISTORIC BACKGROUND

3.3.1 Settlement to Society (1607-1750)

The first recorded European exploration of the area that would become Chesterfield County occurred on May 8, 1607 when Captain Christopher Newport led twenty-one English adventurers into the area in search of a suitable place to establish a settlement. Though it is possible that Spanish explorers under Lucas de Allyon viewed or visited the area in 1526, there is no documentary evidence to prove that their travels led them that far up the James River (Lutz 1954). The honor of being the first Europeans to visit present-day Chesterfield County, therefore, goes to the English. Jamestown was chosen as the site of the first English permanent settlement in the New World, but soon after, the settlers began to explore the Chesterfield region once again. Iron ore was extracted from the area and sent back to England in 1608, resulting in the construction of the New World’s first iron furnace on Falling Creek eleven years later (Cox 1907).

In 1611, Sir Thomas Dale, newly appointed Deputy Governor of Virginia, arrived at Jamestown and found the settlement to be inadequate. He established a new town further upriver at Farrar’s Island and named it Henrico. Dale proceeded to seize land from the Appomattox Indians to further develop the Chesterfield area. Around December of 1611, he seized the cleared farmlands between the Appomattox and James Rivers. He named the fertile area New Bermudas and divided it into several tracts, or hundreds, including Bermuda Hundred. In 1616, Bermuda Hundred was the largest settlement in Virginia with 119 persons (Weaver 1970).

The region that would become Chesterfield County continued to prosper until the Indian Uprising of 1622. On the morning of March 22, Chief Powhatan’s successor, Opechancanough, led a raid along the James River that resulted in the deaths of 350 colonists. The uprising proved most devastating on the outlying plantations, including Sheffield’s Plantation on the south side of Falling Creek, Kingsland Planation along Kingsland Creek, and Proctors Plantation on the north side of Proctors Creek. Gatesville, a newly established, undeveloped town at the mouth of Proctors Creek, and a settlement of twenty-four iron workers on Falling Creek, were also destroyed (O’Dell 1983). The colonists successfully retaliated the following summer, and settlers who had fled the area returned within a few months (Lutz 1954).

3-5 By 1634, the Virginia colony was populous enough to be divided into eight shires, or counties. Present-day Chesterfield County and other future counties further west were then part of the newly formed Henrico County. The area remained mostly agricultural, and in 1635, the first African slaves were brought to the Chesterfield region by large plantation owners. Chesterfield’s primary crop was tobacco, followed by corn and wheat. The area continued to grow throughout the seventeenth century despite another Indian uprising in 1644 (Lutz 1954). Bermuda Hundred served as the only significant town in the Chesterfield region until the town of Warwick was incorporated in 1748. A year later, Chesterfield County was created from the portion of Henrico County south of the James River (O’Dell 1983).

By the middle of the eighteenth century coal became increasingly important to the region. The Midlothian coal field was the first to be mined in America. Coal was known in the area by the early 1700’s but the first commercial extraction was in 1748 when fifty tons was mined. By the end of the century the output was up to 22,000 tons annually (Dabney 1990:20).

3.3.2 Colony to Nation (1750-1789)

The county seat of Chesterfield County was established near the sparsely-settled center of the county, and a courthouse was built there around 1750 (Cox 1907). A map drawn by Joshua Fry in 1751 shows the location of the courthouse and the surrounding towns and waterways. By the start of the American Revolution, the beginnings of a village could be found (Fry 1755) around the courthouse. In 1779, British and Hessian prisoners were sent to the courthouse for safekeeping. Barracks were constructed at the courthouse, and the area soon became a center for recruitment and training. By the end of 1780, the barracks were overflowing with Continental troops and additions were added to the structures to house new recruits. The courthouse was converted into a hospital, and the two nearby jails were used as magazines to store food and supplies (Lutz 1954).

In January of 1781, the war came to Chesterfield County. Benedict Arnold led the British in a land-water engagement fought from the Chesterfield side of the James River above Dutch Gap. British General Phillips led troops across the county on his way from Petersburg to Manchester in April. The Chesterfield courthouse, the jails, and the barracks were all burned. While Phillips caused destruction in the interior of the county, Benedict Arnold led troops north along the James River, destroying large stores of crops and supplies at Manchester, Warwick, and Osbornes. On May 23rd of that year, Sir Banastre Tarleton led 300 cavalrymen into Chesterfield County from Petersburg. They engaged with a party of militia about two miles from Cary’s Mill near Falling Creek, killing six Americans and capturing forty. That was the last fighting to occur in Chesterfield County, but soldiers continued to pass through the area. In July of 1781, American Captain John Davies led Pennsylvania soldiers through Chesterfield County and reported positively about the area surrounding the Chesterfield Courthouse (Lutz 1954).

3.3.3 Early National Period (1789-1830)

The first U. S. Federal Census was taken in 1790 and provides details of Chesterfield County’s demographic makeup during the period. The total population given for that year was 14,514 people (Lutz 1954:142). White males numbered 3,209, with 1,652 of these men being over the

3-6 age of 16. The total number of white females was 3,149. The county listed 7,787 enslaved persons, over half of the total county population. Another 369 African-Americans resided in the county as free individuals. The census also reveals that 45 people in Chesterfield County owned twenty-five or more slaves, while 119 owned one or two slaves, and 253 owned none. By 1800, the population of Chesterfield County was similar to what it was a decade before, with a total number of 14,489 people recorded by the census (Lutz 1954:149).

After the Revolution, Chesterfield County continued to develop. The mills in the county rebounded. In addition to the gristmills, the mills on Chesterfield’s rivers and major creeks were producing half the state’s annual output of cotton, cloth, and paper in the early nineteenth century (O’Dell 1983). During the Revolution, coal had been in high demand, and after the war, growing cities such as Washington, Philadelphia, and New York began sending orders for coal. By 1830 the annual coal production had increased to 100,000 tons annually (Dabney 1990:20). Coal carts caused damage to the Buckingham Road to Richmond. The local residents complained so much about the damage that a toll road was constructed in 1802 linking Manchester and the Falling Creek bridge. The Manchester and Petersburg Turnpike was chartered in 1816 to improve overland travel between Manchester and Petersburg. Other than these two turnpikes, few roads existed in Chesterfield County at this time. There was, however, a road linking Manchester to the Chesterfield Courthouse (Lutz 1954).

By the 1820s, Chesterfield County was on the verge of the railroad age. Agriculture still dominated the region with tobacco as the primary crop, but industrialism was beginning to flourish because of a need for better ways to transport these crops and other goods to market. In 1828, a charter for a railroad was granted, but the backers did not follow through. On February 25, 1829, a charter was granted for a railroad extending from Midlothian to Manchester, and this railroad, called the Chesterfield Railroad, became the first in Virginia (Lutz 1954).

3.3.4 Antebellum Period (1830-1860)

The antebellum period was a time of growth for the county. The coal mines not only brought the county a lucrative income, but they also spurred transportation improvements. The improved roads and newly built railroads caused industries other than coal mining to take hold in the county. The Richmond and Petersburg Railroad was chartered in 1836. Within two years, the railroad had begun operating between Manchester along the James River, and Pocahontas along the Appomattox River. Unfortunately for the county, local industry did not immediately see the advantages of the railroad and was slow to develop areas adjacent to the railroad (Lutz 1954). In 1844, the Clover Hill Railroad began hauling coal from the mines in Winterpock in the county’s western section, and in 1851, the steam-powered Richmond and Danville Railroad replaced the mule-drawn Chesterfield railroad (Weaver 1970).

The 1850 U. S. Federal Census reflects the growth taking place in the county during the antebellum period. The census results showed that the county had a population of 17,498 people, of whom 8,616 were slaves (Lutz 1954:211). The county remained mostly agricultural with 564 farms in operation and 30 manufacturing plants. Most of Chesterfield’s population consisted of middle class individuals working on small- or medium-sized farms, or in factories, mills, lumbering, and mines (Lutz 1954).

3-7

Leading up to the Civil War, there were still few large slaveholders in Chesterfield County. Only 27 persons owned more than fifty slaves each, and around 76 percent of slaveholders in the county owned from one to five slaves. According to the 1860 U. S. Federal Census, there were 10,019 white persons, 8,354 slaves, and 643 free black persons living in Chesterfield County (Lutz 1954:225).

3.3.5 Civil War (1861-1865)

On April 17, 1861, Virginia voted to secede from the Union. Soon after, the Capital of the Confederacy was moved to Richmond from Montgomery, Alabama, partly because of the presence of cheap coal in the Chesterfield area and ironworks in Richmond. This caused a great deal of military preparation to take place in the area of Chesterfield County closest to Richmond. Most notable was the construction of fortifications at Drewry’s Bluff, designed to protect Richmond from enemy approach via the James River (Weaver 1970). Drewry’s Bluff successfully defended the capital from a Union naval attack on May 15, 1862 (Lutz 1954).

Chesterfield County contributed to the war effort in more ways than just military defense. The Richmond and Petersburg Railroad and the Richmond Danville Railroad proved important during the war for shipping supplies to the capital. Farms throughout Chesterfield County supplied food for the Army, military animals, and civilians. Grist mills in the county produced large quantities of meal and flour for the Confederacy. As the war progressed and casualties began to increase, families throughout the county opened their homes to the wounded to relieve the crowded city hospital (Lutz 1954).

In May of 1864, the war came directly into Chesterfield County when Union General Benjamin F. Butler and his army landed at Bermuda Hundred (Lutz 1954). Four separate battles took place within the vicinity of the current project area. The battle at Chester Station took place on May 10, 1864, between Union troops led by Major General Butler and Confederate troops under the command of General P. G. T. Beauregard. Union troops set out to destroy the tracks at Chester Station when they were met by Confederate troops near the current APE near the intersection of what are now Route 10 (the road from Bermuda Hundred) and Route 1 (then called the Richmond Turnpike) (Salmon 2001). A Civil War-era map of the project vicinity (Figure 3.3-1) shows the rural character of the APE at that time. The outcome of the battle at Chester Station was inconclusive, but was seen as a strategic victory for the Confederacy (ABPP 2009).

A second encounter between troops led by Butler and Beauregard took place between May 12 and 16. The skirmishes associated with the Proctor’s Creek battle took place to the north and south of the current project area, but troop movements did take place along the Richmond Turnpike (Route 1), which is part of the APE on the western side. The battle ended up being a Confederate victory, although the severe weather and indecision on both sides prevented it from become a more convincing success (Salmon 2001).

After the fighting at Proctor’s Creek had ended General Beauregard continued to look for opportunities to attack Union troops. The third encounter between Beauregard and Butler that was part of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign took place on May 20 around Ware Bottom

3-8

N 3 - 9

Figure 3.3-1: Detail of an 1862-63 Map of the Region, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE (Gilmer 1863). Church. The majority of the fighting took place to the east of I-95 along what is now West Hundred Road (Route 10). Confederate troops were successful in forcing back Union troops and establishing a defensible line across to Bermuda Hundred neck, preventing Butler’s army from advancing west (Salmon 2001).

A fourth Civil War battle associated with the current APE is Petersburg II, which occurred between June 15 and 18, 1864. The Union forces were led by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant and Major General George G. Meade, and General Robert E. Lee and General P. G. T. Beauregard led the Confederate troops. The Union army attacked Petersburg, but was successfully repelled by Confederate troops (Horn 2000). The actual battle took place to the east of Petersburg, but troop movements took place along the Richmond Turnpike (Route 1), which is part of the APE on the western side.

3.3.6 Reconstruction and Growth (1865-1917)

After the Civil War, Chesterfield soldiers returned home to find farms neglected, buildings demolished, and food scarce. Railroads and bridges were damaged or destroyed, and industry was almost at a standstill. The emancipation of the slaves meant that the county’s economic system would need to change. Without slaves, many farmers, mill owners, and mine owners were forced to look for a new labor source, and cash to pay workers was scarce (Lutz 1954).

Despite these challenges, Chesterfield County soon began recovering from the war. New industries opened in the county, and the railroads that served those industries improved. In 1898, the Richmond and Petersburg Electric Railway Company was chartered. The company planned to route an electric rail line through Chesterfield County and connect Richmond and Petersburg. The Virginia Railway and Power Company took over operations in 1909, but by 1945 the line could not compete with bus transportation (Lutz 1954).

According to an 1888 map of the county, the project area continued to be located in a rural setting (Figure 3.3-2). The map shows that the project area lies between a bend in the James River, west of Farrar’s Island and Dutch Gap and east of the town of Chester. It appears that the current West Hundred Road (Route 10) followed the alignment of the Bright Hope Railway, which ran between Bermuda Hundred and Chester and points west. Redwater Creek intersects with the railroad just to the east of the current APE. The map also shows dwellings labeled “Knight” and “Briggs” near the intersection of the “Richmond and Petersburg Old Turnpike” and the railroad, but this area is heavily developed.

3.3.7 World War I to World War II (1917 to 1945)

Industrial expansion was accelerated in Chesterfield County after World War I. More of the county’s residences and businesses received electrical and telephone service. Road improvements moved ahead as automobiles became more common, and farmers in remote parts of the county now found it easier to transport their goods to market. In 1928, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company purchased the Ampthill estate that was established along the James River in 1732. The historic home on the property was dismantled and reassembled in Richmond. The plant built in 1928, and other plants that were added in later years, helped support the local

3-10

3 - 11

Figure 3.3-2: Detail of an 1888 Map of the Region, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE (LaPrade 1888). economy during the very difficult Depression period. By the end of 1935, the local DuPont plants employed 2,750 people. The number of employed had grown to 4,100 people by the onset of World War II (Weaver 1970).

During World War II, Chesterfield County contributed its share of soldiers to the war effort, while those who remained at home did what they could to help. The site of Bellwood was used as a prisoner of war camp during the war, with many of the prisoners interred there being used as laborers on local farms (Weaver 1970). During the Summer and Fall of 1941, Chesterfield County’s roads were often filled with soldiers traveling to and from maneuver areas. The 28th, 29th, and 44th Infantry Divisions passed through the county on their way to the Carolinas for maneuvers in the late summer of 1941 (Lutz 1954).

A 1944 quadrangle map showing the project area indicates steady development along Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1/301), including the intersection with Route 10 (West Hundred Road). Route 10 on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway was mainly developed on the south side of the road, which a single property indicated on the north side, west of Redwater Creek (Figure 3.3-3). Due to rapid development during the latter part of the twentieth century none of these buildings survive.

3.3.8 The New Dominion (1945 to Present)

Suburban growth in Chesterfield County dates to the first few decades of the twentieth century with commuter rails and increased automobile ownership. Since World War II, this trend towards suburbanization has gathered momentum with many of the emerging suburbs being planned communities. Chesterfield County, sandwiched between Richmond and Petersburg, has been the scene of rapid residential growth that centers on those two cities (O’Dell 1983).

The construction of Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (now I-95) during the second half of the twentieth century has served to make Chesterfield County even more accessible to business. Interchange 6 became an access point for Route 10 to the turnpike and provided access to Chester. A 1952 quadrangle map shows the project area and indicates that there was an airport to the north side of West Hundred Road (Route 10) (Figure 3.3-4). Midway Airport was a class B airport laid out on land leased from the Shoosmith Brothers. The airport was closed in 1941 due to the war, but reopened in 1945. The airport was permanently closed at some point during the 1950s (VAHS 2014). The map also shows more development near the intersection with Route 1.

The Allied Chemical Company constructed a nylon manufacture plant near Bermuda Hundred in 1954. This was in addition to the DuPont nylon plant previously established in the county, allowing Chesterfield County to style itself the “Nylon Capital of the World.” The Allied Chemical Company established a large research center along I-95 that brought scientists and technicians to the area. During the 1960s, the American Tobacco Company also built a plant and research facility in the Bermuda Hundred area (Weaver 1970).

3-12

3 - 1 3

Figure 3.3-3: Detail of a 1944 7.5’ USGS Chester, Virginia, Topographic Quadrangle, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE.

3 - 1 4

Figure 3.3-4: Detail of a 1952 7.5’ USGS Chester, Virginia, Topographic Quadrangle, Showing the Approximate Location of the APE. 4.0 RESULTS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY

4.1 METHODS

4.1.1 Background Research

Prior to conducting architectural fieldwork, additional background research for the current project was performed at VDHR in Richmond to gather information on recent cultural resource surveys and previously recorded architectural resources located within or adjacent to the current APE. Four previously recorded Civil War battlefields (VDHR #020-5316, #020-5319, #020- 5320, and #123-5025) are located within the current APE. Online aerial mapping and county tax information was utilized as part of background research and analysis of building dates.

4.1.2 Architectural Field Methods

Fieldwork for the architectural investigation was conducted by vehicle and on foot. The purpose of the study was twofold: 1) to provide specific information concerning the location, nature, and significance of buildings more than 50 years old in the APE; and 2) to identify buildings that appear to be potentially eligible for the NRHP. Each resource that was determined to be more than 50 years old was recorded and photographed. If possible, property owners were interviewed regarding the history of each structure. V-CRIS documentation was prepared for each newly recorded resource.

4.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES

Four previously recorded resources intersect with the current APE (Figure 4.2-1). All four of these resources are Civil War battlefields (VDHR #020-5316, #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123- 5025). Three of the four battlefields (VDHR #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025) were previously determined eligible by VDHR staff, and one (VDHR #020-5316) was determined not eligible. Appendix A includes updated V-CRIS forms for these resources, per recommendations presented below.

VDHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 020-5316 RESOURCE NAME/TYPE: Chester Station Battlefield (VA051) DATE: 1864 PREVIOUS NRHP RECOMMENDATIONS/STATUS: Determined Not Eligible (2003, 2007) DESCRIPTION: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by General Benjamin Butler, took place on May 10, 1864. The battle was part of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign. The core of the battlefield as defined by the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) was located mainly to the west of the intersection between West Hundred Road (Route 10), and what was then the Richmond Turnpike (Route 1/301) (Figure 4.2- 2). Modern development has obliterated much of the Chester Station Battlefield, especially around the intersection of Route 1 and Route 10 (Salmon 2001) (Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-10).

4-1 APE Resources Recorded Newly Resources Recorded Previously 5 Legend 565 - 020 320 5 - 020 Shown on Aerial (ArcGIS 2014). (ArcGIS Shown Service on Aerial Image , 5025 - 123 5654 - 020 Recorded Resources Recorded Locations of Previously and Newly Newly and Locations Previously of 1: - 5319. - 020 Figure 4.2 Figure APE boundary of the that the entire Note the boundaries current by and view is encompassed for VDHR #s and 020-5316

4-2

Chester Areas for the for Areas ) PotNR APE Potential National Register Boundary ( 2: ABPP Study Area, Core and2: ABPP Area, Areas, Study - Figure 4.2 Figure (VDHR #:Station Battlefield APE. 2009).current ABPP Note of (from VA051) approximate location 020-5316;

4-3

Figure 4.2-3: View of Interchange of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) with I-95 Looking Northeast.

Figure 4.2-4: View of Interchange of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) with I-95 Looking South. 4-4

Figure 4.2-5: View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking West Towards Route 1.

Figure 4.2-6: View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking Southeast Towards I-95. 4-5

Figure 4.2-7: View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking Northwest Towards Route 1.

Figure 4.2-8: View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking East. 4-6

Figure 4.2-9: View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking Southwest.

Figure 4.2-10: View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking Northeast. 4-7

RECOMMENDATIONS: The ABPP established a study area encompassing approximately 3,752 acres; of those 1,183 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the current APE falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield not eligible for listing in 2003 and 2007 due to loss of integrity. CCR recommends that due to loss of integrity of the portion of the battlefield within the APE for the current Route 10 widening project would not contribute to any eligibility for the battlefield should there be any future consideration of the NRHP status.

VDHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 020-5319 RESOURCE NAME/TYPE: Ware Bottom Church Battlefield (VA054) DATE: 1864 PREVIOUS NRHP RECOMMENDATIONS/STATUS: Determined Eligible (2013) DESCRIPTION: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by Major General Benjamin Butler, took place on May 20, 1864. The battle was part of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of I-95 (Figure 4.2-11). Modern development has covered much of the Ware Bottom Church battlefield, but some sections survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

RECOMMENDATIONS: The ABPP established a study area encompassing roughly 11,294 acres; of those approximately 5,052 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the current APE falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield eligible for listing in 2013 under Criterion A, as a largely intact Civil War battlefield, and under Criterion D for the archaeological information it can yield regarding the battles. Due to excessive modern development and loss of integrity, CCR recommend that the portion of the battlefield in the current APE does not contribute to the overall eligibility determined for this resource (see Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-10).

VDHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 020-5320 RESOURCE NAME/TYPE: Proctor’s Creek Battlefield (VA053) DATE: 1864 PREVIOUS NRHP RECOMMENDATIONS/STATUS: Determined Eligible (2009) DESCRIPTION: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by Major General Benjamin F. Butler, took place between May 12 and 16, 1864. The battle was part of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of I- 95, and the portion of the battlefield study area that crosses the current APE represents an avenue of approach rather than an area of battlefield activity (Figure 4.2-12). Modern development has covered much of the Proctor’s Creek battlefield, but some parts survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

RECOMMENDATIONS: The ABPP established a study area encompassing roughly 12,684 acres, of those approximately 5,090 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the current APE falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield eligible for listing in 2009 under Criterion A. Due to

4-8

APE

Figure 4.2-11: ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and PotNR Areas for the Ware Bottom Church Battlefield (VDHR #: 020-5319; VA054) (from ABPP 2009). Note approximate location of current APE. 4-9

APE

Figure 4.2-12: ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and PotNR Areas for the Proctor’s Creek Battlefield (VDHR #: 020-5320; VA053) (from ABPP 2009). Note approximate location of current APE. 4-10 excessive modern development and loss of integrity, CCR recommend that the portion of the battlefield in the current APE does not contribute to the overall eligibility determined for this resource (see Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-10).

VDHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 123-5025 RESOURCE NAME/TYPE: Petersburg II Battlefield (VA063) DATE: 1864 PREVIOUS NRHP RECOMMENDATIONS/STATUS: Determined Eligible (2012) DESCRIPTION: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General Robert E. Lee and General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant and Major General George S. Meade, took place between June 15 and 18, 1864. The battle was part of the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of Petersburg and I-95, and the portion of the battlefield study area that crosses the current APE represents an avenue of approach rather than an area of battlefield activity (Figure 4.2-13). Modern development has covered much of the Petersburg II battlefield, but some parts survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

RECOMMENDATIONS: The ABPP established a study area encompassing roughly 15,511 acres, of those approximately 2,434 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the current APE falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield eligible for listing in 2012. Due to excessive modern development and loss of integrity, CCR recommend that the portion of the battlefield in the current APE does not contribute to the overall eligibility determined for this resource (see Figures 4.2-3 through 4.2-10).

4.3 NEWLY RECORDED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

Two newly recorded architectural resources were recorded within the current APE (see Figure 4.2-1). Appendix A contains the V-CRIS forms for the newly recorded architectural resources along with a map showing their general location, sketch maps illustrating the features of the resources, and representative photographs of each resource. These newly recorded architectural resources are described in detail below.

VDHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 020-5654 RESOURCE NAME/TYPE: Gas Station, 2421 West Hundred Road (Route 10) DATE: ca. 1961 DESCRIPTION: This gas station is located on the south side of West Hundred Road (Route 10), approximately 795 ft east of the intersection with Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway) (see Figure 4.2-1). The building sits approximately 110 ft back from the road and faces a paved area with four double gas pumps. Located behind the building is a grassy area with several trees.

Built around 1961, according to the Chesterfield County tax information, this one-story, three- bay, hip-roofed building with two irregular side wings was extensively remodeled in 2012. A front-gabled section, supported by sturdy classical columns on brick pedestals, shelters the double entry door on the north (front) elevation of the building. Large floor-to-ceiling, fixed six-

4-11

; 5025 - 123 : (VDHR # Battlefield Petersburg II Petersburg : ABPP Study Area, Core Areas, and PotNR Areas for the the for and PotNR Areas Core Areas, Area, : ABPP Study 13 APE - 63) (from ABPP 2009). Note approximate location of current APE. 2009). current 63) (from ABPP of approximate location Note Figure 4.2 Figure VA0

4-12 light, fixed windows flank the front-gabled section. The walls of the gas station are covered in stucco with ten-course stretcher-bond brick trim along the bottom and a decorative band with simple diamond shapes just below the plain cornice. The roof is covered with a modern green standing-seam metal roof.

Located to the north of the building is a modern flat-roofed canopy, which shelters four double gas pumps.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Overall, this property retains a low level of integrity due to the replacement of the original siding and windows and the substantial remodeling that took place in 2012. The building lacks significance and represents a common design for the period of construction and place. Furthermore, the building has no significant association or linkage to events or persons of demonstrable importance in the past and does not appear to have the ability to yield important and unique information for research based on physical evidence. This architectural resource is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, or D.

VDHR RESOURCE NUMBER: 020-5655 RESOURCE NAME/TYPE: Gas Station, 2320 West Hundred Road (Route 10) DATE: ca. 1961 DESCRIPTION: This gas station is located on the north side of West Hundred Road (Route 10), approximately 0.2 miles west of the intersection with I-95 (see Figure 4.2-1). The building sits approximately 90 ft back from the road and is placed at an angle on the lot, facing southeast. Located in front of the building is a paved area with gas pumps. A narrow landscape area separates the building from its neighbor to the west.

Built around 1961, according to the Chesterfield County tax information, this one-story, four-bay flat-roofed concrete-block building is sheathed in modern panels on three of its four elevations and has a different-colored decorative band running along the bottom quarter of the wall. Three of the four bays have windows, two of which are large tripartite floor-to-ceiling fixed window. The second bay from the left has double entry doors with side lights and a transom.

Located to the southeast of the building is a modern flat-roofed canopy, which shelters five gas pumps.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Overall, this property retains a low level of integrity due to the replacement of the original siding and windows. The building lacks significance and represents a common design for the period of construction and place. Furthermore, the building has no significant association or linkage to events or persons of demonstrable importance in the past and does not appear to have the ability to yield important and unique information for research based on physical evidence. This architectural resource is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, or D.

4.4 SUMMARY

Four previously recorded resources are located within the current APE (Table 4.4-1; see Figure 4.2-1). One of these resources, the Chester Station Battlefield (VDHR # 020-5316), was

4-13 previously determined not eligible for the NRHP based on current V-CRIS documentation. The other three resources, Ware Bottom Church, Proctor’s Creek, and Petersburg II Battlefields (VDHR #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025) were determined eligible by VDHR staff; however the sections of the APE associated with these battlefields are not contributing due to a lack of integrity.

The architecture survey identified two newly recorded resources within the APE (see Table 4.4- 1) (see Figure 4.2-1). The newly recorded resources are two gas stations (VDHR # 020-5654 and 020-5655), both of which lack significance and are recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Table 4.4-1: Previously and Newly Recorded Architectural Resources Within the Current APE. Previous Determination of CCR Recommended Eligibility or Eligibility or Current VDHR # Resource Name, Location Date Status Status The portion within the current APE would not contribute to eligibility and supports the previous Chester Station Battlefield determination of not 020-5316 (VA051) 1864 Not Eligible eligible The portion within the Ware Bottom Church current APE does not 020-5319 Battlefield (VA054) 1864 Eligible contribute to eligibility The portion within the Proctor’s Creek Battlefield current APE does not 020-5320 (VA053) 1864 Eligible contribute to eligibility Gas Station, 2421 West 020-5654 Hundred Road (Rt. 10) ca. 1961 Newly Recorded Not Eligible Gas Station, 2320 West 020-5609 Hundred Road (Rt. 10) ca. 1961 Newly Recorded Not Eligible The portion within the Petersburg II Battlefield current APE does not 123-5025 (VA063) 1864 Eligible contribute to eligibility

4-14 5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS

5.1 METHODS

5.1.1 Background Research

Prior to conducting archaeological fieldwork, background research for the current project was performed at VDHR in Richmond and the library of CCR in Tarboro. CCR’s research from past projects in Chesterfield County was utilized to the extent possible. The purpose of this background research was to identify any previously recorded archaeological sites or surveys in or adjacent to the project area, to obtain information on project-specific natural characteristics and cultural patterns, and to review the results of cultural resource investigations in the region.

5.1.2 Field Methods

The entire APE was given full consideration during the archaeological field survey. Any areas that were wet, steeply sloped, or obviously disturbed were briefly examined but not intensively surveyed. Due to the fact that most of the APE is highly disturbed and as such has no potential for intact archaeological sites, only limited shovel testing was conducted to confirm the level of disturbance observed during the visual survey (see Figures 4.2-5 through 4.2-10). Although the APE is crossed or encompassed by several Civil War battlefield boundaries, as discussed in the historic context and architectural survey sections, metal detecting was not considered an appropriate survey strategy due to the high degree of development in the area and the roadside context of the survey with potential for modern metal refuse creating excessive distraction.

Shovel tests were generally 15 inches (approximately 38 cm) in diameter and were excavated into sterile soil. Materials from the shovel tests were screened through 6.35-mm (0.25-in) hardware cloth. The shovel test locations were noted on the project map, and records of shovel test results were compiled on standardized forms and included depth, soil color, and texture. Digital photographs were used to document the general conditions of the project area.

The purpose of the current project was to determine if archaeological sites that are on, eligible for, or potentially eligible for the NRHP are located within the APE. Archaeological sites are assessed against the NRHP criteria for integrity and significance to determine eligibility. However, isolated artifact locations, in most cases, are not considered eligible for the NRHP. The NRHP criteria require that the quality of significance in American history, architecture, culture, and archaeology should be present in buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that the buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts:

A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a

5-1

D. significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or E. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (National Park Service 2014).

In general, archaeological sites that lack sub-plow zone artifact-bearing deposits, have low- density artifact distributions, contain evidence of deep plowing, lack spatial integrity, lack artifact concentrations, or exhibit signs of earth-disturbing activities do not appear to be good candidates for inclusion in the NRHP. Sites that contain concentrations of artifacts, intact surface features, or intact subsurface remains may be recommended for additional evaluation to determine if they are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

5.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH

5.2.1 Archaeological Sites and Surveys in the Vicinity of the Archaeological APE

No previously recorded archaeological are located within the current APE. Five sites in the vicinity of the study area were examined to characterize the archaeological potential of the area. Sites 44CF0182, 44CF0675, and 44CF0676 are all unattributed Native American lithic scatters that have been determined not eligible for the NRHP. All are located to the east of I-95 out of the current APE. Site 44CF0182 was recorded in 1982 (Browning 1983) during an archaeological survey that addressed the intersection areas at the junction of the current APE and I-95. The site included scattered quartz and quartzite debitage and lacked intact topsoil. Sites 44CF0675 and 44CF0676 were recorded during a survey for an apartment complex parcel located to the northeast of the current Route 10/I-95 interchange (ACC 2006). The former yielded only four pieces of quartzite debitage from disturbed contexts, while the latter yielded 13 pieces of quartzite debitage from an eroded context.

Site 44CF0302 is a lithic scatter (quartz and quartzite flakes) that may date to the Middle or Late Archaic period based on material possessed by a local informant. It is located along Route 10 west of the APE and appeared to represent a low density scatter with little additional research potential based on a survey for Route 10 improvements to the west of Route 1 (DeLeuw, Cather & Company of Virginia 1986). The site is listed as unevaluated in current V-CRIS records.

Site 44CF0578 is a large array of Civil War earthworks east of I-95 and out of the current APE. These earthworks represent both Union and Confederate positions from 1864 and 1865 and previously were recorded as six separate sites (44CF0108, 44CF0130, 44CF0175, 44CF0389, 44CF0582, and 44CF0578) that were merged into a single site number, 44CF0578. The array has not been evaluated by VDHR. The current V-CRIS documentation and mapping includes information on a 2007 GPS survey of earthworks conducted through the Chesterfield Historical Society, along with map projection of what was destroyed.

5-2

5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS

5.3.1 Overview of Survey Results

The current APE is primarily composed of areas of development (graded, paved, and/or built upon) associated with the I-95 and Route 10 interchange (Figure 5.3-1). While most of the APE is clearly disturbed by retail development and road construction, there were two areas in the east of the project area where shovel testing was used to confirm the disturbed nature of the soils (Figures 5.3.-2 and 5.3.-3). A total of five shovel tests was excavated in these two areas (see Figure 5.3-1). Three shovel tests (ST1, ST2, and ST3) were placed on the south side of Route 10 in the vicinity of a large oak tree and driveway remnant. All three confirmed that the soils were disturbed. Shovel Test 1 contained a 25 cm zone of a dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) sandy loam atop a brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) sandy clay subsoil. A single fragment of Portland cement and stone aggregate was recovered at the transition to subsoil. Shovel Tests 2 and 3 appeared to reveal grading and displayed only a 10 cm zone of mixed fill on top of a truncated subsoil. Two judgmental shovel tests were placed in the vicinity of a depression in an otherwise obviously disturbed area north of Route 10, just west of the I-95 southbound exit ramp (Figure 5.3.-4). Shovel Test 4 was placed on the western rim of the depression and Shovel Test 5 was placed in the bottom. Both shovel tests contained a 25 cm zone of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) sandy loam atop a brownish yellow (10YR6/6) sandy clay subsoil. Both shovel tests were negative.

5-3

ithin ithin Developed Areas / 4 5 Previously Previously Disturbed W Areas VDOT Wayof Right Disturbed TestShovel Negative Location 2 1 3 ithin APE. the W 1: Archaeological Strategies Survey - 3 Figure 5. Figure

5-4

Figure 5.3-2: Disturbed Area Near a Large Oak Tree South of Route 10 at the East End of the APE.

Figure 5.3-3: Disturbed Area North of Route 10 at the East End of the APE.

5-5

Figure 5.3-4: Depression in a Field North of Route 10 at Location of Shovel Tests 4 and 5. Note: the arrow marks the west edge of the depression.

5-6

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

Four previously recorded resources are located within the current APE. All four of these resources are Civil War battlefields (VDHR #020-5316, #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025). Three of the four battlefields (VDHR #020-5319, #020-5320, and #123-5025) were determined eligible by VDHR staff and one (VDHR #020-5316) was determined not eligible. Due to the high degree of modern development within the APE, none of the sections of the battlefields located within the APE are recommended as contributing to any eligibility or potential eligibility of the overall resources. Two newly recorded architectural resources were recorded within the current APE (VDHR #s 020-5654 and 020-5655). Both buildings retain low levels of integrity and represent common designs for the period of construction and place and are therefore not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP (see Figure 4.2-1; Table 4.4-1).

6.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

No new archaeological sites or artifact locations were recorded during the current archaeological survey, and no previously recorded sites located within the current APE. The APE is characterized by modern retail development, resulting in loss of integrity and low potential for preservation of the archaeological record.

6-1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED

American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) 2009 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Battlefields Protection Program, Washington, D.C.

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) 2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the White Oak Apartments Tract and Preliminary Results of Phase II Testing of Site 44CF0673, Chesterfield County, Virginia. Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. Submitted to Townes Site Engineering. Copies available from Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

ArcGIS Image Service 2014 ESRI World Imagery. Electronic document, http://services.arcgisonline. com/ArcGIS/rest/services/world_imagery/Mapserver, accessed October 21, 2014.

Anderson, David G., David S. Brose, Dena F. Dincauze, Michael J. Shott, Robert S. Grumet, and Richard C. Waldbauer 2014 The Earliest Americans Theme Study. Archaeology Program, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/archeology/pubs/nhleam/index.htm, accessed October 22, 2014.

Anderson, David G., and Michael K. Faught 1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26: 163-187.

Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman 1996 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Barber, Michael, and Eugene B. Barfield 1989 Paleoindian Chronology for Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 53-70. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Berquist, C. Richard, Jr. 1993 Mapped Units of the Coastal Plain. In Geological Map of Virginia – Expanded Explanation. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, Charlottesville.

7-1

Boyd, C. Clifford, Jr. 1989 Paleoindian Paleoecology and Subsistence in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 139- 156. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Braun, E. Lucy 1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blakiston, Philadelphia.

Browning, Lyle 1983 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Three Alternatives for Connectors of Interstate Status to Connect Existing I-95 to Proposed I-295. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Copies available from Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Carr, Kurt C. 1975 The Analysis of a Paleoindian Site in the Shenandoah Valley with An Emphasis on Chronology and Function. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America,Washington, D.C.

Claggett, Stephen, and John S. Cable (assemblers) 1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi.

Coe, Joffre L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54, No. 5. Philadelphia.

Cox, T. Bransford 1907 Chesterfield County Virginia: Its History and Present Condition. Williams Printing Company, Richmond. Electronic document, http://babel.hathitrust.org/ cgi/pt?id=uva.x001836610;view=1up;seq=3, accessed October 22, 2014.

Custer, John F. 1990 Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Culture Change and Continuity. In Early and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1-60. Special Publication No. 22 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Dabney, Virginius 1990 Richmond: The Story of a City University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Delcourt, Paul, and Hazel Delcourt 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YR B.P. to the Present. In Geobotany II, edited by R. C. Roman, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.

7-2

DeLeuw, Cather & Company of Virginia 1986 Study and Design of Route 10, Chesterfield County, Virginia, Historical and Archaeological Survey Draft Technical Report, Task 10. DeLeuw, Cather & Company of Virginia. Submitted to Virginia Department of Transportation. Copies available from Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Dent, Richard J. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.

Egloff, Keith 1985 Spheres of Cultural Intersections Across the Coastal Plain of Virginia in the Woodland Period. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. S. Dickens, Jr., and H. T. Ward, pp. 229-242. University of Alabama Press, Alabama.

1989 Native American Sites in a Fall Line Transition Study Area. Research Report Series 5, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.

Egloff, Keith and Stephen Potter 1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:95-117.

Fenneman, Nevin 1938 Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Fry, Joshua 1755 A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole province of Maryland with part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina. Drawn by Joshua Fry & Peter Jefferson in 1751. The Library of Congress, American Memory, Map Collections. Electronic document, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/D?gmd:1:./temp/~ammem_S0Zf::@@@mdb=gmd,klpmap,ww2map, accessed October 22, 2014.

Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: Pattern and Process During the Paleo- Indian to Early Archaic. In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons, edited by W. M. Gardner, pp. 5-47. Department of Anthropology, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper 1, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (circa 9200 to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp. 5- 52. Special Publication No. 19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

7-3

Gilmer, J. F. 1863 Survey of a part of Chesterfield County, Virginia. The Library of Congress, American Memory, Map Collections. Electronic document, http://memory.loc. gov/cgi-bin/query/D?gmd:6:./temp/~ammem_l8Ys::@@@mdb, accessed October 21, 2014.

Goebel, Ted, Michael E. Waters, and Dennis H. O’Rourke 2008 The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in America. Science 319:1497-1502.

Goodyear, Albert C., III 1999 Results of the 1999 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 4(1-3):8-13.

2000 Topper Site: Results of the 2000 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 5(2):18-26.

2006 Evidence for Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley P. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael A. Waters, pp. 103-112. Texas A&M University Center for the Study of the First Americans and Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Green, Paul R. 1986 The Archaeology of “Chowanoke.” America’s Four Hundredth Anniversary Committee, North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: Summary. Science 156:175-191.

Hodges, Robert L. 1978 Soil Survey of Chesterfield County. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

Horn, John 2000 Great Campaigns. The Petersburg Campaign, June 1864 – April 1865. Combined Publishing, Pennsylvania.

Johnson, Michael F. 1996 Paleoindians Near the Edge: A Virginia Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. E. Sassaman, pp.187- 212. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

7-4

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 139-184. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

LaPrade, J.E. 1888 Map of Chesterfield County, Va. The Library of Congress, American Memory, Map Collections. Electronic document, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item. pl?data=/service/gmd/gmd388/g3883/g3883c/la001239.jp2&style=gmd&itemLin k=r?ammem/gmd,klpmap,ww2map,:@field(NUMBER+@band(g3883c+la00123 9))&title=Map%20of%20Chesterfield%20County,%20Va.%20%2f%20made%20 by%20order%20of%20the%20Board%20of%20Supervisors,%20by%20J.E.%20 LaPrade., accessed October 22, 2014.

Lutz, Frances E. 1954 Chesterfield: An Old Virginia County. William Byrd Press, Richmond.

McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.

2003 The Williamson Clovis Site, 44DW1, Dinwiddie County, Virginia: An Analysis of Research Potential in Threatened Areas. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report Series No. 13, Richmond.

McDonald, Jerry N. 2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with Special Attention to a Bone Tool Dated 14,510 B.P. Jeffersoniana: Contributions from the Virginia Museum of Natural History 9:1-59.

McLearen, Douglas C. 1991 Late Archaic and Early Woodland Material Culture in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 89-138. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

1992 Virginia’s Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 39-64. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

7-5

Mouer, L. Daniel 1991 The Formative Transition in Virginia. In Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. N. Hodges, pp. 1-88. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

National Park Service 2014 National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm, accessed October 22, 2014.

O’Dell, Jeffrey 1983 Chesterfield County: Early Architecture and Historic Sites. Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Phelps, David 1983 Archaeology of the North Carolina Coast and Coastal Plain: Problems and Hypotheses. In The Prehistory of North Carolina, edited by M. Mathis and J. Crow, pp. 1-52. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Potter, Stephen R. 1989 Early English Effects on Virginia Algonquian Exchange and Tribute in the Tidewater Potomac. In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, edited by P. H. Wood, G. A. Waselkov, and M. T. Hatley, pp. 151-172. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Salmon, John S. 2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

Stewart, R. Michael 1992 Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region Perspective. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges, pp. 1-38. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond, Virginia.

Thornbury, William 1965 Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley, New York.

7-6

Turner, E. Randolph, III 1989 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia. In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. M. Wittkofski and T. R. Reinhart, pp.71-93. Special Publication No.19 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the Late Woodland Period. In Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by T. R. Reinhart and M. E. Hodges, pp. 97-136. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond.

Virginia Aeronautical Historical Society (VAHS) 2014 Chester – Midway Airport. Electronic document, http://vahsonline.publishpath. com/chester-midway-airport, accessed October 22, 2014.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) 2011 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resource Survey in Virginia. Ms. on file, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Wagner, Daniel P., and Joseph M. McAvoy 2004 Pedoarchaeology of Cactus Hill, A Sandy Paleoindian Site in Southeastern Virginia, USA. Geoarchaeology 19(4):297-322.

Waters, Michael R., Steven L. Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C. Nordt, Steven G. Driese. Joshua M. Feinberg, Joshua L. Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson, Charles T. Hallmark, Michael B. Collins, and James E. Wiederhold 2011 The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 331:1599-1603.

Weaver, Bettie W. 1970 Chesterfield County, Virginia: A History. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, Chesterfield, Virginia.

7-7

APPENDIX A

RECORD OF CONSULTATION ON THE APE FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

APPENDIX B

VDHR V-CRIS FORMS FOR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES RECORDED OR UPDATED DURING THE CURRENT SURVEY

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5316 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Property Information

Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Historic Chester Station Battlefield DHR Staff: Not Eligible Property Addresses Current - Bermuda Hundred Road Route 10 County/Independent City(s): Chesterfield (County) Incorporated Town(s): Chester Zip Code(s): 23831, 23834, 23836 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHESTER, HOPEWELL

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Town Acreage: No Data Site Description: 1993: The Town of Chester has expanded to encompass most of the battlefield. The Winfree House is still standing next to the Sunset Cemetery where US troops deployed. 67th OH deployed northeast of the house, 13th IN deployed southwest of the house; a sectin of the 1st CT battery was positioned near the house. CS battle lines are generally along Osborne Road in a residential area. US 10 and US 1 intersection supports a commercial strip and is quite developed.

April 2014: The area of the battlefield surveyed at this time is a small part of the Point of Rocks County park located to the northwest of the main portion of the Park.

