Draft Section 106 Assessm ent of Effects to Historic Propertie s Report Appendices - DEIS Appendix D1a FOR THE WASHINGTON UNION STATION EXPANSION PROJECT JUNE 2020 1 Washington Union Station Assessment of Effects Appendix 1 Expansion Project Appendix 1: List of Consulting Parties 1.1 Section 106 Consulting Parties for the Washington Union Station Expansion Project: 1. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) 2. Akridge 3. Amtrak 4. ANC 6C 5. Architect of the Capitol 6. Capitol Hill Restoration Society (CHRS) 7. Commission of Fine Arts 8. Committee of 100 on the Federal City (Committee of 100) 9. DC Historic Preservation Office (DC SHPO) 10. DC Preservation League 11. Department of Transportation including FRA, FTA, FHA 12. District Department of Transportation 13. General Services Administration 14. Government Printing Office 15. Greyhound 16. MARC/MTA 17. Megabus 18. Metropolitan Council of Governments 19. National Capital Planning Commission 20. National Park Service, National Mall and Memorial Parks 21. National Railway Historical Society, DC Chapter 22. National Trust for Historic Preservation 23. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) 24. VRE 25. WMATA 2 Washington Union Station Assessment of Effects Appendix 2 Expansion Project Appendix 2: Formal Communication and Comments from Consulting Parties in order received 3 From: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 3:01 PM To: Katherine Hummelt; Gretchen Pfaehler Cc: Bernett, Carmen [USA] Subject: FW: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence From: Koenig, Daniel (FTA) Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:28 AM To: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence Hi Amanda – Thanks for providing. Not surprised that there are a lot of resources. My thinking though, is that the APE could be drawn to be a bit much narrower. The improvements to the station would have far less potential, if any, to affect resources to the south. Take for example, resource 51 (Botanical Garden), what is the likelihood that that property could experience any proximity effects from construction and operation of an enhanced station? This large APE will be also be very burdensome under 4f as each of the resources identified in this map would have to be evaluated under 4f and I would again argue that many of the properties have zero potential to be impacted, either directly or indirectly. Let me know if you’d like to discuss more, but our overall comment is that this could be narrowed substantially. Thanks, Dan From: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 4:04 PM To: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) Cc: 1 Subject: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence On behalf of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), I want to thank you for your participation in the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process for the Washington Union Station Expansion Project. This past October, FRA hosted the third Consulting Party meeting in which we presented the preliminary project concepts, discussed the proposed Section 106 study area, and identified the historic properties and sites within the proposed study area. The following is a link to those materials on the project website for your reference: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0944 As presented at the second and third Consulting Party meetings, the attached document is a map detailing the proposed study area and historic properties identified from the Consulting Parties, the National Register of Historic Places, the DC Inventory of Historic Sites, the Architect of the Capitol’s List of Heritage Assets, the National Mall and Memorial Parks Sites, and the Washington Union Station Historic Preservation Plan (completed 2012). Union Station is located in an area that has been thoroughly studied by many public and private historic preservation entities. As such, it is believed that all historic properties (built before the past 50 years) have been identified, and no further research to identify historic properties would be conducted as a part of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project Section 106 process. With this correspondence we are confirming your concurrence on two specific topics as noted during the third meeting and with the attached revised map: 1. The Proposed Study Area, the geographic area surrounding the proposed project area, is appropriate with the scope of the federal undertaking. 2. The historic properties and features within and bordering the Proposed Study Area have been appropriately identified and that the appropriate view sheds are identified. The Proposed Study Area takes a conservative approach towards the areas that may be affected by the proposed project and includes a wide area surrounding Union Station and the rail yard. as well as view sheds along adjacent historic streets, buildings, parkland, green space, memorials, and neighborhoods. The Proposed Study Area will be refined to an Area of Potential Effect once a preferred alternative is selected as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), occurring in tandem with the Section 106 Process. If you have comments regarding the Proposed Study Area and the identified historic properties, I ask that you submit them to me within 30 days at [email protected]. Thank you for your continued cooperation on this important project! Amanda Murphy Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Railroad Policy and Development Federal Railroad Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 202‐493‐0624 (Office) 2 Katherine Hummelt From: Gretchen Pfaehler Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:13 PM To: Katherine Hummelt; Jill Cavanaugh Subject: FW: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence FYI and for the files. Gretchen Pfaehler AIA BEYER BLINDER BELLE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS LLP 3307 M Street, NW, Suite 301 Washington, DC 20007 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:12 PM To: Gretchen Pfaehler Cc: Bernett, Carmen [USA] Subject: FW: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence NCPC response ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Flis, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 3:11 PM To: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence Good Afternoon Amanda, Thank you for the opportunity to review the study area materials. We appreciate the conservative approach which captures a broad area of resources and viewsheds. We look forward to an update on the process and discussing when it may be appropriate to brief our Commission. Best, Matt Matthew J. Flis, AICP‐CUD Senior Urban Designer National Capital Planning Commission ________________________________ From: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 4:04:13 PM To: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) Cc: c 1 Subject: Washington Union Station: Historic Property Identification Concurrence On behalf of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), I want to thank you for your participation in the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process for the Washington Union Station Expansion Project. This past October, FRA hosted the third Consulting Party meeting in which we presented the preliminary project concepts, discussed the proposed Section 106 study area, and identified the historic properties and sites within the proposed study area. The following is a link to those materials on the project website for your reference: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0944 As presented at the second and third Consulting Party meetings, the attached document is a map detailing the proposed study area and historic properties identified from the Consulting Parties, the National Register of Historic Places, the DC Inventory of Historic Sites, the Architect of the Capitol's List of Heritage Assets, the National Mall and Memorial Parks Sites, and the Washington Union Station Historic Preservation Plan (completed 2012). Union Station is located in an area that has been thoroughly studied by many public and private historic preservation entities. As such, it is believed that all historic properties (built before the past 50 years) have been identified, and no further research to identify historic properties would be conducted as a part of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project Section 106 process. With this correspondence we are confirming your concurrence on two specific topics as noted during the third meeting and with the attached revised map: 1. The Proposed Study Area, the geographic area surrounding the proposed project area, is appropriate with the scope of the federal undertaking. 2. The historic properties and features within and bordering the Proposed Study Area have been appropriately identified and that the appropriate view sheds are identified. The Proposed Study Area takes a conservative approach towards the areas that may be affected by the proposed project and includes a wide area surrounding Union Station and the rail yard. as well as view sheds along adjacent historic streets, buildings, parkland, green space, memorials, and neighborhoods. The Proposed Study Area will be refined to an Area of Potential Effect once a preferred alternative is selected as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), occurring in tandem with the Section 106 Process. If you have comments regarding