October 2014: The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the west of the intersection between West Hundred Road (Route 10), and what was then the Richmond Turnpike (Route 1/301). Modern development has obliterated much of the Chester Station Battlefield, especially around the intersection of Route 1 and Route 10 (Salmon 2001). Surveyor Assessment: Start Year: 1864 Date Source: Site Visit Type: Historical Event ------1993: On May 10, elements of Major General Robert Ransom's division conducted a reconnaisance-in-force against a portion of Butler's army that was destroying the railroad at Chester Station. The Confederates attacked near the Winfree House, and the Federals retired to their Bermuda Hundred lines.

April 2014: This resource has been determined potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The County plans to erect one sign in this location. Circa~ excavated two shovel tests for the post locations. Both of these shovel tests were negative. Circa~ recommends that the project will have a no adverse effect on the archaeological and architectural sites within this project area. The project consists of adding one sign to the park property. The excavations did not reveal any artifacts or features. In addition, the sign can be removed at any time, thus not altering the site’s setting, design, feeling, association, or workmanship. They will not impede on the landscape and will not detract from the sites.

October 2014: The American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) established a study area encompassing approximately 3,752 acres; of those 1,183 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield not eligible for listing in 2003 and 2007 due to loss of integrity. CCR recommends that due to loss of integrity of the portion of the battlefield within the APE for the current Route 10 widening project would not contribute to any eligibility for the battlefield should there be any future consideration of the NRHP status. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Local Govt No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Defense

October 27, 2014 Page: 1 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5316 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Resource Type: Battle Site Date of Construction: 1864 Historic Time Period: Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s): Military/Defense Architectural Style: No Discernable Style Form: No Data Number of Stories: No Data Condition: Demolished Interior Plan: No Data Threats to Resource: Development, Transportation Expansion Architectural Description: Currently the battlefield consists of monuments, interpretive markers, a cemetery and some period structures. Its current uses are residential and commercial in nature.

October 2014: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by General Benjamin Butler, took place on May 10, 1864. The battle was part of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the west of the intersection between West Hundred Road (Route 10), and what was then the Richmond Turnpike (Route 1/301). Modern development has obliterated much of the Chester Station Battlefield, especially around the intersection of Route 1 and Route 10 (Salmon 2001).

Secondary Resource Information

Secondary Resource #1

Resource Category: No Data Resource Type: No Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Date of Construction: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: No Data

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-3612 Investigator: Jeroen van den Hurk Organization/Company: Coastal Carolina Research Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/16/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

October 27, 2014 Page: 2 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5316 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Carol D. Tyrer Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 4/1/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Carol D. Tyrer - Project Management, Principal Investigator Dawn M. Muir-Frost - Architectural Historian

April 2014: In February 2014, Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC (Circa~) conducted archaeological investigations at the Point of Rocks Park, Battery Dantzler, and Howlett’s Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The project area encompasses 16 sign locations within the three parks. These areas fall within the Chester Station, Port Walthall Junction, Drewry's Bluff, and Ware Bottom Church Civil War battlefields and the Point of Rocks site. No architectural survey was completed as part of this survey, only archaeological investigations in the specific sign location areas.

Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 020-5316 Staff Name: ABPP Event Date: 1/24/2007 Staff Comment Preliminary survey data from American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) indicates that this historic Civil War battlefield is likely not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Event Type: DHR Staff: Not Eligible DHR ID: 020-5316 Staff Name: Harbury, Katherine E. Event Date: 8/21/2003 Staff Comment Due to loss of integrity, the Chester Station Battlefield is not eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: CWSAC - VA051 Investigator: CWSAC Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 1/1/1993 Dhr Library Report Number: Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields - Technical Volume I: Appendices Project Staff/Notes: Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Survey Form - no photos submitted - not dated or signed, but surveys occurred during the period between 1991 and 1993.

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: American Battlefields Protection Program (ABPP) 2009 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Battlefields Protection Program, Washington, D.C.

Salmon, John S. 2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Property Notes: Name: George Flickett Title: Local Historian Address 1: 4303 Pinewood Court City: Prince George State: Virginia Owner Relationship: Informant

October 27, 2014 Page: 3 of 4 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5316 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Project Bibliographic Information: Widening of Rt. 10 from Rt. 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia

October 27, 2014 Page: 4 of 4 VDHR # 020-5316 Chester Station Battlefield October 16, 2014

View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking West View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Towards Route 1 Route 1, Looking East

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5319 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Property Information

Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Name Ware Bottom Church Battlefield Historic Ware Bottom Church Battlefield DHR Staff: Eligible Property Addresses Current - Interstate 295 Alternate - Route 10 County/Independent City(s): Chesterfield (County), Henrico (County), Hopewell (Ind. City), Prince George (County) Incorporated Town(s): Chester Zip Code(s): 23231, 23831, 23834, 23836, 23860 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHESTER, DREWRYS BLUFF, DUTCH GAP, HOPEWELL

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Suburban Acreage: 5,052.3 Site Description: 1993: The site is located east of the intersection of I-295 and Route 10. 80 percent of the earthworks constructed are still intact and well preserved. NPS owns about 10 acres of Parker's Battery, CS work that figured into the battle at Ware Bottom Church. Several other forts survive on the site. There exists patchy industrial and commercial development along Route 10.

June 2012: Ware Bottom Church Battlefield (020-5319) is located east of Interstate 95 along the Route 10 corridor in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The battlefield is situated within an area that has undergone significant transportation, commercial and industrial development during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The historic setting of the 1864 battlefield has been impacted by commercial, industrial and residential development. The NRHP boundary was developed by the American Battlefield Protection Program as part of its Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report of Virginia. The battlefield was determined to be eligible for the National Register on January 24, 2007 under Criterion A. The NRHP boundary includes approximately 5052 acres associated with active combat, troop movements, and ancillary areas related to the battlefield. The boundary excluded areas of the historic battlefield that have been altered with modern commercial, industrial, and residential development. A prominent remaining feature of the battlefield is a section of the Bermuda Hundred defensive line occupied by the Union’s Army of the James between May 1864 and April 1865. This includes remnants of gun emplacements and parapets in the area of Fort Drake, a Union defensive position. The area surveyed at this time consists of property within the Point of Rocks County Park.

October 2014: The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of I-95. Modern development has covered much of the Ware Bottom Church battlefield, but some sections survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

January 2014: The site description of this resource has not changed since the previous survey. Surveyor Assessment: Start Year: 1864 Date Source: Site Visit Type: Historical Event ------On May 20, Confederate forces under General P.G.T. Beauregard attacked Butler's Bermuda Hundred line near Ware Bottom Church. About 10,00 troops were involved in this action. After driving back Butler's advanced pickets, the Confederates constructed the Howlett Line, effectively bottling up the Federals at Bermuda Hundred. Confederate victories at Proctor's Creek and Ware Bottom Church enabled Beauregard to detach strong reinforcements for Lee's army in time for the fighting at Cold Harbor.

June 2012: The Ware Bottom Church Battlefield is recognized for its importance in association with the Civil War under Criterion A. In particular, the Ware Bottom Church Battlefield was the location of a critical engagement as part of the Bermuda Hundred campaign. The assault by Confederate forces allowed a defensive line to be completed that significantly limited the Army of the James’ offensive capabilities and effectively ended the Bermuda Hundred campaign against Richmond and Petersburg. The property is not known to

October 27, 2014 Page: 1 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5319 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

have been associated with any person(s) of historical significance under Criterion B. Although several well-known Civil War officers participated with the Bermuda Hundred campaign, their significance is not known to be associated with this battle and may be better defined in relation to other locations. Under Criterion C, the battlefield does retain features associated with the engagement between the Army of the James and Confederate forces, including the remnants of defensive fortifications. However, these remnants lack sufficient integrity to be eligible under this criterion. Archaeological investigations have not been conducted on the property; therefore, the resource’s eligibility under Criterion D (potential to yield information important to history or prehistory) cannot be assessed at this time.

January 2014: The battlefield has not changed drastically since it was determined to be eligible for the NRHP in 2013. Although a few new residential and commercial buildings have been constructed within the district boundaries, most of the landscape that was open, agricultural land in when it was determined to be eligible remains as such. Therefore it is recommended that the Ware Bottom Church Battlefield remains eligible for the NRHP.

April 2014: This site has been determined potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The County plans to erect 19 signs in this location. Circa~ excavated shovel tests for the post locations. Circa~ recommends that the project will have a no adverse effect on the archaeological and architectural sites within this project area. The project consists of adding signs to the park property. The excavations did not reveal cultural features, although artifacts were recovered from the post locations. In addition, the signs can be removed at any time, thus not altering the site’s setting, design, feeling, association, or workmanship. They will not impede on the landscape and will not detract from the sites.

Therefore, Circa~ recommends no further survey work for these resources within the project area.

October 2014: The ABPP established a study area encompassing roughly 11,294 acres; of those approximately 5,052 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield eligible for listing in 2013 under Criterion A, as a largely intact Civil War battlefield, and under Criterion D for the archaeological information it can yield regarding the battles. Due to excessive modern development and loss of integrity, CCR recommend that the portion of the battlefield in the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 does not contribute to the overall eligibility determined for this resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Public - Federal No Data Public - Local No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Defense Resource Type: Battle Site Date of Construction: 1864 Historic Time Period: Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s): Military/Defense Architectural Style: No Discernable Style Form: No Data Number of Stories: No Data Condition: Fair Interior Plan: No Data Threats to Resource: Development, Transportation Expansion Architectural Description: Currently the battlefield consists of interpretive markers (state and county markers, unearthed burials, archeological sites (remains of US and CS fortifications and the site of Ware Bottom Church), and trenches/field fortifications. Its current uses are agricultural, residential, industrial, and commercial in nature.

June 2012: Approximately eleven (11) acres (excluding paved roadway) of the NRHP eligible Ware Bottom Church Battlefield is located within the APE established for the Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project. This area consists primarily of land immediately adjacent to Route 10. The APE also includes wooded areas to the north and south of Route 10 which contain remnants of parapets and fortifications associated with the Battle of Ware Bottom Church. Fort Drake, also known as Battery No. 1, was a prominent fortification along the Bermuda Hundred defensive line. The fort is no longer extant, having been demolished as a result of infrastructure improvements during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Parapet remnants extend to the north and south of the former Fort Drake site. Both sections of parapet are located on private property and have suffered neglect and damage due to a variety of causes, including the recreational use of all- terrain vehicles. The parapet to the north of Route 10 is situated in a wooded area between River Bend Circle and Harbor Drive. The parapets have been degraded through the use of recreational vehicles. The parapet to the south of Route 10 is located in a wooded area bounded by Old Bermuda Hundred Road, to the east and south; Route 10, to the north; and commercial buildings, to the west. The parapets to the south retain a higher degree of integrity.

January 2014: This resource has not changed significantly since the previous survey.

October 2014: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by Major General Benjamin Butler, took place on May 20, 1864. The battle was part of the Bermuda

October 27, 2014 Page: 2 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5319 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Hundred Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of I-95. Modern development has covered much of the Ware Bottom Church battlefield, but some sections survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

Secondary Resource Information

Secondary Resource #1

Resource Category: No Data Resource Type: No Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Date of Construction: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: No Data

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-3612 Investigator: Jeroen van den Hurk Organization/Company: Coastal Carolina Research Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/16/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Carol D. Tyrer Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 4/1/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Carol D. Tyrer - Project Management, Principal Investigator Dawn M. Muir-Frost - Architectural Historian

April 2014: In February 2014, Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC (Circa~) conducted archaeological investigations at the Point of Rocks Park, Battery Dantzler, and Howlett’s Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The project area encompasses 16 sign locations within the three parks. These areas fall within the Chester Station, Port Walthall Junction, Drewry's Bluff, and Ware Bottom Church Civil War battlefields and the Point of Rocks site. No architectural survey was completed as part of this survey, only archaeological investigations in the specific sign location areas.

October 27, 2014 Page: 3 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5319 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Caitlin Oshida Organization/Company: Dovetail CRG Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 1/10/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID: 020-5319 Staff Name: Holma, Marc Event Date: 5/20/2013 Staff Comment Eligible under Criterion A, as a largely intact Civil War Battlefield, and Criterion D, for the archaeological information it can yield regarding the battles.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 1995-2174 Investigator: McCormick Taylor, Inc. Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 2/1/2013 Dhr Library Report Number: Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields - Technical Volume II: Battle Summaries Project Staff/Notes: Phase I Architectural Identification Survey for above-ground architectural resources for the Route 10 (Bermuda Triangle Road to Meadowville Road) Widening Project. VDOT Project Number 0010-020-632, (UPC #101020).

Event Type: DHR Staff: Potentially Eligible DHR ID: 020-5319 Staff Name: ABPP Event Date: 1/24/2007 Staff Comment Preliminary survey data from the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) indicates that this historic Civil War battlefield is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and likely deserving of future preservation efforts. This survey information should be reassessed during future Section 106/NEPA compliance reviews.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: CWSAC - VA054 Investigator: CWSAC Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 1/1/1993 Dhr Library Report Number: Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields - Technical Volume II: Battle Summaries Project Staff/Notes: Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Survey Form - no photos submitted - not dated or signed, but surveys occurred during the period between 1991 and 1993.

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: American Battlefields Protection Program (ABPP) 2009 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Battlefields Protection Program, Washington, D.C.

October 27, 2014 Page: 4 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5319 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Salmon, John S. 2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Property Notes: Name: George Flickett Title: Local Historian Address 1: 4303 Pinewood Court City: Prince George State: Virginia Owner Relationship: Informant Project Bibliographic Information: Widening of Rt. 10 from Rt. 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia

October 27, 2014 Page: 5 of 5 VDHR # 020-5319 Ware Bottom Church Battlefield October 16, 2014

View of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10), Looking West View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Towards Route 1 Route 1, Looking East

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5320 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Property Information

Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Historic Drewry's Bluff (2nd) Historic Fort Darling DHR Staff: Eligible Historic Fort Drewry Historic/Current Proctor's Creek Battlefield Property Addresses Alternate - Route 1 Current - Willis Road County/Independent City(s): Chesterfield (County), Colonial Heights (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): Bellwood, Chester, Chesterfield Court House Zip Code(s): 23237, 23831, 23832, 23834, 23836 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHESTER, DREWRYS BLUFF

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Suburban Acreage: No Data Site Description: The site is located south of Richmond on Route 1 and Willis Road. The battlefield is highly fragmented and is developing quickly in a hodge podge fashion. There is extensive commercial clutter along Route 1. Several large sections of the battlefield remain but access is difficult.

August 2007: The Richmond Turnpike road and the surrounding area north of the town of Chester have been extensively developed. There are several industrial parks, Interstates 95 and 288, and well as various residential and commercial developments in the core area laid out by the NPS in 1992. Parts of the battlefield including Fort Darling along the James River have been preserved. But the largest part of the area has lost nearly all of its feel and integrity as a battlefield.

April 2009: The landscape surrounding this resource has not significantly changed since the previous survey.

January 2012: No changes have occured to this resource. There are no known secondary resources associated with this battlefield.

April 2014: The area surveyed at this time is within the Point of Rocks County Park.

October 2014: The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of I-95, and the portion of the battlefield study area that crosses the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 represents an avenue of approach rather than an area of battlefield activity. Modern development has covered much of the Proctor’s Creek battlefield, but some parts survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001). Surveyor Assessment: Start Year: 1864 End Year: 1864 Date Source: Written Data Type: Historical Event Notes: Source: Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Reference # VA053 ------After his repulse at Swift Creek and Fort Clifton on May 9, 1864, Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler withdrew into his entrenchments at Bermuda Hundred. A Confederate army of 18,000 was patched together under command of Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard to confront Butler's 30,000. On May 12, Butler moved north against the Confederate line at Drewry's Bluff but again adopted a defensive posture when his attack was not supported by gunboats. On the 13th a Union column struck the right flank of the Confederate line at the Wooldridge House, carrying a line of works. Butler remained cautious, however, giving Beauregard time to concentrate his forces. On May 16 at dawn, Ransom's Confederate division opened an attack on Butler's right flank, routing many units. Subsequent attacks lost direction in the fog, but the Federals were disorganized and demoralized. After severe fighting, Butler extricated himself from battle, withdrawing again to his Bermuda Hundred Line. This battle stopped Butler's offensive against Richmond.

August 2007:The Federals took May the 11th off and stayed in their camp at Bermuda Hundred. The Confederates, however, began to move north mid-morning. Sheridan’s cavalry had broken away from Grant’s army near Spotsylvania Courthouse and had proceeded south to Richmond. They were seen within twenty miles of the city and caused great alarm. Because of that Braxton Bragg had ordered Major General P.T.G. Beauregard to bring his troops closer to Richmond and the Confederate fort at Drewry’s Bluff. Six brigades marched north up the Richmond Turnpike under Brigadier General Robert F. Hoke’s command. Hoke met General Robert Ransom who was stationed at Drewry’s Bluff on the night of May 11th. Beauregard stayed in Petersburg until the remainder of the troops sent north to defend the Capital arrived (Robertson 1987: 139-155).

October 27, 2014 Page: 1 of 6 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5320 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

In the early morning hours of May 12th the Federal army began to leave Bermuda Hundred. Butler did not want to directly attack Richmond yet as he was waiting to Grant to free himself from Lee and proceed south. The Army of the James left their camp and proceeded north on the Richmond Turnpike. Not long after the Federals reached the Turnpike they encountered Confederate skirmishers who harassed them as they proceeded north. The Federal reached Proctor’s Creek along the Richmond Turnpike and ceased their forward moment. Major General Smith concluded that he needed more troops to properly assault the Confederate works across the creek. The Federal reinforcements arrived late in the day so the Federals dug in for the night (Robertson 1987: 139-155).

Early on the morning of May 13th the Federals began an assault on the Confederate position on the north side of Proctor’s Creek. When they reached the works however the Federals found that the Confederates had withdrawn during the night. General Smith ordered his men slowly forward and the Federal troops continued north up the Richmond Turnpike (Robertson 1987: 139-155).

General Butler had deployed a two pronged attacked with General Smith proceeding north up the Richmond Turnpike and Major General Quincy Gillmore heading west in an attempt to out flank the Confederates. Gillmore had headed west almost all the way to Chesterfield Courthouse and then came down Courthouse Road (Route 10) to meet up with the troops under Smith’s command. As he progressed east Gillmore surprised Matt Ranson’s brigade entrenched near the Crooked Branch a tributary of Proctor’s Creek and quickly routed them. Word of Gillmore successful offensive against the Confederate flank did not reach Smith or Butler before the day ended and consequently the army of the James spent another night camped on the Richmond Turnpike (Robertson 1987: 139-155).

For the next two days the Confederates and Federals skirmished among their entrenchments along the Richmond Turnpike. The Federals had to intention of provoking a major engagement but instead just wanted to keep the Confederates busy. However, Major General P.T.G. Beauregard had a grand offensive against the Union troops in mind that he spent both May 14th and 15th arranging (Robertson 1987: 170-179).

At just before 5 am on May 16th the Confederate army that had been entrenched above Willis road on the Richmond Turnpike began to move south and attack the Federal lines. The Federals were awakened by the Confederate skirmishers. Beauregard had planned to attack the Federal front with Major General Chase Whiting and three brigades from Petersburg attacking the army of the James on the rear. The attack on the front ensued and was fought to a standstill by mid-afternoon when Butler decided to retreat back to Bermuda Hundred. Chase Whiting and his troops from Petersburg never made it to the battlefield (Robertson 1987: 182-207).

The Federal lost more than 3000 troops from May 12th through 16th with over 1300 taken prisoner. The Confederates reported just under 3000 killed wounded or missing (Robertson 1987: 217).

April 2009: Despite the physical modifications, it is recommended that Proctor’s Creek Battlefield is still Potentially Eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with notable Civil War events in this area.

January 2012: The CWSAC conducted a survey of the battlefield in 1993. In January 2007, both VDHR and the ABPP determined that the battlefield was potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and that any project requiring Section 106 should take into account the effects of the project on the battlefield. In July of that year, Louis Berger and Associates conducted a Phase I survey of the battlefield. In October 2007, in response to the Louis Berger and Associates survey, VDHR requested that the NPS historian review the proposed boundaries of the battlefield. In April 2009, Dovetail conducted a Phase I survey for the Southeast High Speed rail project that included portions of the battlefield. They noted that due to residential and commercial development, much of the battlefield had lost its physical integrity and large swaths of the battlefield had diminished setting, feeling, and association. In July 2009, VDHR determined that the battlefield still retained enough integrity to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A.

In September 2009, the ABPP released their update to the CWSAC report on the nation’s Civil War battlefields. The 2009 update included a study area encompassing approximately 12,684.76 acres. Of that acreage, approximately 5,090.69 acres were recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. According to the 2009 update, approximately 48.47 acres within the battlefield are protected and approximately 48.47 acres are publicly accessible within the Richmond National Battlefield Park and Fort Stevens Park. The update also noted that much of the landscape has been altered and fragmented leaving some essential features. In 2012, Circa~ conducted a Phase I survey and the western portion of their project area fel within the area determined potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The area to the north, south, and west of the project tract has been developed with industrial buildings and their associated infrastructure. The development should not have an adverse effect on the viewshed of the battlefield as the existing built environment has already impacted it in this location. In addition, Mr. Robert Krick with the NPS Richmond National Battlefield had expressed concerns with a possible impact to the viewshed on Drewry’s Bluff located roughly one half mile north and on the river bank from the project tract. Photos taken from the edge of the fort at the river in the fall with the leaves on the trees and also later in the winter without foliage show that the project tract cannot be seen from the fortification. In addition, the existing power plant with its towers also cannot be seen from this location. The tower height for the new plant is proposed to be less than those located at the river location. The river location is at 30 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the project tract is at 85 feet AMSL. The proposed tower height is still under the existing one taking into account the differences in elevation.

April 2014: This site has been determined potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The County plans to erect 17 signs in this location. Circa~ excavated shovel tests for the post locations. Circa~ recommends that the project will have a no adverse effect on the archaeological and architectural sites within this project area. The project consists of adding 13 signs to the park property. The excavations did not reveal cultural features, although artifacts were recovered from the post locations. In addition, the signs can be removed at any time, thus not altering the site’s setting, design, feeling, association, or workmanship. They will not impede on the landscape and will not detract from the sites.

Therefore, Circa~ recommends no further survey work for these resources within the project area.

October 2014: The ABPP established a study area encompassing roughly 12,684 acres, of those approximately 5,090 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield eligible for listing in 2009 under Criterion A. Due to excessive modern development and loss of integrity, CCR recommend that the portion of the battlefield in the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 does not contribute to the overall eligibility determined for this resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Eligible Ownership

October 27, 2014 Page: 2 of 6 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5320 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Public - Local No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Defense Resource Type: Battle Site Date of Construction: 1864 Historic Time Period: Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s): Military/Defense Architectural Style: No Discernable Style Form: No Data Number of Stories: No Data Condition: Fair Interior Plan: No Data Threats to Resource: Development, Transportation Expansion Architectural Description: Currently the battlefield consists of monuments, interpretive markers (state and freeman markers/park service interpretation at Fort Darling unit/county interpretation at Fort Stephens), a cemetery, historic road beds, period structures (Wooldridge, Willis, Halfway houses), and trenches/field fortifications. Its current uses are agricultural, residential, industrial, and commercial in nature

April 2009: Today, the battlefield contains monuments, interpretive markers, a cemetery, historic road beds, period structures and buildings, and fortifications. Unfortunately, due to expansive commercial and residential development much of the battlefield itself has lost its physical integrity. Despite efforts to preserve parts of the battlefield, such as Fort Darling, large swaths of the battlefield have diminished setting, feeling, and association.

January 2012: Circa~ completed a metal-detecting survey of the portion of the battlefield on the Virginia Dominion Power property that consists of approximately 125 acres of mixed agricultural fields and woods. The tract is bordered to the north by a UPS distribution center, to the east by steep slopes that descend to the floodplain of the James River, to the south by two large box-type industrial firms and the paved entrance road into the industrial park, and to the west by Coach Road. The areas around three 20th century house sites and 20th century barn sites were excluded from the survey due to the high quantity of metal roofing and associated artifacts scattered on the ground surface in those areas. Circa~ staff did not notice any previous metal-detecting activities from relic hunters in the area. Using Fisher Model #1266-XB Deep Search all- metal metal detectors, Circa~ archaeologists slowly walked this area of the battlefields overlapping from south to north and from west to east. As the archaeologists walked along the corridor, they slowly swung the head of the metal detector perpendicular with each transect being walked. In total, 1,681 artifacts were recovered from the metal detecting survey. Of these, none or 0% were associated with the Native American occupation of the project area and 1,681 or 100% dated to the 20th century. The finds included 1,481 modern shotgun shells, 17 metal pin flags, 57 modern beer and soda can fragments, five wire nails, 29 aluminum foil fragments, 89 barbed wire fragments, and three farm equipment fragments. No artifacts dating to the Civil War period were recovered. However, the portion of the project area where the most intense action occurred has been disturbed by the road providing access to a borrow pit and the location of 20th century structures.

October 2014: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by Major General Benjamin F. Butler, took place between May 12 and 16, 1864. The battle was part of the Bermuda Hundred Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of I-95, and the portion of the battlefield study area that crosses the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 represents an avenue of approach rather than an area of battlefield activity. Modern development has covered much of the Proctor’s Creek battlefield, but some parts survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

Secondary Resource Information

Secondary Resource #1

Resource Category: No Data Resource Type: No Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Date of Construction: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: No Data

October 27, 2014 Page: 3 of 6 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5320 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-3612 Investigator: Jeroen van den Hurk Organization/Company: Coastal Carolina Research Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/16/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Carol D. Tyrer Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 4/1/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Carol D. Tyrer - Project Management, Principal Investigator Dawn M. Muir-Frost - Architectural Historian

April 2014: In February 2014, Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC (Circa~) conducted archaeological investigations at the Point of Rocks Park, Battery Dantzler, and Howlett’s Line in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The project area encompasses 16 sign locations within the three parks. These areas fall within the Chester Station, Port Walthall Junction, Drewry's Bluff, and Ware Bottom Church Civil War battlefields and the Point of Rocks site. No architectural survey was completed as part of this survey, only archaeological investigations in the specific sign location areas.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2011-1397 Investigator: Circa~ Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 1/1/2012 Dhr Library Report Number: DW-79 Project Staff/Notes: January 2012: In the fall of 2011, The Timmons Group (Timmons) contracted Circa~ to conduct a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Virginia Dominion Power Chesterfield site in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The purpose of this Phase I cultural resources survey was to identify and record all historic resources within the project area prior to development of the site. This survey resulted in the identification of eight isolated finds, six new archaeological sites, and no new architectural resources. Carol D. Tyrer served as the project manager and oversaw the archaeological and metal detecting portion of the survey. Dawn M. Frost conducted the architectural portion of the survey. Carol D. Tyrer photographed this resource and Dawn M. Frost entered the updates into the DSS system. The entire project tract falls within the battlefield boundaries for VDHR #020-5320 the Proctor’s Creek Battlefield as noted by the ABPP. The area to the north, south, and west of the project tract has been developed with industrial buildings and their associated infrastructure. The development at this location should not have an adverse effect on the battlefield or on the viewshed of the battlefield as the existing built environment has already impacted it in this location.

Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID: 020-5320 Staff Name: Holma, Marc Event Date: 7/6/2009

October 27, 2014 Page: 4 of 6 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5320 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Staff Comment DHR concurs with Dovetail's recommendation that this resource retains sufficient integrity to remain eligible under Criterion A.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2001-1460 Investigator: Barile, Kerri Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 4/1/2009 Dhr Library Report Number: DW-79 Project Staff/Notes: Barile, Kerri, Heather Dollins and Claire Lanier. Phase I Architectural Survey of Road Construction Areas Associated with the Southeast High Speed Rail Project within the Cities of Richmond, Colonial Heights and Petersburg and Chesterfield and Dinwiddie Counties, Virginia. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group I, Inc., Fredericksburg, Virginia. 2009.

Event Type: Other Project Review File Number: 2001-1460 Investigator: Holma, Marc Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/25/2007 Dhr Library Report Number: DW-79 Project Staff/Notes: Louis Berger Group; NCDOT 9.9083002 (P-3819)

Before concurring with Berger's boundary recommendations, VDHR would like the opinion of the NPS historian.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2001-1460 Investigator: Jacobe, Stephanie Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 7/13/2007 Dhr Library Report Number: DW-79 Project Staff/Notes: Louis Berger Group; NCDOT 9.9083002 (P-3819)

Event Type: DHR Staff: Potentially Eligible DHR ID: 020-5320 Staff Name: ABPP Event Date: 1/24/2007 Staff Comment Preliminary survey data from the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) indicates that this historic Civil War battlefield is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and likely deserving of future preservation efforts. This survey information should be reassessed during future Section 106/NEPA compliance reviews.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: CWSAC Organization/Company: Unknown (DSS) Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 1/1/1993 Dhr Library Report Number: DW-79 Project Staff/Notes: Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Survey Form - CWSAC - VA053 no photos submitted - not dated or signed, but surveys occurred during the period between 1991 and 1993.

October 27, 2014 Page: 5 of 6 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5320 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: American Battlefields Protection Program (ABPP) 2009 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Battlefields Protection Program, Washington, D.C.

Salmon, John S. 2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Property Notes: Name: George Fickett Title: Local Historian Address 1: 4303 Pinewood Road City: Prince George State: Virginia Owner Relationship: Informant Project Bibliographic Information: Widening of Rt. 10 from Rt. 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia

October 27, 2014 Page: 6 of 6 VDHR # 020-5320 Proctor’s Creek Battlefield October 16, 2014

View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking Southwest Route 1, Looking Northeast

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5654 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Property Information

Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Name Circle K Function/Location Gas Station, 2421 W. Hundred Road Not Evaluated Property Addresses Current - 2421 Hundred Road West Route 10 County/Independent City(s): Chesterfield (County) Incorporated Town(s): Chester Zip Code(s): 23831 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHESTER

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: October 2014: This gas station is located on the south side of West Hundred Road (Route 10), approximately 795 ft east of the intersection with Route 1 (Jefferson Davis Highway). The building sits approximately 110 ft back from the road and faces a paved area with four double gas pumps. Located behind the building is a grassy area with several trees.

Surveyor Assessment: October 2014: Overall, this property retains a low level of integrity due to the replacement of the original siding and windows and the substantial remodeling that took place in 2012. The building lacks significance and represents a common design for the period of construction and place. Furthermore, the building has no significant association or linkage to events or persons of demonstrable importance in the past and does not appear to have the ability to yield important and unique information for research based on physical evidence. This architectural resource is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, or D. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Commerce/Trade Resource Type: Service Station Date of Construction: 1961Ca Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1988) Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Transportation/Communication Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Interior Plan: No Data Threats to Resource: Transportation Expansion Architectural Description: October 2014: Built around 1961, according to the Chesterfield County tax information, this one-story, three-bay, hip-roofed building with two irregular side wings was extensively remodeled in 2012. A front-gabled section, supported by sturdy classical columns on brick pedestals, shelters the double entry door on the north (front) elevation of the building. Large floor-to-ceiling, fixed six-light, fixed windows flank the front- gabled section. The walls of the gas station are covered in stucco with ten-course stretcher-bond brick trim along the bottom and a decorative band with simple diamond shapes just below the plain cornice. The roof is covered with a modern green standing-seam metal roof.

October 27, 2014 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5654 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Located to the north of the building is a modern flat-roofed canopy, which shelters four double gas pumps.

Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Hipped Metal No Data Structural System and Not Visible Stucco Stuccoed Exterior Treatment Windows Fixed Metal No Data

Secondary Resource Information

Secondary Resource #1

Resource Category: No Data Resource Type: No Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Date of Construction: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: No Data

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-3612 Investigator: Jeroen van den Hurk Organization/Company: Coastal Carolina Research Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/16/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Widening of Rt. 10 from Rt. 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia

October 27, 2014 Page: 2 of 2 N

Canopy

VDHR # 020-5654 2421 West Hundred Road (Route 10) Chester, VA October 16, 2014 Not to Scale VDHR # 020-5654 2421 West Hundred Road (Route 10) October 16, 2014

Gas Station, looking southwest Gas Station, looking northeast

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5655 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Property Information

Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Current Name Exxon Gas Station & Convenience Store Function/Location Gas Station, 2320 W. Hundred Road Not Evaluated Property Addresses Current - 2320 Hundred Road West Route 10 County/Independent City(s): Chesterfield (County) Incorporated Town(s): Chester Zip Code(s): 23831 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHESTER

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: October 2014: This gas station is located on the north side of West Hundred Road (Route 10), approximately 0.2 miles west of the intersection with I-95. The building sits approximately 90 ft back from the road and is placed at an angle on the lot, facing southeast. Located in front of the building is a paved area with gas pumps. A narrow landscape area separates the building from its neighbor to the west. Surveyor Assessment: October 2014: Overall, this property retains a low level of integrity due to the replacement of the original siding and windows. The building lacks significance and represents a common design for the period of construction and place. Furthermore, the building has no significant association or linkage to events or persons of demonstrable importance in the past and does not appear to have the ability to yield important and unique information for research based on physical evidence. This architectural resource is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, or D. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Commerce/Trade Resource Type: Service Station Date of Construction: 1961Ca Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1988) Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Transportation/Communication Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Interior Plan: No Data Threats to Resource: Transportation Expansion Architectural Description: October 2014: Built around 1961, according to the Chesterfield County tax information, this one-story, four-bay flat-roofed concrete-block building is sheathed in modern panels on three of its four elevations and has a different-colored decorative band running along the bottom quarter of the wall. Three of the four bays have windows, two of which are large tripartite floor-to-ceiling fixed window. The second bay from the left has double entry doors with side lights and a transom.

October 27, 2014 Page: 1 of 2 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 020-5655 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Located to the southeast of the building is a modern flat-roofed canopy, which shelters five gas pumps.

Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Roof Flat Unknown No Data Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Windows Fixed Metal No Data

Secondary Resource Information

Secondary Resource #1

Resource Category: No Data Resource Type: No Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Date of Construction: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: No Data

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-3612 Investigator: Jeroen van den Hurk Organization/Company: Coastal Carolina Research Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/16/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data Project Bibliographic Information: Widening of Rt. 10 from Rt. 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia

October 27, 2014 Page: 2 of 2 VDHR # 020-5655 2320 West Hundred Road (Route 10) N Chester, VA October 16, 2014

Canopy

Not to Scale VDHR # 020-5655 2320 West Hundred Road (Route 10) October 16, 2014

Gas Station, looking northwest Gas Station, looking southeast

Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 123-5025 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Property Information

Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Historic Assault on Petersburg Historic Petersburg Battlefield II DHR Staff: Potentially Eligible Property Addresses Current - Bermuda Hundred Road Route 697 County/Independent City(s): Charles City (County), Chesterfield (County), Colonial Heights (Ind. City), Hopewell (Ind. City), Petersburg (Ind. City), Prince George (County) Incorporated Town(s): Bellwood, Chester, Fort Lee Zip Code(s): 23030, 23237, 23801, 23803, 23805, 23831, 23834, 23836, 23842, 23860, 23875 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLES CITY, CHESTER, DISPUTANTA NORTH, DREWRYS BLUFF, HOPEWELL, PETERSBURG, PRINCE GEORGE, WESTOVER

Additional Property Information

Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: Petersburg's 10-month siege took place over a county-sized area east, south and southwest of the city. Petersburg National Battlefield preserves much of the siege times to the east - including the initial assaults, the Crater, and Fort Stedman. A swath of commercial and residential development has eradicated nearly all historic resources along Crater Road, the main road to the south. Many fortifications southwest of the city are preserved by the NPS or the City of Petersburg on land transferred by the NPS. Except for being sparsely dotted by modern residences, this large southwestern area remains remarkably unspoiled.

March 2011: Only minor changes have occurred since the previous surveys in the southern portion of the battlefield.

March 2012: Only minor changes have occurred since the previous surveys in the southeastern portion of the battlefield.

August 2012: Only minor changes have occurred since the previous surveys in the northwestern portion of the battlefield. ------

October 2014: The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of Petersburg and I-95, and the portion of the battlefield study area that crosses the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 represents an avenue of approach rather than an area of battlefield activity. Modern development has covered much of the Petersburg II battlefield, but some parts survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001). Surveyor Assessment: Start Year: 1864 End Year: 1864 Date Source: Site Visit Type: Historical Event ------Marching form Cold Harbor, Meade's Army of the Potomac crossed the James River on transports and a 2,200-foot long pontoon bridge at Windmill Point. Butler's leading elements (XVIII Corps and Kautz's cavalry) crossed the Appomattox River at Windmill Point and attacked the Petersburg defenses on June 15. The 5,400 defenders of Petersburg under the command of General P.G.T. Beauregard were driven from their first line of entrenchment back to Harrison Creek. After dark the XVIII Corps was relieved by the II Corps. On June 16, the II Corp captured another section of the Confederate line; on the 17th, the IX Corps gained more ground. Beauregard stripped the Howlett Line (Bermuda Hundred) to defend the city, and Lee rushed reinforcements to Petersburg from the Army of Northern Virginia. The II, XI, and V Corps from right to left attacked on June 18 but was repulsed with heavy casualties. By now the Confederate works were heavily manned and the greatest opportunity to capture Petersburg without a siege was lost. The siege of Petersburg began. Union General James St. Clair Morton, chief engineer of the IX Corps, was killed on June 17.

March 2011: A private developer plans to construct on the southern edge of the battlefield. Because the project area is situated well to

October 27, 2014 Page: 1 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 123-5025 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

the south of both the core study area and the potential National Register of Historic Places boundaries, this project should have very little visual effect to the battlefield and should not impact its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

March 2012: 123-5025, the Petersburg II Battlefield, is a ca. 1864 Civil War battlefield that represents part of the Richmond Petersburg campaign. Today, the battlefield consists of interpretive material. The Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) conducted a Phase I survey of the battlefield in 1993 but did not make any recommendations regarding the National Register of Historic Places eligibility. In January 2007, both VDHR and the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) determined that the battlefield was likely eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and that the site should be re-assessed during future Section 106/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance reviews.

In September 2009, the ABPP released their update to the CWSAC report on the nation’s Civil War battlefields. The 2009 update included a study area encompassing approximately 15,511.16 acres, which includes a core area at Baylor’s Farm and several Federal approach routes. Of that acreage, approximately 2,434.44 acres were recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The update also noted that much of the landscape has been altered and fragmented leaving only some essential features. However, it still appears as if the battlefield is likely eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

August 2012: 123-5025, the Petersburg II Battlefield, was determined likely eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, no Civil War resources were identified within the project area and no remains of any earthworks were found during the course of the survey. In addition, the project as proposed would only add a trail and very minimal development to the area. Further, the project area falls within an avenue of approach and well away from the area determined potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 20th century residential development also lines Archer Avenue thus altering this portion of the battlefield landscape from its appearance in the 1860s. Taking this into account, the project should not adversely affect the battlefield, the battlefield landscape, or the battlefield viewshed. Therefore, Circa~ recommends no further survey work for this resource within the project area.

March 2014:123-5025, the Petersburg II Battlefield, was determined likely eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, no Civil War resources were identified within the project area and no remains of any earthworks were found during the course of the survey. The project as proposed would add new development to the battlefield. However, 20th century commercial development is situated to the north and west, north, and west of the project area and Interstate 295 now runs through the battlefield to the west of the project area thus altering the battlefield landscape from its appearance in the 1860s. Further, in the project area vicinity, the alignment of Bermuda Hundred Road has been shifted slightly to the south towards the project tract and the original road has been widened. Taking this into account, the project should not adversely affect the battlefield, the battlefield landscape, or the battlefield viewshed. Therefore, Circa~ recommends no further survey work for this resource within the project area.

October 2014: The ABPP established a study area encompassing roughly 15,511 acres, of those approximately 2,434 acres are considered potential National Register lands (ABPP 2009). No part of the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 falls within the potential National Register lands. VDHR staff recommended the battlefield eligible for listing in 2012. Due to excessive modern development and loss of integrity, CCR recommend that the portion of the battlefield in the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 does not contribute to the overall eligibility determined for this resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Public - Federal No Data

Primary Resource Information

Resource Category: Defense Resource Type: Battle Site Date of Construction: 1865 Historic Time Period: Civil War (1861 - 1865) Historic Context(s): Military/Defense Architectural Style: No Discernable Style Form: No Data Number of Stories: No Data Condition: Fair Interior Plan: No Data Threats to Resource: Development, Transportation Expansion Architectural Description: March 2011: Circa~ conducted a Phase I archaeological supplemental survey just on the southern edge of the study area of this battlefield as identified in the National Park Service 2009 update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission report. Circa~ shovel tested and metal- detected this area of the battlefield. No Civil War related resources were identified.

March 2012: This resource has not changed significantly since the previous surveys. The area between Wagner Road and Interstate 95 in the City of Petersburg is built up with commercial and residential development, the Norfolk and Western railroad, and railroad-related infastructure including a rail yard surrounded by a modern metal chain link fence. No Civil War related resources were identified in this area of the battlefield.

August 2012: This resource has not changed significantly since the previous surveys. The northwestern avenue of approach near the

October 27, 2014 Page: 2 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 123-5025 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Appomattox River in the City of Colonial Heights is built up with residential development and a park. No Civil War related resources were identified in this area of the battlefield.

March 2014: This resource has not changed significantly since the previous surveys. The project area surveyed at this time falls on a northern avenue of approach for the battlefield well north of the core area of the study area and well away from the area determined potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Circa~ shovel tested and metal-detected the area. During the course of the Phase I survey no Civil War resources were identified within the project area. Today, 20th century commercial development is situated to the north and west of the project area and Interstate 295 now runs through the battlefield to the west of the project area thus altering the battlefield landscape from its appearance in the 1860s. Further, in the project area vicinity, the alignment of Bermuda Hundred Road has been shifted slightly to the south towards the project tract and the original road has been widened.

October 2014: This resource was originally recorded between 1991 and 1993. The encounter between Confederate troops, led by General Robert E. Lee and General P. G. T. Beauregard, and Union troops, led by Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant and Major General George S. Meade, took place between June 15 and 18, 1864. The battle was part of the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign. The core of the battlefield was located mainly to the east of Petersburg and I-95, and the portion of the battlefield study area that crosses the APE for widening Route 10 between Route 1 and I-95 represents an avenue of approach rather than an area of battlefield activity. Modern development has covered much of the Petersburg II battlefield, but some parts survive relatively intact (Salmon 2001).

Secondary Resource Information

Secondary Resource #1

Resource Category: No Data Resource Type: No Data Architectural Style: No Data Form: No Data Date of Construction: No Data Condition: No Data Threats to Resource: No Data Architectural Description: No Data

Historic District Information

Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data

CRM Events

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2014-3612 Investigator: Jeroen van den Hurk Organization/Company: Coastal Carolina Research Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 10/16/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Dawn Muir-Frost

October 27, 2014 Page: 3 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 123-5025 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 2/20/2014 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Dawn M. Muir-Frost, architectural historian, conducted survey and entered information into V-CRIS Carol D. Tyrer, project manager, photographed the site

In the winter of 2014, Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC (Circa~) conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Project Twister – Keck Site in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The project area, which encompasses approximately 137 acres, is bordered by Bermuda Hundred Road to the north, development and rural lands to the west, rural lands and the CSX railroad to the east, and wetlands and the railroad tracks to the south.

Event Type: DHR Staff: Potentially Eligible DHR ID: 123-5025 Staff Name: Andrea Kampinen Event Date: 1/2/2014 Staff Comment DHR File No. 2007-1022

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Circa~ Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 8/1/2012 Dhr Library Report Number: PG-172 Project Staff/Notes: August 2012: In the summer of 2012, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) contracted Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC (Circa~) to conduct a Phase I cultural resources survey of the Appomattox River Greenway Trail in the City of Colonial Heights, Virginia. The purpose of this Phase I cultural resources survey was to identify and record all historic resources within the project area prior to development of the site. This survey resulted in the identification of this previously identified architectural resource. Carol D. Tyrer with Circa~ photographed the building and Dawn M. Frost with Circa~ conducted the survey and entered the information into the DSS system.

Event Type: DHR Staff: Eligible DHR ID: 123-5025 Staff Name: McDonald, Brad Event Date: 4/12/2012 Staff Comment No Data

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Circa~ Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 3/1/2012 Dhr Library Report Number: PG-172 Project Staff/Notes: March 2012: Circa~ conducted a Phase I cultural resources survey of the extreme southern boundary of the battlefield prior to construction of a second rail line associated with the Norfolk and Western Railroad in this area. Carol Tyrer and Dawn Frost conducted the survey with Carol Tyrer photographing the area and Dawn Frost entering the information into DSS.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: 2009-0092 Investigator: Circa~ Organization/Company: Circa~ Cultural Resource Management, LLC

October 27, 2014 Page: 4 of 5 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 123-5025 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data

Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 3/1/2011 Dhr Library Report Number: PG-172 Project Staff/Notes: March 2011: Circa~ conducted a Phase I supplemental archaeological survey of the extreme southern boundary of the battlefield prior to development of the site.

Event Type: DHR Staff: Potentially Eligible DHR ID: 123-5025 Staff Name: ABPP Event Date: 1/24/2007 Staff Comment Preliminary survey data from American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) indicates that this historic Civil War battlefield is likely eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and likely deserving of future preservation efforts. This survey information should be reassessed during future Section 106/NEPA compliance reviews.

Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: CWSAC Organization/Company: National Park Service Sponsoring Organization: No Data Survey Date: 1/1/1993 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: CWSAC - VA089 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Survey Form - no photos submitted - not dated or signed, but surveys occurred during the period between 1991 and 1993.

Bibliographic Information

Bibliography: American Battlefields Protection Program (ABPP) 2009 Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, American Battlefields Protection Program, Washington, D.C.

Salmon, John S. 2001 The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Property Notes: Name: Unknown Title: Superintendent Company 1: Petersburg National Battlefield Address 1: P.O. Box 549 City: Petersburg State: Virginia ZIP: 23804 Owner Relationship: Informant Project Bibliographic Information: Widening of Rt. 10 from Rt. 1 to I-95, Chesterfield County, Virginia

October 27, 2014 Page: 5 of 5 VDHR # 123-5025 Petersburg II Battlefield October 16, 2014

View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and View of Intersection of West Hundred Road (Rt. 10) and Route 1, Looking Southwest Route 1, Looking Northeast

ePIX - Print Application Page 1 of 5

Print

Create New Application

This electronic form is to be used for the submission of new projects only. If you wish to submit addtional information in support of an existing project, please contact the reviewer assigned to that project.

Before using this form, please understand that the information being requested is important to our review. Incomplete information may lead to delays in the review of your project. Please read all questions carefully and respond as completely as possible. For security purposes, your ePIX session will timeout after 20 minutes of inactivity and any unsaved changes will be discarded. To ensure that no information is lost, we recommend saving your application after the completion of each section. If you have questions concerning the completion of this application, please contact DHR staff at [email protected].

SECTION I. CONTACT INFORMATION - Katie Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500  Virginia Beach, VA 23462 7573556672  Submitted By [email protected]

Please indicate what your role in this project is:

Applicant RoleConsultant tasked with initiating consultation

If Other, please specify

SECTION II. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION Project NameRoute 10 Widening (1 to 95)

Agency Project Number

Associated DHR File Number

Project Street Address

Independent Cities and/or Counties (multiple cities/counties are allowed):

City/County Name Chesterfield

Town/Locality, if applicable

https://solutions.virginia.gov/epix/secure/PrintApplication.aspx?id=bfd5bfb4-e778-43e7-b... 1/15/2015 ePIX - Print Application Page 2 of 5

Agency Involvement

Please select one of the following options as they relate to the project you are submitting:

My project involves a federal or state agency and requires review by DHR under the National Historic Preservation Act (Sections 106 or 110), Virginia Environmental Impact Reports Act or other provision of state or federal law. I am seeking Technical Assistance from DHR in the assessment of potential impacts of my project on historic resources (e.g. federal or state involvement anticipated, initial project scoping, local government proffer or ordinance).

It is important that you know the nature of the federal or state involvement in your project. Please note that there are a number of state-managed programs that are federally funded (e.g. Transportation Enhancement Grants, some recreational trail grant programs, and many DHCD programs). Understanding the involvement of the agency and the program is helpful for our review.

In some cases there are multiple agencies involved in a project. In these cases, there is generally a "lead" agency. In order to help clarify this, please list the agencies in the order of their involvement in the project. If, for example, there are two agencies providing funding, please provide the contact information for the primary source of federal funding first.

Please select the agency, relationship, contact and click the Select button:

Agency Relationship Federal Highway Federally Administration Funded

SECTION III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION and CURRENT AND PAST LAND USE

We need to know as much as possible about the project that is being proposed as well as the current condition of the property. In the fields below, you will be required to provide descriptions that are no longer than 2000 characters. Additional and more detailed information can be uploaded and attached at the end of the application.

Overview and existing conditions

Please provide a general description of the project.

The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. At this time we are Project Descriptionseeking concurrence on the APE.

How many acres does the project encompass?

https://solutions.virginia.gov/epix/secure/PrintApplication.aspx?id=bfd5bfb4-e778-43e7-b... 1/15/2015 ePIX - Print Application Page 3 of 5

Number of Acres

Please describe the current condition and/or land use of the project area (e.g. paved parking lot, plowed field).

Current Conditionroadway surrounded by development

Please describe any previous modifications to the property, including ground disturbance.

Previous Modifications

Work involving buildings or structures

Does the project involve the rehabilitation, addition to, alteration, or demolition of any building structure over 50 years of age?

Buildings Over 50 YearsUnknown

If yes, please describe the work that is proposed in detail. Current photographs of affected building or structure, architectural or engineering drawings, project specifications and maps may be uploaded at the end of the application.

Details

Work involving ground disturbance

Is there any ground-disturbance that is part of this project?

Ground DisturbanceUnknown

If yes, describe the nature and horizontal extent of ground-disturbing activities, including construction, demolition, and other proposed disturbance. Plans, engineering drawings, and maps may be uploaded on the next page at the end of the application.

Extent of Activities

What is the depth of the ground disturbance? If there are several components to the project, such as new building, utility trenches, and parking facilities, provide the approximate depth of each component.

Depth

https://solutions.virginia.gov/epix/secure/PrintApplication.aspx?id=bfd5bfb4-e778-43e7-b... 1/15/2015 ePIX - Print Application Page 4 of 5

How large is the area where ground-disturbing activities will take place? (in acres)

Area Size SECTION IV. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE)

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which a project may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if they exist. It is not necessary for an historic property to be present in order to define an APE.

An example of a direct effect is the demolition of an historic building while an indirect effect would be the alteration of an historic setting resulting from the construction of a communications tower or the introduction of noise as the result of the construction of factory. An area such as the footprint of a proposed building is obviously within the APE, but you must also consider visual effects on the property and the limits of all ground-disturbing activity. So, any project may have two APEs - one for direct effects and one for indirect effects.

Please see our guidance on Defining Your APE for more detailed information on defining direct and indirect APEs. If you are using DHR's Data Sharing System, you should indicate the APE on the DSS map. For instructions on how to do this, consult the DSS general use guidelines.

Please provide a brief summary of and justification for the APE and upload your APE map at the end of the application. The written boundary description must match the submitted APE map.

APEAPE consists of areas of direct disturbance and adjoining properties SECTION V. CONSULTING PARTIES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The views of the public, Indian tribes and other consulting parties (e.g. local governments, local historical societies, affected property owners, etc.) that may have an interest in historic properties that may be affected by the project are essential to informed decision-making. In some cases, the public involvement necessary for other environmental reviews such as that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may be sufficient for the Section 106 process, but the manner in which the public is involved must reflect the nature and complexity of the proposed project and its effects on historic resources.

What consulting parties have you identified that have an interest in this project? Please describe your previous and future efforts to involve consulting parties.

Consulting Partiesnot decided at this time

Please provide information on any previous or future efforts to involve the public, including public hearings, public notices, and other efforts.

Public Involvementwill hold a public hearing SECTION VI. PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC RESOURCES

In order for this application to be considered complete, you must determine if there are any known historic resources in the APE and provide this information to us. This step is generally referred to as a DHR Archives Search. More information on how to acquire this information can be found in our guidance document Obtaining an Archives Search.

https://solutions.virginia.gov/epix/secure/PrintApplication.aspx?id=bfd5bfb4-e778-43e7-b... 1/15/2015 ePIX - Print Application Page 5 of 5

Has any portion of the APE been previously surveyed for archaeological and/or architectural resources?

SurveysUnknown

If yes, describe and provide the names of any reports that you are aware of.

Survey Reports

Are there any previously recorded archaeological sites or architectural resources, including historic districts or battlefields within the APE?

Recorded ResourcesYes

You must upload in Section VIII of this application the Archives Search Map showing previously recorded resources in the APE and the DSS reports for all previously recorded resources.

SECTION VII. ADDITIONAL CONTACTS TO THE APPLICATION Last Name First Name Organization Atherton Elizabeth Virginia Department of Transportation

SECTION VIII. UPLOAD FILES FOR THE APPLICATION Document Name File Name Note Map of previously recorded VCRIS Map.pdf resources Map of APE FIGURE 4 APE.pdf Route 10 UPC 102952 Other - MAPS Figures.pdf

https://solutions.virginia.gov/epix/secure/PrintApplication.aspx?id=bfd5bfb4-e778-43e7-b... 1/15/2015 ¹

LEGEND

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS DATA SOURCE: VBMP 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 07/24/14 FIGURE 4 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 500 FEET AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS Attachment E

Natural Resources Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: [email protected] on behalf of Virginia Field Office, FW5 Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:02 PM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: Subject: NLEB Coordination Rt 10 Widening-Chesterfield County

Good afternoon:

We have reviewed the project package received on August 14, 2015 for the referenced project. The following comments are provided under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended, and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended.

We concur with the determinations for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and critical habitat provided in the Species Conclusion Table dated August 14, 2015. Due to the uncertainty of winter clearing capabilities, this project falls does not fall under the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation. However, in the event that winter clearing is not feasible, if emergent surveys are conducted that result in no findings of the federally listed threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), we believe this project is not likely to adversely affect the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of listed species or habitat becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. If you have any questions, please contact Sumalee Hoskin at [email protected] or 804-824-2414.

Best,

Mary Anne Morrison

1 Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: Crum, Katie (Madary) Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:45 PM To: 'Virginia Field Office, FW5' Subject: RE: NLEB Coordination Rt 10 Chesterfield Co Attachments: CCB 8-14-15.pdf; SPECIES LIST.pdf; Official_Species_List_VA ESFO_18_Aug_2015.pdf

Please see attached.

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia Field Office, FW5 Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:58 AM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: Re: NLEB Coordination Rt 10 Chesterfield Co

Good morning Katie,

Could you please send me the official species list for this project?

Thanks so much, Mary Anne

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:27 AM, wrote:

· Rt 10 NLEB USFWS Submittal Package 8-14-15.pdf (4.2 MB)

Download the attachments by clicking here.

On behalf of Chesterfield County we are submitting the attached information to initiate consultation for the NLEB. This project is a locally administered federal aid project. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

1 2 Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: [email protected] on behalf of Virginia Field Office, FW5 Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:02 PM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: Subject: NLEB Coordination Rt 10 Widening-Chesterfield County

Good afternoon:

We have reviewed the project package received on August 14, 2015 for the referenced project. The following comments are provided under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended, and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended.

We concur with the determinations for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and critical habitat provided in the Species Conclusion Table dated August 14, 2015. Due to the uncertainty of winter clearing capabilities, this project falls does not fall under the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation. However, in the event that winter clearing is not feasible, if emergent surveys are conducted that result in no findings of the federally listed threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), we believe this project is not likely to adversely affect the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of listed species or habitat becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. If you have any questions, please contact Sumalee Hoskin at [email protected] or 804-824-2414.

Best,

Mary Anne Morrison

1 Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: Crum, Katie (Madary) Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 4:45 PM To: 'Virginia Field Office, FW5' Subject: RE: NLEB Coordination Rt 10 Chesterfield Co Attachments: CCB 8-14-15.pdf; SPECIES LIST.pdf; Official_Species_List_VA ESFO_18_Aug_2015.pdf

Please see attached.

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Virginia Field Office, FW5 Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:58 AM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: Re: NLEB Coordination Rt 10 Chesterfield Co

Good morning Katie,

Could you please send me the official species list for this project?

Thanks so much, Mary Anne

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:27 AM, wrote:

· Rt 10 NLEB USFWS Submittal Package 8-14-15.pdf (4.2 MB)

Download the attachments by clicking here.

On behalf of Chesterfield County we are submitting the attached information to initiate consultation for the NLEB. This project is a locally administered federal aid project. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks!

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

1 2 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Range-wide Programmatic Informal Consultation for Indiana Bat and Northern Long-eared Bat

Project Submittal Form for FHWA, FRA, and Transportation Agencies

In order to use the programmatic informal consultation to fulfill Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, transportation agencies must use this form to submit project-level information for all may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determinations to the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) field office prior to project commencement. For more information, see the Standard Operating Procedure for Site Specific Project(s) Submission in the User’s Guide.

In submitting this form, the transportation agency ensures that the proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA. Upon submittal of this form, the appropriate Service field office may review the site-specific information provided and request additional information. If the applying transportation agency is not notified within 14 calendar days of emailing the Project Submittal Form to the Service field office, it may proceed under the range-wide programmatic informal consultation.

Further instructions on completing the form can be found by hovering your cursor over each text box.

1. Date: èóïïóïë

2. Lead Agency: ݸ»­¬»®º·»´¼ ´±½¿´´§ ¿¼³·²·­¬»®»¼ °®±¶»½¬ º±® ÚØÉßñÊÜÑÌ

3. Requesting Agency:

a. Name: Õ¿¬·» Ý®«³

b. Title: Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ͽ·»²¬·­¬

c. Phone: éëéóíëëóêêéîå éëéóéééóéðìì

d. Email: µ¿¬·»ò½®«³àµ·³´»§ó¸±®²ò½±³

4. Consultation Code1:

5. Project Name(s): ᫬» ïð É·¼»²·²¹ ¾»¬©»»² ά ï ¿²¼ ×óçë ËÐÝ ïðîçëî

1 Available through IPaC System Official Species List: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/

1 6. Project Description: Please attach additional documentation or explanatory text if necessary

̸» °®±°±­»¼ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ©±«´¼ ¬±¬¿´ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ îôëðð ´·²»¿® º»»¬ ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ¹»²»®¿´´§ ·²ª±´ª» ¬¸» ©·¼»²·²¹ ±º ᫬» ïð øÉò Ø«²¼®»¼ α¿¼÷ º®±³ º±«® ´¿²»­ ¼·ª·¼»¼ ¬± ­·¨ ´¿²»­ ¼·ª·¼»¼ ¾»¬©»»² Ö»ºº»®­±² Ü¿ª·­ Ø·¹¸©¿§ ø᫬» ïñíðï÷ ¿²¼ ײ¬»®­¬¿¬» çë ø×óçë÷ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬ ©±«´¼ ¿´­± ·²½´«¼» ¬¸» ¿¼¼·¬·±² ±º ´»º¬ ¿²¼ ®·¹¸¬ ¬«®² ´¿²»­ô ­·¼»©¿´µô ½«®¾ ¿²¼ ¹«¬¬»®ô ­¬±®³ ­»©»®ô ¬®¿ºº·½ ­·¹²¿´ô °¿ª»³»²¬ ³¿®µ·²¹­ô ­·¹²­ô ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬»²¿²½» ±º ¬®¿ºº·½ò Ѻº­»¬ ½®»¼·¬­ ©±«´¼ ¾» °«®½¸¿­»¼ º®±³ ¿ ²«¬®·»²¬ ¾¿²µ ¬± ¿½¸·»ª» ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ¯«¿´·¬§ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ò Û¨·­¬·²¹ ±«¬º¿´´­ ©±«´¼ ¾» «¬·´·¦»¼ º±® ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ¯«¿²¬·¬§ò ̸»®» ¿®» ²± ±¬¸»® ­¬±®³©¿¬»® ³¿²¿¹»³»²¬ º¿½·´·¬·»­ ±® ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ °®±°±­»¼ò Ю»ª·±«­ ½±±®¼·²¿¬·±² ©¿­ ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ©·¬¸ ËÍÚÉÍ ¿²¼ ·² ½±®®»­°±²¼»²½» ¼¿¬»¼ ïîóïóïì ËÍÚÉÍ ½±²½«®®»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿¾·¬¿¬ ·­ ´·µ»´§ ²±¬ °®»­»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ °®±¶»½¬ ·­ ²±¬ ´·µ»´§ ¬± »ºº»½¬ ¬¸·­ ­°»½·»­ò ׬ ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ èóïî ¬®»»­ íþ ÜÞØ ©·´´ ¾» ½«¬ ¼±©² ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ½±®®·¼±®ò ̸»­» ¬®»»­ ¿®» ¹»²»®¿´´§ ·­±´¿¬»¼ ±® ·² ­³¿´´ ½´«­¬»®­ ¿²¼ ¿®» ´±½¿¬»¼ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» ®±¿¼©¿§ ¿²¼ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò ̸» º±´´±©·²¹ ³±¼·º·½¿¬·±²­ ¿®» °®±°±­»¼æ Û·¬¸»® ¿´´ ¬®»» ½´»¿®·²¹ ©·´´ ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ±«¬­·¼» ±º ß°®·´ ïë ó Í»°¬ ïë ±® ·º ¬®»» ½´»¿®·²¹ ·­ °®±°±­»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ß°®·´ ïë ó Í»°¬ ïë ¿² »³»®¹»²¬ ­«®ª»§ ©·´´ ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ Í«³³»® Í«®ª»§ Ù«·¼»´·²»­ °®·±® ¬± ¿²§ ¬®»» ®»³±ª¿´ò

7. Other species from Official Species List:

ì No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable habitat – see additional information attached

May Affect – see additional information provided for those species (either attached or forthcoming

8. For Ibat/NLEB, if Applicable, Explain Your No Effect Determination

No effect – project(s) are outside the species’ range (form complete)

No effect – project(s) are inside the range, but no suitable summer habitat (form complete)

No effect from maintenance, alteration, or demolition of bridge(s)/structure(s) – results of inspection surveys indicate no signs of bats. (form complete)

No effect – other (see Section 2.2 of the User’s Guide – form complete)

Otherwise, please continue below.

2 9. Affected Resource/Habitat Type

ì Trees

Bridge

Other Non-Tree Roosting Structure (e.g., building)

Other (please explain):

10. For Tree Removal Projects:

a. Please verify that no documented roosts or foraging habitat will be impacted and that project is within 100 feet of existing road surface: ì

b. Please verify that all tree removal will occur during the inactive season 2:

c. Timing of clearing: ­»» ¿¾±ª»

d. Amount of clearing: èóïî ¬®»»

11. For Bridge/Structure Work Projects:

a. Proposed work: Òß

b. Timing of work: Òß

c. Evidence of bat activity on bridge/structure: Òß d. If applicable, verify that superstructure work will not bother roosting bats in any way:

e. If applicable, verify that bridge/structure work will occur only in the winter months:

2 Coordinate with local Service field office for appropriate dates.

3 12. Please confirm the following:

Proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the range-wide programmatic informal BA (see Section 2.0).

All applicable AMMs will be implemented, including3:

Tree Removal AMM 1: ì Dust Control AMM 1: Tree Removal AMM 2: ì Water Control AMM 1: Tree Removal AMM 3: ì Water Control AMM 2: Tree Removal AMM 4: ì Water Control AMM 3: Bridge AMM 1: Water Control AMM 4: Bridge AMM 2: Water Control AMM 5: Bridge AMM 3: Water Control AMM 6: Bridge AMM 4: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 1: Structure AMM 1: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 2: Structure AMM 2: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 3: Structure AMM 3: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 4: Structure AMM 4: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 5: Lighting AMM 1: Wetland/Stream Protection AMM 6: Lighting AMM 2:

3 See AMMs Fact Sheet (Appendix B) for more information on the following AMMs.

4 Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: Route 10 Widening I-95 to Route 1 – UPC 102952

Date: 11/21/14; updated 8-14-15

Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation northern long-eared Bat Project will remove 8-12 trees May Effect, Not likely to effect with the Corridor is heavily developed and lacks wooded (Myotis ≥3” DBH avoidance measures areas and is not contiguous to wooded areas. septentrionalis) Tree clearing will occur outside of April 15 - Sept 15 or if this TOYR cannot be adhered to an emergent survey will be performed prior to any tree removal. Critical habitat No critical habitat present No Effect

Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting No effect No nest identified within 660 ft of project bald eagles; does not corridor. intersect with an eagle concentration area United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 SHORT LANE GLOUCESTER, VA 23061 PHONE: (804)693-6694 FAX: (804)693-9032 URL: www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-3083 August 18, 2015 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2015-E-03346 Project Name: Rt 10 Widening

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq. ), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. ), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Official Species List

Provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 SHORT LANE GLOUCESTER, VA 23061 (804) 693-6694 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-3083 Event Code: 05E2VA00-2015-E-03346

Project Type: TRANSPORTATION

Project Name: Rt 10 Widening Project Description: improvements to Rt 10

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/18/2015 02:34 PM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-77.41468444321956 37.35528666414133, - 77.41358256455561 37.35509189434887, -77.41363894532725 37.355493917246825, - 77.40741082417384 37.35552000129056, -77.40485586819823 37.355264263841235, - 77.40498359786731 37.35381092901248, -77.40529212490021 37.35324451236735, - 77.40584153781177 37.35314025097917, -77.40637462784409 37.35323024442246, - 77.40688436938098 37.35390888119707, -77.41317776798746 37.35423747252672, - 77.41468577441206 37.35439389838595, -77.41468444321956 37.35528666414133)))

Project Counties: Chesterfield, VA

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/18/2015 02:34 PM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 1 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Mammals Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis Threatened septentrionalis)

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/18/2015 02:34 PM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 08/18/2015 02:34 PM 4

Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 9:15 AM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: RE: Project review - Route 10 Chesterfield VA

Katie:

We have reviewed the project package received on November 21, 2014 for the referenced project. The following comments are provided under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended, and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended.

We concur with the determinations provided in the Species Conclusion Table dated November 21, 2014 and have no further comments. Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of listed species or critical habitat becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. If you have any questions, please contact me at (804) 824-2428, or via email at [email protected].

V/R Troy

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 11:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Project review - Route 10 Chesterfield VA

· USFWS Submittal Package.pdf (6.8 MB) Download the attachments by clicking here.

Attached please find a project review request and associated information.

Thanks!

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

1 From: Katie Crum Kimley-Horn 4500 Main St Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [email protected] 757-355-6672

To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, Virginia 23061

11-21-14

Re: Online Project Review Request, Route 10 Widening between I-95 and Route 1, Chesterfield, Virginia UPC 102952

We have reviewed the referenced project using the Virginia Field Office’s online project review process and have followed all guidance and instructions in completing the review. We completed our review on 11-21-14 and are submitting our project review package in accordance with the instructions for further review.

Our proposed action consists of: The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. The corridor is heavily developed.

The location of the project and the action area are identified on the enclosed Figures 1-3. Also attached are comments from DCR and the VAFWIS report from DGIF.

The project is expected to be completed in 2017/2018.

This project review is needed for compliance with NEPA. A CE is being prepared.

The enclosed project review package provides the information about the species, critical habitat, and bald eagles considered in our review, and the species conclusions table included in the package identifies our determinations for the resources that may be affected by the project. For additional information, please contact Katie Crum at the address listed above.

Sincerely,

Katie Crum, PWS, CPWD Senior Environmental Scientist

Enclosures: 1) ENTIRE PROJECT REVIEW PACKAGE 2) Other relevant project data/documents ¹

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 07/24/14 FIGURE 1 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 4,000 FEET OVERALL VICINITY ¹

LEGEND DATA SOURCE: CHESTER, VA USGS TOPO QUAD PROJECT CORRIDOR Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 07/24/14 FIGURE 2 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET TOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY ¹

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR

ADJACENT PARCELS DATA SOURCE: VBMP 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 07/24/14 FIGURE 3 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 500 FEET AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 SHORT LANE GLOUCESTER, VA 23061 PHONE: (804)693-6694 FAX: (804)693-9032 URL: www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

Consultation Tracking Number: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-0376 November 21, 2014 Project Name: Rt 10 Widening

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project.

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq. ), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq. ), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Official Species List

Provided by: Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 SHORT LANE GLOUCESTER, VA 23061 (804) 693-6694 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/

Consultation Tracking Number: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-0376 Project Type: Transportation Project Description: The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/21/2014 08:34 AM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-77.4139759 37.3551763, -77.4135897 37.3551422, - 77.4137624 37.3557221, -77.4130757 37.3556368, -77.4128397 37.3551934, -77.4048993 37.3548011, -77.405028 37.354187, -77.4127753 37.3546305, -77.412668 37.3541529, - 77.4132903 37.3541188, -77.4134191 37.3546305, -77.4141905 37.3547328, -77.4139759 37.3551763)))

Project Counties: Chesterfield, VA

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/21/2014 08:34 AM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 1 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Mammals Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

northern long-eared Bat (Myotis Proposed septentrionalis) Endangered

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/21/2014 08:34 AM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Rt 10 Widening

Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 11/21/2014 08:34 AM 4 Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: Route 10 Widening I-95 to Route 1 – UPC 102952

Date: 11/21/14

Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation northern long-eared Bat Habitat likely not present Not likely to effect Not identified by DCR or DGIF in the VAFWIS (Myotis Search report, corridor is heavily developed and septentrionalis) lacks wooded areas. Critical habitat No critical habitat present No Effect

Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting No effect No nest identified within 660 ft of project bald eagles; does not corridor. intersect with an eagle concentration area Eagle Nests Page 1 of 2

Map data ©2014 Google Imagery ©2014 , Commonwealth of Virginia,500 m DigitalGlobe, Landsat, USDA FarmReport Service a map Agency error

http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/ 11/21/2014 Eagle Nests Page 2 of 2

http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/ 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 1 of 5

VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 11/21/2014, 10:19:46 AM Help

Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile radius around point 37,21,17.3 -77,24,34.4 in 041 Chesterfield County, VA

View Map of Site Location

467 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 25) (25 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** ) BOVA Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed Database(s) Code Sturgeon, Acipenser 010032 FESE II BOVA,HU6 Atlantic oxyrinchus Bat, Rafinesque's Corynorhinus 050034 SE I HU6 eastern big-eared rafinesquii macrotis Falcon, 040096 ST I Falco peregrinus BOVA peregrine Sandpiper, Bartramia 040129 ST I BOVA upland longicauda Shrike, Lanius 040293 ST I BOVA,HU6 loggerhead ludovicianus Treefrog, 020002 ST II Hyla gratiosa BOVA,HU6 barking Lasmigona 060081 ST II Floater, green HU6 subviridis Lanius Shrike, migrant 040292 ST ludovicianus BOVA loggerhead migrans Bat, northern Myotis 050022 FP BOVA long-eared septentrionalis Alosa 010038 FC IV Alewife Yes BOVA,SppObs,HU6 pseudoharengus Herring, 010045 FC Alosa aestivalis Yes BOVA,SppObs blueback Haliaeetus 040093 FS II Eagle, bald BOVA,HU6 leucocephalus 060029 FS III Lance, yellow Elliptio lanceolata BOVA 100001 FS IV fritillary, Diana Speyeria diana BOVA 030063 CC III Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata BOVA,HU6 010077 I Shiner, bridle Notropis bifrenatus BOVA 040225 I Sphyrapicus varius BOVA

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 2 of 5

Sapsucker, yellow-bellied Warbler, black- 040319 I Dendroica virens BOVA throated green Duck, American 040052 II Anas rubripes BOVA,HU6 black Egretta caerulea 040029 II Heron, little blue BOVA caerulea Night-heron, Nyctanassa 040036 II BOVA yellow-crowned violacea violacea Owl, northern 040213 II Aegolius acadicus BOVA saw-whet 040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans Potential BOVA,Habitat,HU6 Warbler, 040320 II Dendroica cerulea BOVA,HU6 cerulean Troglodytes 040266 II Wren, winter BOVA troglodytes

To view All 467 species View 467

* FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; FS=Federal Species of Concern; CC=Collection Concern

** I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need

View Map of All Query Results from All Observation Tables

Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known

Anadromous Fish Use Streams

N/A

View Map of All ( 1 records ) Impediments to Fish Passage Fish Impediments ID Name River View Map 1302 I-95 PROCTORS CREEK Yes

Colonial Water Bird Survey

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 3 of 5

N/A

Threatened and Endangered Waters

N/A

Managed Trout Streams

N/A

Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts

N/A

Bald Eagle Nests

N/A

View Map of All Query Results Species Observations ( 94 records - displaying first 20 , 2 Observations with Threatened or Species Observations Endangered species ) N Species Date View obsID class Observer Highest Highest Observed Different Map Species TE* Tier** JOHN BOLIN, III Oct 19 (PRINCIPLE 59117 SppObs 11 FC IV Yes 1998 PERMITTEE), VIRGINIA POWER JOHN BOLIN, III Apr 15 (PRINCIPLE 59177 SppObs 6 FC Yes 1998 PERMITTEE), VIRGINIA POWER Oct 6 2007 321665 SppObs Robert Reilly 9 IV Yes Sep 22 321663 SppObs Robert Reilly 6 IV Yes 2007 Sep 9 2007 321662 SppObs Robert Reilly 10 IV Yes 321661 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 4 of 5

Sep 2 2007

Aug 25 321660 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 24 321659 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 19 321658 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 18 321657 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 16 321656 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 15 321655 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 13 321654 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 12 321653 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 11 321652 SppObs Robert Reilly 2 IV Yes 2007 Aug 5 321651 SppObs Robert Reilly 6 IV Yes 2007 Jul 30 321650 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Jul 28 321649 SppObs Robert Reilly 4 IV Yes 2007 Jul 27 321648 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Jul 23 321647 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Displayed 20 Species Observations

Selected 94 Observations View all 94 Species Observations

Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species

N/A

Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species BOVA Code Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name View Map 040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans Yes

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 5 of 5

Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks ( 4 records )

View Map of All Query Results Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks Breeding Bird Atlas Species BBA Atlas Quadrangle Block Highest Highest View ID Name Different Map Species TE* Tier** 51072 Chester, NE 28 IV Yes 51071 Chester, NW 61 IV Yes 51086 Drewrys Bluff, SE 68 IV Yes 52071 Hopewell, NW 1 Yes

Public Holdings: ( 1 names ) Name Agency Level Richmond National Battlefield Park National Park Service Federal

Summary of BOVA Species Associated with Cities and Counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia: FIPS Code City and County Name Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier 041 Chesterfield 397 FESE I

USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Chester Drewrys Bluff Hopewell

USGS NRCS Watersheds in Virginia:

N/A

USGS National 6th Order Watersheds Summary of Wildlife Action Plan Tier I, II, III, and IV Species: HU6 Code USGS 6th Order Hydrologic Unit Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier JA45 Appomattox River-Ashton Creek 68 FESE I JL03 James River-Proctors Creek 63 FCST II JL06 James River-Curles Creek 67 FCSE I

Compiled on 11/21/2014, 10:19:46 AM I607994.0 report=all searchType= R dist= 3218.688 poi= 37,21,17.3 -77,24,34.4 PixelSize=64; Anadromous=0.032486; BBA=0.079335; BECAR=0.029812; Bats=0.025183; Buffer=0.180341; County=0.118184; HU6=0.133456; Impediments=0.028301; Init=0.259914; PublicLands=0.050925; Quad=0.071334; SppObs=0.501054; TEWaters=0.038056; TierReaches=0.046475; TierTerrestrial=0.094435; Total=1.873107; Trout=0.028282; huva=0.066052

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 Web Project ID: WEB0000002725

Client Project Number: UPC# 102952

PROJECT INFORMATION TITLE: ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) WIDENING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Developed Corridor QUADRANGLES: Chester COUNTIES: Chesterfield Latitude/Longitude (DMS): 37°21'17.1987"N / 77°24'34.3670"W Acreage: 11 acres Comments:

REQUESTOR INFORMATION Priority: N Tier Level: Tier I Tax ID: Contact Name: Katie Crum Company Name: Kimley-Horn Address: 4500 Main St Suite 500

City: Virginia Beach State: VA Zip: 23462

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 1 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Phone: 7573556672 Fax: 7572138601 Email: [email protected]

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 2 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Conservation Site Site Type Brank Acreage Listed Species Presence GLNHR NA 0 NL GLNHR NA 0 NL PROCTORS CREEK Conservation Site B4 28 NL AIKEN SWAMP Conservation Site B5 123 NL Natural Heritage Screening Features within Search Radius

Intersecting Predictive Models Predictive Model Results

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 3 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 4 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Molly Joseph Ward Clyde E. Cristman Secretary of Natural Resources Director

The project mapped as part of this report has been searched against the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area indicated for this project. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations.

According to the information currently in Biotics files, NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED within two miles of the indicated project boundaries and/or POTENTIAL HABITAT FOR NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES intersect the project area.

You have submitted this project to DCR for a more detailed review for potential impacts to natural heritage resources. DCR will review the submitted project to identify the specific natural heritage resources in the vicinity of the proposed project. Using the expertise of our biologists, DCR will evaluate whether your specific project is likely to impact these resources, and if so how. DCR’s response will indicate whether any negative impacts are likely and, if so, make recommendations to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate these impacts. If the potential negative impacts are to species that are state- or federally-listed as threatened or endangered, DCR will also recommend coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies: the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for state-listed animals, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for state-listed plants and insects, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for federally listed plants and animals. If your project is expected to have positive impacts we will report those to you with recommendations for enhancing these benefits.

There will be a charge for this service for "for profit companies": $60, plus an additional charge of $35 for 1-5 occurrences and $60 for 6 or more occurrences.

Please allow up to 30 days for a response, unless you requested a priority response (in 5 business days) at an additional surcharge of $500. An invoice will be provided with your response.

We will review the project based on the information you included in the Project Info submittal form, which is included in this report. Also any additional information including photographs, survey documents, etc. attached during the project submittal process and/or sent via email referencing the project title (from the first page of this report).

Thank you for submitting your project for review to the Virginia Natural Heritage Program through the NH Data Explorer. Should you have any questions or concerns about DCR, the Data Explorer, or this report, please contact the Natural Heritage Project Review Unit at 804-371-2708.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 5 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Molly Joseph Ward Joe Elton Secretary of Natural Resources Depu Deputy Director of Operations

Clyde E. Cristman Rochelle Altholz Director Deputy Director of Administration and Finance

600 East Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804)786-6124

November 18, 2014

Katie Crum Kimley-Horn and Associates 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23462

Re: 102952, Route 10 Widening Project

Dear Ms. Crum:

The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations.

Biotics documents the presence of natural heritage resources within two miles of the project area. However, due to the scope of the activity and the distance to the resources, we do not anticipate that this project will adversely impact these natural heritage resources.

Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) and the DCR, DCR represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state- listed threatened and endangered plant and insect species. The current activity will not affect any documented state-listed plants or insects.

New and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please re-submit a completed order form and project map for an update on this natural heritage information if the scope of the project changes and/or six months has passed before it is utilized.

A fee of $60.00 has been assessed for the service of providing this information. Please find enclosed an invoice for that amount. Please return one copy of the invoice along with your remittance made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia, DCR - Division of Natural Heritage, 600 East Main Street, 24th Floor, Richmond, VA 23219. Payment is due within thirty days of the invoice date. Please note the change of address for remittance of payment as of July 1, 2013. Late payment may result in the suspension of project review service for future projects. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) maintains a database of wildlife locations, including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters that may contain information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from http://vafwis.org/fwis/ or contact Gladys Cason (804-367-0909 or [email protected]).

Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at (804) 692-0984. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

Sincerely,

Alli Baird, LA, ASLA Coastal Zone Locality Liaison Web Project ID: WEB0000002725

Client Project Number: UPC# 102952

PROJECT INFORMATION TITLE: ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) WIDENING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Developed Corridor QUADRANGLES: Chester COUNTIES: Chesterfield Latitude/Longitude (DMS): 37°21'17.1987"N / 77°24'34.3670"W Acreage: 11 acres Comments:

REQUESTOR INFORMATION Priority: N Tier Level: Tier I Tax ID: Contact Name: Katie Crum Company Name: Kimley-Horn Address: 4500 Main St Suite 500

City: Virginia Beach State: VA Zip: 23462

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 1 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Phone: 7573556672 Fax: 7572138601 Email: [email protected]

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 2 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Conservation Site Site Type Brank Acreage Listed Species Presence GLNHR NA 0 NL GLNHR NA 0 NL PROCTORS CREEK Conservation Site B4 28 NL AIKEN SWAMP Conservation Site B5 123 NL Natural Heritage Screening Features within Search Radius

Intersecting Predictive Models Predictive Model Results

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 3 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 4 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014 Molly Joseph Ward Clyde E. Cristman Secretary of Natural Resources Director

The project mapped as part of this report has been searched against the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area indicated for this project. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations.

According to the information currently in Biotics files, NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED within two miles of the indicated project boundaries and/or POTENTIAL HABITAT FOR NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES intersect the project area.

You have submitted this project to DCR for a more detailed review for potential impacts to natural heritage resources. DCR will review the submitted project to identify the specific natural heritage resources in the vicinity of the proposed project. Using the expertise of our biologists, DCR will evaluate whether your specific project is likely to impact these resources, and if so how. DCR’s response will indicate whether any negative impacts are likely and, if so, make recommendations to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate these impacts. If the potential negative impacts are to species that are state- or federally-listed as threatened or endangered, DCR will also recommend coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies: the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for state-listed animals, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for state-listed plants and insects, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for federally listed plants and animals. If your project is expected to have positive impacts we will report those to you with recommendations for enhancing these benefits.

There will be a charge for this service for "for profit companies": $60, plus an additional charge of $35 for 1-5 occurrences and $60 for 6 or more occurrences.

Please allow up to 30 days for a response, unless you requested a priority response (in 5 business days) at an additional surcharge of $500. An invoice will be provided with your response.

We will review the project based on the information you included in the Project Info submittal form, which is included in this report. Also any additional information including photographs, survey documents, etc. attached during the project submittal process and/or sent via email referencing the project title (from the first page of this report).

Thank you for submitting your project for review to the Virginia Natural Heritage Program through the NH Data Explorer. Should you have any questions or concerns about DCR, the Data Explorer, or this report, please contact the Natural Heritage Project Review Unit at 804-371-2708.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program Page 5 of 5 Report Created: 10/22/2014

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: Aschenbach, Ernie (DGIF) Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 3:38 PM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Cc: ProjectReview (DGIF); Cason, Gladys (DGIF) Subject: ESSLog 35465; Consultant administered VDOT project - widening of West Hundred Road - Route 10 in Chesterfield County, VA

Importance: High

We have reviewed the above-referenced consultant/locality administered VDOT project consisting of widening existing Rte 10 from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95) in Chesterfield County, VA. Per your question re: process, please see our website for instructions pertaining to the submittal of a project for review: http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/environmental-programs/environmental-services-section.asp . To review your project site for the location of wildlife resources under our jurisdiction, including threatened and endangered wildlife, we recommend accessing the Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System (VAFWIS) at http://vafwis.org/fwis/ .

Based on the project scope, location, and aerial photo, we do not anticipate the project to result in adverse impact to resources under our purview provided adherence to the following recommendations. We recommend strict adherence to E&S controls during all land-disturbing activity. If instream work becomes necessary, we anticipate that a Joint Permit Application (JPA) will be distributed for agency review. We will review the JPA and provide comments at that time, as appropriate. In general, we recommend staging all work from the top of bank/existing roadway (e.g., no machines in stream or wetlands). We recommend using clear-span bridges or raised walkways in areas where stream and wetland crossings are necessary.

This project is located within 2 miles of a documented occurrence of a state or federal threatened or endangered plant or insect species and/or other Natural Heritage coordination species. Therefore, we recommend & support coordination with VDCR-DNH regarding the protection of these resources. We also recommend contacting the USFWS regarding federally listed species.

Thanks.

Ernie Aschenbach Environmental Services Biologist Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries P.O. Box 11104 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 367-2733 FAX: (804) 367-2427 Email: [email protected]

1 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 1 of 5

VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 11/21/2014, 10:19:46 AM Help

Known or likely to occur within a 2 mile radius around point 37,21,17.3 -77,24,34.4 in 041 Chesterfield County, VA

View Map of Site Location

467 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 25) (25 species with Status* or Tier I** or Tier II** ) BOVA Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed Database(s) Code Sturgeon, Acipenser 010032 FESE II BOVA,HU6 Atlantic oxyrinchus Bat, Rafinesque's Corynorhinus 050034 SE I HU6 eastern big-eared rafinesquii macrotis Falcon, 040096 ST I Falco peregrinus BOVA peregrine Sandpiper, Bartramia 040129 ST I BOVA upland longicauda Shrike, Lanius 040293 ST I BOVA,HU6 loggerhead ludovicianus Treefrog, 020002 ST II Hyla gratiosa BOVA,HU6 barking Lasmigona 060081 ST II Floater, green HU6 subviridis Lanius Shrike, migrant 040292 ST ludovicianus BOVA loggerhead migrans Bat, northern Myotis 050022 FP BOVA long-eared septentrionalis Alosa 010038 FC IV Alewife Yes BOVA,SppObs,HU6 pseudoharengus Herring, 010045 FC Alosa aestivalis Yes BOVA,SppObs blueback Haliaeetus 040093 FS II Eagle, bald BOVA,HU6 leucocephalus 060029 FS III Lance, yellow Elliptio lanceolata BOVA 100001 FS IV fritillary, Diana Speyeria diana BOVA 030063 CC III Turtle, spotted Clemmys guttata BOVA,HU6 010077 I Shiner, bridle Notropis bifrenatus BOVA 040225 I Sphyrapicus varius BOVA

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 2 of 5

Sapsucker, yellow-bellied Warbler, black- 040319 I Dendroica virens BOVA throated green Duck, American 040052 II Anas rubripes BOVA,HU6 black Egretta caerulea 040029 II Heron, little blue BOVA caerulea Night-heron, Nyctanassa 040036 II BOVA yellow-crowned violacea violacea Owl, northern 040213 II Aegolius acadicus BOVA saw-whet 040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans Potential BOVA,Habitat,HU6 Warbler, 040320 II Dendroica cerulea BOVA,HU6 cerulean Troglodytes 040266 II Wren, winter BOVA troglodytes

To view All 467 species View 467

* FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; FS=Federal Species of Concern; CC=Collection Concern

** I=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; II=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need

View Map of All Query Results from All Observation Tables

Bat Colonies or Hibernacula: Not Known

Anadromous Fish Use Streams

N/A

View Map of All ( 1 records ) Impediments to Fish Passage Fish Impediments ID Name River View Map 1302 I-95 PROCTORS CREEK Yes

Colonial Water Bird Survey

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 3 of 5

N/A

Threatened and Endangered Waters

N/A

Managed Trout Streams

N/A

Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts

N/A

Bald Eagle Nests

N/A

View Map of All Query Results Species Observations ( 94 records - displaying first 20 , 2 Observations with Threatened or Species Observations Endangered species ) N Species Date View obsID class Observer Highest Highest Observed Different Map Species TE* Tier** JOHN BOLIN, III Oct 19 (PRINCIPLE 59117 SppObs 11 FC IV Yes 1998 PERMITTEE), VIRGINIA POWER JOHN BOLIN, III Apr 15 (PRINCIPLE 59177 SppObs 6 FC Yes 1998 PERMITTEE), VIRGINIA POWER Oct 6 2007 321665 SppObs Robert Reilly 9 IV Yes Sep 22 321663 SppObs Robert Reilly 6 IV Yes 2007 Sep 9 2007 321662 SppObs Robert Reilly 10 IV Yes 321661 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 4 of 5

Sep 2 2007

Aug 25 321660 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 24 321659 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 19 321658 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 18 321657 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 16 321656 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 15 321655 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 13 321654 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 12 321653 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Aug 11 321652 SppObs Robert Reilly 2 IV Yes 2007 Aug 5 321651 SppObs Robert Reilly 6 IV Yes 2007 Jul 30 321650 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Jul 28 321649 SppObs Robert Reilly 4 IV Yes 2007 Jul 27 321648 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Jul 23 321647 SppObs Robert Reilly 1 IV Yes 2007 Displayed 20 Species Observations

Selected 94 Observations View all 94 Species Observations

Habitat Predicted for Aquatic WAP Tier I & II Species

N/A

Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial WAP Tier I & II Species BOVA Code Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name View Map 040105 II Rail, king Rallus elegans Yes

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014 VAFWIS Seach Report Page 5 of 5

Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks ( 4 records )

View Map of All Query Results Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks Breeding Bird Atlas Species BBA Atlas Quadrangle Block Highest Highest View ID Name Different Map Species TE* Tier** 51072 Chester, NE 28 IV Yes 51071 Chester, NW 61 IV Yes 51086 Drewrys Bluff, SE 68 IV Yes 52071 Hopewell, NW 1 Yes

Public Holdings: ( 1 names ) Name Agency Level Richmond National Battlefield Park National Park Service Federal

Summary of BOVA Species Associated with Cities and Counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia: FIPS Code City and County Name Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier 041 Chesterfield 397 FESE I

USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Chester Drewrys Bluff Hopewell

USGS NRCS Watersheds in Virginia:

N/A

USGS National 6th Order Watersheds Summary of Wildlife Action Plan Tier I, II, III, and IV Species: HU6 Code USGS 6th Order Hydrologic Unit Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier JA45 Appomattox River-Ashton Creek 68 FESE I JL03 James River-Proctors Creek 63 FCST II JL06 James River-Curles Creek 67 FCSE I

Compiled on 11/21/2014, 10:19:46 AM I607994.0 report=all searchType= R dist= 3218.688 poi= 37,21,17.3 -77,24,34.4 PixelSize=64; Anadromous=0.032486; BBA=0.079335; BECAR=0.029812; Bats=0.025183; Buffer=0.180341; County=0.118184; HU6=0.133456; Impediments=0.028301; Init=0.259914; PublicLands=0.050925; Quad=0.071334; SppObs=0.501054; TEWaters=0.038056; TierReaches=0.046475; TierTerrestrial=0.094435; Total=1.873107; Trout=0.028282; huva=0.066052

https://fwisweb1.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/NewPages/VaFWIS_GeographicSelect_Options.a... 11/21/2014

Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: Eversole, Mark (MRC) Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:37 AM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: RE: Route 10 between I-95 and Route 1 Improvements UPC 102952

Thanks Katie. It appears, based on a quick review of the mapping provided, that no permit would be required from the Marine Resources Commission. Should the scope of the project change to impact any State-owned submerged lands, then a permit might be required by this agency.

Mark Eversole Virginia Marine Resources Commission 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor Newport News, Virginia 23607 Office: (757)-247-8028 email: [email protected]

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:30 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Eversole, Mark (MRC); Dunaway, Allison (DEQ) Subject: Route 10 between I-95 and Route 1 Improvements UPC 102952

· Route 10 UPC 102952 Figures.pdf (4 MB)

Download the attachments by clicking here.

All - Chesterfield County is proposing improvements to Route 10. The proposed improvements would total approximately 2,500 linear feet and would generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project would also include the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic.

The purpose of the proposed project is to improve traffic operations and safety within the project corridor, and connect traffic on Interstate 95 with commercial, residential and industrial land uses along the Route 10 and Route 1 corridors. Improved traffic operations would be achieved through the provisions of additional roadway capacity and implementation of access management techniques. Safety improvements would be achieved by reducing conflict points and crashes (left-turn movements at median crossovers and congestion related at signalized intersections and crossovers).

Attached is mapping showing the project corridor. We have completed a site visit. Wetlands and waters were not identified within the project corridor. Therefore, we are not anticipating that wetland permits would be required.

This project is a locally administered federal aid project. Kimley-Horn is conducting an environmental screening for the purposes of completing a Categorical Exclusion (CE) to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We are seeking comments on the proposed project and would appreciate any you may have.

1 Please feel free to call or email with any questions you may have.

Thanks, Katie

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

2 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PIEDMONT REGIONAL OFFICE Molly Joseph Ward 4949-A Cox Road, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 David K. Paylor Secretary of Natural Resources (804) 527-5020 Fax (804) 527-5106 Director www.deq.virginia.gov Michael P. Murphy Regional Director

February 23, 2015

Katie E. Madary Crum Kimley-Horn 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, VA 23462

RE: Route 10 Chesterfield County UPC102952

Dear Mrs. Crum,

The Piedmont Regional Office has received your letter stating that the Chesterfield County is proposing improvements to Route 10. The improvements would consist of approximately 2500 linear feet of route 10 widening from four lanes divided to six lanes between route 1 and interstate 95. There would also be an addition of right and left turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, signs and pavement markings. My comments are as follows:

Water: To ensure that water resources are not adversely impacted by the proposed construction activities, it is recommended that erosion and sediment controls to be properly maintained throughout all phases. E&S controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be included in the construction design plan. E & S controls should be inspected/repaired before and after rain events. For sediment and erosion controls, please follow all standards and specifications under the Virginia Erosion & Sediment Controls Handbook (1992, 3rd Edition). If you have any questions concerning this please contact Allison Dunaway at (804) 527-5086.

Waste: The generation of hazardous or solid waste materials should be tested and removed in accordance with the Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-60) and/or the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-81). Please understand that it is the generator’s responsibility to determine if a solid waste meets the criteria of a hazardous waste and as a result be managed as such. In addition, asbestos waste, lead waste, or contaminated residues generated must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the VSWMR or VHWMR as applicable. DEQ recommends that pollution prevention principles be implemented to reduce the amount of wastes at the source, such as the re- use and recycling of waste material. If you have any questions concerning hazardous/solid waste management, please contact Jason Miller at (804)527-5028. Air: DEQ-PRO recommends the project shall operate in a manner consistent with air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions, especially during periods of high ozone. Fugitive dust should be kept to a minimum, (9 VAC5-50-60). Permits may be required for any boilers or fuel-burning equipment that may be incorporated into the new structures. For further questions concerning this, please contact James Kyle at (804)527-5047.

Should you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to email me at [email protected] or call me at 804-527-5029.

Sincerely,

Kelley H. West Environmental Planner DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS NORFOLK DISTRICT FORT NORFOLK Reply to 803 FRONT STREET Attention of NORFOLK VA 23510-1011

March 10, 2015

CENAO-WR-R Southern Virginia Regulatory Section 2015-00054 (Redwater Creek)

Katie E. Madary Crum Kimley-Horn 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23462

Dear Ms. Crum:

This letter is in reference to the proposal from Chesterfield County to improve approximately 2,500 linear feet of Route 10 from Route 1 to I-95, in Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Your proposal does not require a Department of the Army Authorization.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at (804) 212-6817, [email protected], 9100 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 235, Richmond, Virginia 23236.

Sincerely, Ü·¹·¬¿´´§ ­·¹²»¼ ¾§ ÙßÆÆÛÎßòÍ×ÔÊ×ßòÞòïîìîèîêïëë ÙßÆÆÛÎßòÍ×ÔÊ×ß ÜÒæ ½ãËÍô ±ãËòÍò Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ô ±«ãܱÜô ±«ãÐÕ×ô ±«ãËÍßô òÞòïîìîèîêïëëSilvia B. Gazzera, Ph.D.½²ãÙßÆÆÛÎßòÍ×ÔÊ×ßòÞòïîìîèîêïëë Environmental ScientistÜ¿¬»æ îðïëòðíòïð ïïæïéæíï óðìùððù Crum, Katie (Madary)

From: Crum, Katie (Madary) Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 3:24 PM To: 'Gazzera, Silvia B NAO' Subject: RE: Route 10 Improvement

This message contains attachments delivered via ShareFile. -Route10_Chesterfield_County 8.9 MB Download the attachments here - https://kimley-horn.securevdr.com/d/s224457f1b5c4efea ------Silvia - attached via ShareFile are data sheets, mapping and photographs for the referenced project. The project corridor is developed, consists of road right-of-way and limited frontage along adjacent developed parcels. No wetlands or jurisdictional waters are located within the project corridor. Please let us know if you have any comments regarding the proposed project.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Katie

-----Original Message----- From: Gazzera, Silvia B NAO [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:09 PM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: RE: Route 10 Improvement

I really need data points. You need to document that there are no jurisdictional areas within the project limits. You can take a couple of data sheets and send them to me along with a map depicting their locations and I can send you an NPR letter.

Sincerely,

Silvia. B. Gazzera, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9100 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 235 Richmond Virginia 23236 (804) 212-6817 (cell) http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/

1 The Norfolk District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. In order for us to better serve you, we would appreciate you completing our Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey. We value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to complete the survey.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 2:05 PM To: Gazzera, Silvia B NAO Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Route 10 Improvement

The corridor is completely developed and consists of limited parcel frontage outside of the right-of-way. I am meeting on another project in Chesterfield on the 29th. Could you meet onsite that morning? Also I have photographs of the corridor if that would help.

Katie E. Madary Crum, PWS, CPWD Kimley-Horn | 4500 Main Street, Suite 500, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Direct: 757-355-6672 | Mobile: 757-777-7044 | Main: 757-213-8600

-----Original Message----- From: Gazzera, Silvia B NAO [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 8:26 AM To: Crum, Katie (Madary) Subject: Route 10 Improvement

Hello Katie,

Could you please provide a wetland delineation including map and data sheets for the proposed work?

You need to demonstrate that there are no wetlands within the proposed area of disturbance.

Sincerely,

Silvia. B. Gazzera, Ph.D. Environmental Scientist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9100 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 235 Richmond Virginia 23236 (804) 212-6817 (cell) http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/

The Norfolk District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. In order for us to better serve you, we would appreciate you completing our Customer Satisfaction Survey located at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey. We value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to complete the survey.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

2 ¹

OP 2 !( OP 1 !( OP 3 !( OP 4 !(

LEGEND DATA SOURCE: VBMP 2013 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH !( OBSERVATION POINT NOTE: OBSERVATION POINTS TAKEN ON 2/12/15. PROJECT CORRIDOR NO WETLANDS WERE IDENTIFIED WIHTIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR.

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 02/19/15 FIGURE 4 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 500 FEET WETLAND DELINEATION Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP1 SITE INFORMATION Project # & Site: Route 10 Widening City/County: Chesterfield County Date: 2/12/2015 Applicant/Owner: Chesterfield County State: VA Sampling OP1 Investigator: K. Crum Section/Township/Range: Point: Landform: Level or Nearly Level Local Relief: None Slope (%): <2% Subregion: LRR P Lat/Long: 37.354907 -77.407364 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Rumford loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (92B) NWI UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Classification: Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric soils Present? No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No OP located in maintained lawn area directly adjacent to roadway Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators : Primary Indicators : Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) (C9) Algal Mats or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Stunted or stressed plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Shallow Aquitard (D3) (B7) Water-stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (Stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photograph, previous inspection): Remarks: No water in pit in upper 24" bgs. No primary or secondary indicators observed. VEGETATION Absolute % Tree Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover # Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: 0 # of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 Percent Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: 0

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Sapling Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Prevalence Index (PI) Worksheet: Total Percent Cover of: OBL 0 x1 0 FACW 0 x2 0 FAC 0 x3 0 FACU 50 x4 200 0 = Total Cover UPL 0 x5 0 50% of Total Cover = 0 Total 50 200 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 PI = 4.0 Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP1 Absolute % Shrub Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation No 2. Dominance Test is >50% No 3. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 No 4. Morphological Adaptations No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation No 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Herb Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Festuca rubra 40 Yes FACU Tree: 20 ft or more in height, 3 in or larger diameter at DBH Andropogon virginicus 10 Yes FACU Sapling: 20 ft or more in height, less than 3 in DBH Shrub: 3-20 ft in height Herb: less than 3 ft in height Vine: all woody vines 50 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 25 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 10 Absolute % Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0

Remarks: Maintained lawn area - various grasses. The Prevalence Index was not used in determining hydrophytic vegetation.

SOILS Profile Description:

Matrix Redox Features Depth Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Loc Texture Inches

0-1 10YR 3/3 90 10 UCS Fine Sandy Loam 1-24+ 10YR 4/6 100

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problem Hydric Soils:

Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Materail (F 21) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soils Present: No Depth (inches):

Remarks: Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP2 SITE INFORMATION Project # & Site: Route 10 Widening City/County: Chesterfield County Date: 2/12/2015 Applicant/Owner: Chesterfield County State: VA Sampling OP2 Investigator: K. Crum Section/Township/Range: Point: Landform: Level or Nearly Level Local Relief: None Slope (%): <2% Subregion: LRR P Lat/Long: 37.35513 -77.412987 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Rumford loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (92B) NWI UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Classification: Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric soils Present? No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No OP located in maintained lawn area directly adjacent to roadway Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators : Primary Indicators : Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) (C9) Algal Mats or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Stunted or stressed plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Shallow Aquitard (D3) (B7) Water-stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (Stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photograph, previous inspection): Remarks: No water in pit in upper 24" bgs. No primary or secondary indicators observed. VEGETATION Absolute % Tree Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover # Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: 0 # of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 Percent Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: #DIV/0!

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Sapling Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Prevalence Index (PI) Worksheet: Total Percent Cover of: OBL 0 x1 0 FACW 0 x2 0 FAC 0 x3 0 FACU 0 x4 0 0 = Total Cover UPL 0 x5 0 50% of Total Cover = 0 Total 0 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 PI = #DIV/0! Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP2 Absolute % Shrub Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation No 2. Dominance Test is >50% #DIV/0! 3. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 #DIV/0! 4. Morphological Adaptations No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation No 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Herb Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree: 20 ft or more in height, 3 in or larger diameter at DBH Sapling: 20 ft or more in height, less than 3 in DBH Shrub: 3-20 ft in height Herb: less than 3 ft in height Vine: all woody vines 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0

Remarks: Maintained lawn area - various grasses. The Prevalence Index was not used in determining hydrophytic vegetation.

SOILS Profile Description:

Matrix Redox Features Depth Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Loc Texture Inches

0-24 10YR 4/3 100 Fine Sandy Loam

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problem Hydric Soils:

Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Materail (F 21) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soils Present: No Depth (inches):

Remarks: Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP3 SITE INFORMATION Project # & Site: Route 10 Widening City/County: Chesterfield County Date: 2/12/2015 Applicant/Owner: Chesterfield County State: VA Sampling OP3 Investigator: K. Crum Section/Township/Range: Point: Landform: Level or Nearly Level Local Relief: None Slope (%): <2% Subregion: LRR P Lat/Long: 37.354706 -77.411593 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Rumford loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (92B) NWI UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Classification: Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric soils Present? No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No OP located in maintained lawn area directly adjacent to roadway Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators : Primary Indicators : Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) (C9) Algal Mats or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Stunted or stressed plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Shallow Aquitard (D3) (B7) Water-stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (Stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photograph, previous inspection): Remarks: No water in pit in upper 24" bgs. No primary or secondary indicators observed. VEGETATION Absolute % Tree Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover # Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: 0 # of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 Percent Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: #DIV/0!

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Sapling Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Prevalence Index (PI) Worksheet: Total Percent Cover of: OBL 0 x1 0 FACW 0 x2 0 FAC 0 x3 0 FACU 0 x4 0 0 = Total Cover UPL 0 x5 0 50% of Total Cover = 0 Total 0 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 PI = #DIV/0! Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP3 Absolute % Shrub Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation No 2. Dominance Test is >50% #DIV/0! 3. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 #DIV/0! 4. Morphological Adaptations No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation No 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Herb Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree: 20 ft or more in height, 3 in or larger diameter at DBH Sapling: 20 ft or more in height, less than 3 in DBH Shrub: 3-20 ft in height Herb: less than 3 ft in height Vine: all woody vines 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0

Remarks: Maintained lawn area - various grasses. The Prevalence Index was not used in determining hydrophytic vegetation.

SOILS Profile Description: Depth Matrix Redox Features Texture Inches Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Loc 0-24 10YR 4/3 100 Fine Sandy Loam & gravel

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problem Hydric Soils:

Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Materail (F 21) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soils Present: No Depth (inches):

Remarks: gravel located within soil profile Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP4 SITE INFORMATION Project # & Site: Route 10 Widening City/County: Chesterfield County Date: 2/12/2015 Applicant/Owner: Chesterfield County State: VA Sampling OP4 Investigator: K. Crum Section/Township/Range: Point: Landform: Level or Nearly Level Local Relief: None Slope (%): <2% Subregion: LRR P Lat/Long: 37.354504 -77.408122 Datum: NAD 83 Soil Map Unit Name: Rumford loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes (92B) NWI UPL Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Classification: Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation No Soils No or Hydrology No naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No Hydric soils Present? No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? No Wetland Hydrology Present? No OP located in maintained lawn area directly adjacent to roadway Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators : Primary Indicators : Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) (C9) Algal Mats or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Stunted or stressed plants (D1) Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery Shallow Aquitard (D3) (B7) Water-stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? No Saturation Present? No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (Stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photograph, previous inspection): Remarks: No water in pit in upper 24" bgs. No primary or secondary indicators observed. VEGETATION Absolute % Tree Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: Cover # Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: 0 # of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0 Percent Dominant Species OBL, FACW, FAC: #DIV/0!

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Sapling Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Prevalence Index (PI) Worksheet: Total Percent Cover of: OBL 0 x1 0 FACW 0 x2 0 FAC 0 x3 0 FACU 0 x4 0 0 = Total Cover UPL 0 x5 0 50% of Total Cover = 0 Total 0 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 PI = #DIV/0! Project: Route 10 Widening WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Sampling Date: 2/12/2015 Eastern Mountains & Piedmont Sampling Point: OP4 Absolute % Shrub Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1. Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation No 2. Dominance Test is >50% #DIV/0! 3. Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0 #DIV/0! 4. Morphological Adaptations No Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation No 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Herb Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree: 20 ft or more in height, 3 in or larger diameter at DBH Sapling: 20 ft or more in height, less than 3 in DBH Shrub: 3-20 ft in height Herb: less than 3 ft in height Vine: all woody vines 0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Absolute % Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Cover

0 = Total Cover 50% of Total Cover = 0 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: No 50/20 Thresholds: 20% of Total Cover = 0 Maintained lawn area - various grasses & old asphalt paved areas. The Prevalence Index was not used in determining Remarks: hydrophytic vegetation. SOILS Profile Description:

Depth Matrix Redox Features Texture Inches Color (Moist) % Color (Moist) % Type Loc 0-14+ 2.5Y 2.5/1 50 Fine Sandy Loam & gravel 0-14+ 7.5YR 4/6 50 Fine Sandy Loam & gravel

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problem Hydric Soils:

Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Materail (F 21) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Hydric Soils Present: No Depth (inches):

Remarks: gravel located within soil profile KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 1 of 7

Photo No. 1

Remarks: Soil profile at OP 1.

Location: OP 1 Orientation:

Photo No. 2

Remarks: View of eastern portion of the corridor at OP 1.

Location: OP 1 Orientation: East KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 2 of 7

Photo No. 3

Remarks: View west at OP 1.

Location: OP 1 Orientation: West

Photo No. 4

Remarks: View northwest at OP 1.

Location: OP 1 Orientation: Northwest KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 3 of 7

Photo No. 5

Remarks: View east at OP 2.

Location: OP 2 Orientation: East

Photo No. 6

Remarks: View west at OP 2.

Location: OP 2 Orientation: West KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 4 of 7

Photo No. 7

Remarks: View northwest at OP 2.

Location: OP 2 Orientation: Northwest

Photo No. 8

Remarks: Soil profile at OP 3.

Location: OP 3 Orientation: KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 5 of 7

Photo No. 9

Remarks: View east at OP 3.

Location: OP 3 Orientation: East

Photo No. 10

Remarks: View south at OP 3 and adjacent parcel - recently demolished structure.

Location: OP 3 Orientation: South KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 6 of 7

Photo No. 11

Remarks: View west at OP 3.

Location: OP 3 Orientation: West

Photo No. 12

Remarks: View of soil profile at OP 4.

Location: OP 4 Orientation: KHA Job No.: 113154007 Route 10 Widening Project KHA Rep.: K Crum 4500 Main Street, Suite 500 Photograph Sheet Date: February 12, 2015 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Page: 7 of 7

Photo No. 13

Remarks: View east at OP 4.

Location: OP 4 Orientation: East

Photo No. 14

Remarks: View west at OP 4.

Location: OP 4 Orientation: West Attachment F Agricultural/Open Space and Farmland Zoning Attachment G Air & Noise Studies Air Report

Project Information

Project Name: Rte.10 - Widen to 6 Lanes

Project Number: 0010-020-R44, M501, P101, R201 UPC: 102952

Route Number: 10

Project Limit - From: RTE 1 To: RTE 95

District City/County Residency

Richmond Chesterfield Chesterfield

IPM Project Description: RTE 10 - WIDEN TO 6 LANES

Air Quality: Yes

Additional Project The proposed improvements total approximately 2,500 linear feet Description: and generally involve the widening of W. Hundred Road (Route 10) from four lanes divided to six lanes divided between Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95). The project also includes the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. No streams, bridges, or railroads will be affected by these improvements.

Funding Source: Federal

PPTA/LAP

Locally Administered? Yes PPTA? No

Traffic Data

Design Year: 2039 Design Year Traffic ADT: 48,000

Existing Year: 2013 Existing Year Traffic ADT: 37,000

Project Opening Year:

©2015 02/05/2015 TASK INFORMATION

Task/Subtask PED AED Assigned To

Air Determination 09/08/2014 10/22/2014 Grinnell, Daniel T

I. Carbon Monoxide

This project is located in: A Carbon Monoxide Attainment Area

CO Microscale Analysis Required for NEPA? No

• The design year 24-hour forecasted traffic does not exceed the thresholds contained in VDOT’s Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Air Quality Studies Agreement with FHWA dated February 27, 2009, and therefore does not require a project-level CO air quality analysis.

The project does not include or directly affect any roadway whose design year average daily traffic volume, skew angle or level of service would exceed the threshold criteria specified in the 2009 Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for streamlining the project-level air quality analysis process for carbon monoxide (CO). Modeling using “worst-case” parameters has been conducted for these thresholds and it has been determined that projects, such as this one, for which the thresholds would not be exceeded would not significantly impact air quality and would not cause or contribute to a new violation, increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation, or delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide. Although the traffic thresholds contained in the 2009 Agreement were developed using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, and EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2010b) is currently required for use on all new projects that require CO hotspot analyses, FHWA and VDOT both concur that the 2009 Agreement is still appropriate for use to streamline project-level CO air quality analyses since the traffic thresholds contained within are considered more conservative or worst-case than those that would be developed using MOVES2010b. This is anticipated because CO emission rates from MOVES2010 have been found to be generally lower than those from MOBILE6.2 as documented in the paper titled “Implications of the MOVES2010 Model on Mobile Source Emission Estimates” by Michael Claggett in FHWA’s Resource Center, Air Quality Team. In addition, since the 2009 Agreement was executed, the cleanliness of the fleet has continued to improve due to the continued implementation of EPA’s stringent Tier 2 engine emission standards coupled with fleet turnover. Therefore, the thresholds established in the 2009 Agreement, which do not account for the benefits of fleet turnover and engine improvements since the agreement was executed, are considered conservative for projects that meet those thresholds and have an upcoming opening date.

Comments: The forecast 2039 design year AADT of 48,000 vpd is below the threshold.

©2015 02/05/2015 II. Ozone

This project is located in: An 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Area

• The scope and concept of the project is consistent with what was modeled in the conformity analysis of the 12-15 TIP and 2035 LRP.

Comments: None

This project is located in a VOC/NOx Emission Control Area. All reasonable precautions should be taken to limit VOCs and NOx emissions. Restrictions and prohibitions may apply to open burning, fugitive dust and the use of cutback asphalt, particularly during the months of April through October. Refer to DEQ’s Open Burning Regulation (9 VAC 5-130-10 et seq.); Cutback Asphalt Regulation (9 VAC 5-40-5490 et seq.); and Fugitive Dust Regulation (9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq.) for requirements.

III. Particulate Matter

The final rule that establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local air quality impacts in Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) nonattainment and maintenance areas was published on March 10, 2006. This project is located in a PM2.5 attainment area and therefore no further discussion of PM2.5 is necessary.

Comments: None

IV. Mobile Source Air Toxics

This project requires: A qualitative MSAT analysis

This project requires a qualitative MSAT analysis. Please see the appendix for the appropriate language to be included in the environmental document.

Comments: See attached qualitative analysis

Comments

This project is located within an 8-hour Ozone Maintenance area, and a volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) Emissions Control Area. As such, all reasonable precautions should be taken to limit the emissions of VOC and NOx. In addition, the following VDEQ air pollution regulations must be adhered to during the construction of this project: 9 VAC 5-130, Open Burning restrictions; 9 VAC 5-45, Article 7, Cutback Asphalt restrictions; and 9 VAC 5-50, Article 1, Fugitive Dust precautions.

©2015 02/05/2015 Qualitative Analysis for Mobile Source Air Toxics

BACKGROUND

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from man-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes and locomotives), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners and gas stations), and stationary sources (e.g., factories and refineries). Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (http://cfcpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm). In addition, EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) considers these the priority mobile source air toxics (MSAT), the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules.

The 2007 EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Based on an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOVES2010b model, as shown in Figure 1, even if vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) increases by 102 percent as assumed from 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of 83 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the same time period.

Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FHWA, EPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field.

PROJECT-LEVEL MSAT DISCUSSION

Following FHWA’s Interim Guidance Update on MSAT Analysis in NEPA dated December 6, 2012, (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/aqintguidmem.cfm), this project has been determined to have low potential MSAT effects, thereby requiring a qualitative MSAT analysis. A qualitative MSAT analysis provides a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the various alternatives. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives, found at: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/airtoxic/msatcompare/msatemissions.htm.

Figure 1: NATIONAL MSAT EMISSION TRENDS 1999 - 2050 FOR VEHICLES OPERATING ON ROADWAYS USING EPA's MOVES2010b MODEL

Note: Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle mix, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors Source: EPA MOVES2010b model runs conducted during May - June 2012 by FHWA. For each alternative, the amount of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives may be slightly higher than that for the No-Build Alternative, because the additional capacity may increase the efficiency of the roadway and attract rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This potential increase in VMT could lead to higher MSAT emissions for the preferred action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions increase would be offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOVES2010b model, emissions of all of the priority MSAT decrease as speed increases.

There may also be localized areas where VMT would increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that localized increases and decreases in MSAT emissions may occur. However, even if these increases do occur, they too will be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives may have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools, and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No-Build Alternative. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-Build alternative cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In sum, when a highway is widened, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No-Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSAT will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region- wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today.

INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR PROJECT-SPECIFIC MSAT HEALTH IMPACTS ANALYSIS

In FHWA’s view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is “a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects” (EPA, https://www.epa.gov/iris/). Each report contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude.

Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA’s Interim Guidance Update on Mobile source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are; cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282) or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease (HEI, http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=306).

The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts – each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable.

It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some of the information needed is unavailable.

There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282). As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel PM. The EPA (http://www.epa.gov/risk/basicinformation.htm#g) and the HEI (http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=395) have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.

There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine an “acceptable” level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than 1 in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than 1 in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA’s approach to addressing risk in its two step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable.

Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project at this time. While it is possible that localized increases in MSAT emissions may occur as a result of this project, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year of this project as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. Although local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

March 16, 2015

To: Lovejoy “LJ” Muchenje, P.E.

From: Natalie Smusz-Mengelkoch, P.E.

Subject: Route 10 (W Hundred Rd) Widening UPC: 102952 Project No: 0010-020-R44, M501, P101, R201

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the results of the Preliminary Noise Analysis for the above project. This analysis was completed in accordance to the State Noise Abatement Policy (SNAP) that was developed to implement the requirements of 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772), Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (July 13, 2011), Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance (December 2011), and the noise related requirements of The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The current Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) SNAP became effective on July 13, 2011 and was updated on July 14, 2014.

The purpose of the project is to widen Route 10 (W Hundred Rd) from a four lane divided roadway to a six lane divided roadway between Jefferson Davis Highway (US 1) and Interstate 95 (I-95) in Chester, VA. The project includes the addition of left and right turn lanes, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm sewer, traffic signal, pavement markings, signs, and maintenance of traffic. In addition, the proposed project will improve traffic operations and safety within the corridor and connect traffic on I- 95 with commercial, residential, and industrial land uses along Route 10 and Route 1. Improved traffic operations will be achieved through the provisions of additional roadway capacity and implementation of access management techniques. Safety improvements will be achieved by reducing points of conflict (left-turn movements at median crossovers and congestion related at signalized intersections and crossovers).

Per the Federal noise regulations and the SNAP, the project qualifies as a Type I project, since the project involves widening Route 10 from four lanes to six lanes, meaning that a noise study is required. A review of the project area was performed on January 20, 2015. Based on the field reconnaissance, multiple areas of frequent human use were identified and studied in this noise analysis. The only noise-sensitive sites in the vicinity of the proposed road widening project are various outdoor eating areas and hotel pools located north and south of Route 10 throughout the corridor. All of the outdoor eating areas and hotel pools were modeled under the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) E. The studied noise-sensitive receivers shown in Figure 1 were used to determine the exterior noise levels for each site. Several properties were not considered as part of this analysis because they are category F properties, such as a car dealership, auto-body shop, and gas stations. These category F properties are not considered noise-sensitive receivers.

kimley-horn.com 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60604 312 924 7435 Page 2

Through coordination with VDOT, it was determined that a traffic noise screening analysis is appropriate for this project because of the study area land uses and lack of highway traffic noise- related controversy or substantial construction noise impacts associated with this project.

Traffic data used for the noise analysis were obtained from the Route 10 (1 to 95) Widening Project Traffic Engineering and Analysis Report (March 2015), which was prepared by Kimley-Horn. The data consisted of Peak Hour traffic volumes, turning movements, and truck percentages. The PM Peak Hour traffic volumes were determined to be consistent with the loudest hour. The existing exterior noise levels throughout the corridor range between 45 dB(A) and 68 dB(A). The design year (2039) build exterior noise levels are predicted to range between 46 dB(A) and 68 dB(A). Since noise levels throughout the project corridor do not approach or exceed the NAC E sound level of 72 dB(A), none of the studied exterior areas of frequent human use are predicted to experience any noise impacts in the design year (2039) build scenario. All of the noise-sensitive receivers are also outside of the 71 dB(A) noise contour.

Table 1: Predicted Noise Levels

Predicted Noise Levels (dB(A) No. of Noise Receiver Abatement NAC Land Use Dwelling Abatement Name Existing Build Considered Units Condition Condition Criteria (2013) (2039)

Outdoor Starbucks E 1 67 68 71 No Eating

Outdoor Friendly's E 1 68 68 71 No Eating

Outdoor Chipotle E 1 67 68 71 No Eating

Days Inn E Hotel Pool 1 55 56 71 No Pool

Outdoor Hooters E 1 62 62 71 No Eating

Suburban Extended E Hotel Pool 1 45 46 71 No Stay Pool

The current noise regulations require the inclusion of undeveloped lands with an approved building permit in the noise analysis. As such, the entire project corridor was evaluated for any potentially undeveloped or redeveloped lands with an approved building permit. Through coordination with the County, it was determined that there are no undeveloped lands with an approved building permit and one redevelopment within the project corridor. There is one property in the Bermuda Square

kimley-horn.com 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60604 312 924 7435 Page 3

Shopping Center that will be redeveloped to include a gas station. Therefore, the gas station will be considered a category F NAC which is not considered a noise-sensitive receptor and has not been included in the TNM analysis.

Any construction noise impacts that occur as a result of the roadway construction measures are anticipated to be temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the project construction phase. The contractor will be required to conform to the construction noise specifications found in VDOT’s 2007 Road and Bridge Specifications, Section 107.16(b.3), “Noise”.

In conclusion, due to the type of land uses within the project corridor, this project will not result in overall noise levels that approach or exceed the applicable NAC levels nor will it result in a substantial increase in noise compared to existing levels. In addition, there is no highway traffic noise- related controversy or substantial construction noise impacts associated with this project. Therefore, this screening analysis has been prepared in lieu of a detailed quantitative noise analysis.

Please contact me at (312) 924-7435 or [email protected] should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Natalie Smusz-Mengelkoch, P.E. Traffic Noise Specialist

kimley-horn.com 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60604 312 924 7435 ¤£301 ¯

¤£1

Jefferson Davis Highway

Days Inn

(! Pool | (! Friendly's

n10 W Hundred Road | n10 Chipotle (! (! Starbucks

(! Hooters

Suburban (! Extended Stay Pool

¤£1 ¨¦§95

£301 0 200 400 ¤ Feet

Route 10 (W Hundred Rd) Widening Route 10 (W Hundred Rd) Widening ! Project: 0010-020-R44, M501, P101, R201 ( Not Impacted, Not Benefitted Chesterfield County, VA UPC: 102952 66 dB(A) Noise Contour 71 dB(A) Noise Contour Figure 1 Virginia Department of Transportation Summary Results Attachment H Hazardous Materials TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF CORRIDOR PARCELS, OBSERVED PROPERTY USE, EDR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMENTS/ RIGHT-OF-WAY TAKES CONTAMINATED SOILS SPECS FOR PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR PHASE I GPIN ADDRESS OWNER PARCEL USE YEAR BUILT PARCEL ID # SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS EDR REPORT INTERVIEWS/ CITY DIRECTORY RESULTS (ACRES) THESE PROPERTIES ESA QUESTIONNAIRES

Tenants in the commercial development are heated either by heat pump or natural 0.025 Permanent Easement gas, Kroger fueling station on site has underground storage tanks, but no known 7986530495 12700 Jefferson Davis Highway CMA Properties Inc Commercial/Retail 1994 001 Retail (Kohl's, etc.) 0.043 Temporary Easement leaks or spills are associated with those tanks-approx. 850 feet from the project corridor.

0.053 Fee Taking 7986544847 2611 Route 10 AXA LLC ET AL Commercial/Retail 0.005 Permanent Easement 2000 002 Applebee's Applebee's X 0.086 Temporary Easement

LUST/LTANK: 20064586 (closed), 20014574 (closed); UST: 5 USTs Generator, propane in containment, no bays, drums, 7 gas islands-heat pump and Arc Café USA 001 LLC (c/o American Realty 0.019 Fee Taking currently in use [2x 20,000 gallon gasoline, 12,000 gallon gasoline, 12,000 Chester Chubby's East Coast Oil Corp, 7986547039 12500 Jefferson Davis Highway Commercial/Retail 1983 003 Shell underground storage tanks on site but no known leaks, spills, wells, or chemical XX Capital) 0.027 Temporary Easement gallon kerosene, 12,000 diesel]; RCRA- CESQG: No Violations Found (not Easco Photo Film Developing storage on site, 2 unidentified concrete wells defined); SPILLS: 5/28/2002- gas spill to pavement

Under Development, future gas station and gas heat. No tanks installed currently, Starbucks, 7996543322 12601 Jefferson Davis Highway Autolease Inc Commercial/Retail 0.043 Temporary Entrance 0 004 Chipotle, Starbucks former dry cleaner 500+ feet from corridor First Market Bank, Ukrops

LUST/LTANK: 19900703 (closed); UST: 1 UST permanently out of use PVC Pipes, underground utilities including a heat pump and natural gas furnace but Auto Rent, 7986548970 12431 Jefferson Davis Highway Nussbaumer Ralph Commercial/Retail 0.023 Temporary Easement 1992 005 Enterprise X [unknown] no known storage tanks Enterprise Rentacar

7986549676 2530 W Hundred Road National Retail Properties LP Commercial/Retail 0.014 Temporary Easement 2012 006 Enterprise

7996540882 2520 W Hundred Road LAND 9510 LLC Commercial/Retail 0.023 Temporary Entrance 1961 007 Friendly's Friendly's

0.022 Permanent Easement 7996542183 2510 W Hundred Road NDRA LLC Commercial/Retail 0.035 Temporary Easement 2007 008 Wendy's 0.005 Temporary Entrance heat pump, 4 gas pumps, 2 diesel with associated underground fuel storage tanks, UST: 3 USTs currently in use[12,000 gallon gasoline, 10,000 gallon 0.010 Permanent Easement and underground reclaim tanks for a carwash-all of the fuel tanks are less than 3 7996543675 2500 W Hundred Road DSRA II LLC Forested/Open Land/Stormwater Pond 0 009 Gulf gasoline, 5,000 gallon gasoline], 4 USTs removed from ground [3x 10,000 Flagstop/Rennies Citgo 0.015 Temporary Easement years old, are double walled, have no known associated spills or leaks, and are gallon gasoline, 10,000 gallon diesel] located north of the convenience store

Avis, Clarion Hotels, Hooter's Restaurant/Extended 7996549625 2401 W Hundred Road Pelican Bay LLC Commercial/Retail 0.036 Temporary Entrance 1981 010 Hooters, Howard Johnson, Stay Hotel Dutton Advertising, Holiday Inn

0.008Temporary Easement 8006543273 12441 Redwater Creek Road Ambay Inc. Commercial/Retail 1982 011 Denny's 0.013 Temporary Entrance

Service Bays, heat pump in the main building, and fuel oil furnaces in two of the other buildings, waste oil furnace, currently in use aboveground storage tanks, UST: 6 USTs permanently out of use [5,000 gallon diesel, 1,000 gallon current auto repair practices, and former underground storage tanks that have been diesel, 2x 550 gallon diesel, 1,000 gallon used oil, unknown quantity used Colonial Auto, 7986543487 12420 Jefferson Davis Highway Chester Partnership Commercial/Retail 1994 012 Heritage Chevrolet removed or closed in place (diked waste oil tank, double walled bulk oil tanks, and oil] ; RCRA-SQG: No Violations Found (Ignitable Hazardous Waste, Heritage Chevy two heating oil tanks), possible former septic system, no known spills or leaks from Corrosive Hazardous Waste) the above mentioned tanks, but there is a note of the proper storage of all petroleum and chemicals- all referenced items are greater than 100 feet from the project Natural gas furnace, no fuel storage tanks. no water wells nor knowledge of 7986541656 2621 W Hundred Road Country Stores PTY I LLC ET AL Commercial/Retail 1997 013 Verizon Wireless hazardous material or chemical storage currently or previously on the property. (former restaurant)

7996545177 2420 W Hundred Road PMIG 1015 LLC Commercial/Retail 1992 014 Burger King Burger King

LUST/LTANK: 19931037 (closed), 19911637 (closed), 19880317 55 gallon drums, propane in containment, gas & diesel underground storage tanks Lockout Service, Amoco, 7996545839 2421 W Hundred Road Prince George Service Corp Commercial/Retail 1966 015 Mobil K (closed); UST: 4 USTs currently in use [3x 10,000 gallon gasoline, 10,000 approximately 50 feet from proposed excavation- no known spills or leaks, no X Southside Oil, Uppy's BP gallon diesel], 8 USTs removed from ground [2x 550 gallon used oil, 550 known wells, Chesterfield Fire revealed one small spill of 2-3 gallons of gasoline

LUST/LTANK: 19984429 (closed); UST: 3 USTs removed from ground [3x 7996547292 2410 W Hundred Road Land 2421 LLC Commercial/Retail 1961 016 Day's Inn Days Inn, Blimpies X 10,000 gallon gasoline]

LUST/LTANK: 19900179 (closed); UST: 5 USTs currently in use[12,000 gallon gasoline, 10,000 gallon diesel, 2x 8,000 gallon gasoline, 4,000 Corner Mart Sunoco, 7996547838 2411 W Hundred Road Shravan LLC Commercial/Retail 1969 017 Sunoco gallon kerosene], 5 USTs permanently out of use[4x 6,000 gallon gasoline, Gas & Diesel tanks and 9 Islands, no bays U-Haul, Crown Petroleum 550 gallon kerosene]; RCRA-SQG: No Violations Found (not defined, Benzene)

8006540596 2406 W Hundred Road Burger King Corporation Commercial/Retail 1988 018 Country Inn & Suites

Service Bays, Current septic system at rear of property. Heat pump, underground 7996549475 2400 W Hundred Road DDR Bermuda Square LLC Commercial/Retail 1978 019 AutoWorld AutoWorld of Chester X storage tank with no associated spills or leaks.

LUST/LTANK: 20124208 (closed), 19974110 (closed), 19953100 (closed); UST: 4 USTs currently in use[6,000 gallon gasoline, 8,000 gallon Uppy's, Exon, 8006541173 2320 W Hundred Road Chester Properties LLC Commercial/Retail 1981 020 Exxon Diesel and Gasoline Pumps/Tanks, heat pump gasoline, 10,000 gallon gasoline, 6,000 gallon diesel], 2 USTs removed Lowells Subs from ground [1,000 used oil, 1,000 gallon kerosene]

8006542525 2301 W Hundred Road Old Dominion Restaurants Inc Commercial/Retail 1984 021 Logan's Steakhouse

8006533479 2221 W Hundred Road O Ice LLC Commercial/Retail 1984 022 stormwater pond

8006555514 12401 Redwater Creek Road Brekenridge 2005 LLC Commercial/Retail 1991 023 Cracker Barrell ¹

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 04/03/2015 FIGURE 1 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 4,000 FEET TOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY ¹

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 04/03/2015 FIGURE 2 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ¹

«¬023 «¬018 «¬012 016 007 008 «¬ 006 «¬ «¬ «¬ 014 019 «¬009 «¬ «¬ «¬020 «¬011 «¬005 «¬013 «¬002 «¬003 «¬015 «¬017 «¬021 «¬010

«¬004

«¬001 «¬022

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR

ADJACENT PARCELS Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 04/03/2015 FIGURE 3 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET PARCEL ID NUMBERS ¹

Utilities and PVC Pipes Gas/Diesel Auto Gas/Diesel Tanks and Service Tanks and Pumps Pumps Bays AST «¬023 «¬018 «¬012 016 007 008 «¬ 006 «¬ «¬ D «¬D D009 014 019 «¬ «¬ D«¬ «¬020D «¬011 «¬005 «¬013 «¬002 «¬003 015 017D D D«¬ «¬ 021 Generator, «¬ Propane, Drums, «¬010 Gas Islands, and unknown concrete wells «¬004

«¬001 «¬022

55 gall drums, Gas/Diesel Propane, Tanks and Gas/Diesel tanks Pumps LEGEND

D Pertinent Site Features

PROJECT CORRIDOR

ADJACENT PARCELS Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 04/03/2015 FIGURE 4 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET PERTINENT SITE FEATURES ¹

«¬023 «¬018 «¬012 016 007 008 «¬ 006 «¬ «¬ «¬ 014 019 «¬009 «¬ «¬ «¬020 «¬011 «¬005 «¬013 «¬002 «¬003 «¬015 «¬017 «¬021 «¬010

«¬004

«¬001 «¬022

LEGEND

PROJECT CORRIDOR

ADJACENT PARCELS Right-Of-Way Acquisitions Fee Taking Area

Permanent Easement

Temporary Easement

Temporary Entrance Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

ROUTE 10 (1 TO 95) DATE: 04/03/2015 FIGURE 5 WIDENING PROJECT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY UPC# 102952 SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET ACQUISITIONS