NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, SECTION 106 ... · (MNBP) and Manassas Battlefield Historic District, from I-66, to US Route 29 and Pageland Lane (SC Route 705), to the intersection

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, SECTION 106 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

AMONG

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, VIRGINIA DIVISION;

THE VIRGINIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER;

THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION;

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BI-COUNTY PARKWAY, PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VIRGINIA

VDOT Project No. R000-96A-102, P101 (UPC 52405); DHR File No. 2003-0042

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 2 of 94

TABLE OF CONTENTS RECITALS STIPULATIONS I. General Design Parameters of the BCP within Approved Corridor . . . . . . 11

A. Alignment of BCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. Context Sensitive Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C. Right of Way and Typical Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 D. Design Features Desirable for Minimizing Visual and Auditory Effects . . . 15 E. Storm Water Management Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 G. Access to Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 H. Accommodation of Pageland Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 I. Route 29 Crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 J. Limited Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 K. Consultation on Further Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

II. Additional Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Effects on MNBP and MBHD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A. Access to Brawner Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 B. Access to Stuart’s Hill Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 C. Traffic Calming on Route 29, Groveton Road, and Featherbed Lane within

MNBP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 D. Abandonment and Restriction of Through-Traffic on Route 234 within

MNBP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E. Preliminary Engineering and Design for MNBP Bypass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 F. Conservation and Protection of Land Associated with MNBP and

MBHD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 G. Construction Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 H. VDOT and NPS Communications Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

III. Mitigation of Potential Effects on Putnam-Patton House/Deseret . . . . . . . 35 IV. Identification and Treatment of Cemeteries and Archaeological Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 V. Post-Review Discoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 VI. Treatment of Human Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 VII. Professional Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 VIII. Preparation and Review of Plans and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 IX. Reassessment of Efforts to Identify Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 3 of 94 X. Curation Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 XI. Requirements for Archaeological Investigations on NPS Land . . . . . . . . . . 42 XII. Authorization of Design/Build Contractor or PPTA Concessionaire . . . . . . 43 XIII. Monitoring and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 XIV. Recognition of Additional Consulting Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 XV. Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 XVI. Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 XVII. Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 XVIII. Duration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 XIX. Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 XX. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 XI. Compliance of Other Agencies with Section 106 for the Undertaking . . . . 47 SIGNATURES ATTACHMENTS

1. Location of the Bi-County Parkway 2. Area of Potential Effects and Locations of Potentially Affected Historic Properties 3. Annotated Bibliography of Technical Cultural Resources Studies 4. Key Agency Section 106 Correspondence 5. Boundaries of NRHP-Listed Battlefield District, ABPP PotNR for Manassas II

Battlefield, and Redefined “MBHD” 6. Locations of the Previously Proposed Corridors and Alignments for the Bi-

County Parkway and the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass in the Vicinity of Manassas National Battlefield Park

7. Sections of Route 234 within Manassas National Battlefield Park Proposed for Abandonment Following Construction of the Bi-County Parkway


RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) proposes to construct a highway, the Bi-County Parkway (BCP) (previously known as the “Tri-County Parkway” or “TCP”), on new location from the intersection of Interstate 66 (I-66) and VA Route 234 in Prince William County and extending north to US Route 50 in Loudoun County (hereinafter referred to as the Undertaking) (VDOT Project No. R000-96A-102, P101, UPC 52405; DHR File No. 2003-0042) (Attachment 1); and

WHEREAS, the VDOT anticipates receiving federal financial assistance for the BCP from the Federal Highway Administration, Virginia Division (FHWA); and

WHEREAS, the FHWA has determined that the BCP is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(y); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1973 (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Department of the Army permit will likely be required from the Corps of Engineers (Corps); and the Corps has designated the FHWA as the lead federal agency to fulfill federal responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f) for the Undertaking; and

WHEREAS, the need to develop a new highway which would address a lack of adequate north-south transportation facilities linking the I-66 corridor with the Dulles area was first identified in the comprehensive plans for Prince William, Fairfax, and Loudoun counties (Prince William County Comprehensive Plan, 1998; Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2000; Loudoun County Countywide Transportation Plan, 2001); and WHEREAS, the FHWA and the VDOT studied a No-build Alternative and three Candidate Build Alternatives for the location of the BCP in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) approved by the FHWA on March 16, 2005, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the location of the BCP on Candidate Build Alternative West Two (CBA West Two) by resolution dated November 17, 2005, and titled, Location Approval for the Tri-County Parkway; and

WHEREAS, in response to comments from the Signatories and Consulting Parties, the VDOT studied a package of additional alternatives to determine if it constituted a reasonable, feasible, and prudent alternative for achieving the Undertaking’s purpose and need, the results of which are presented in the report titled Memorandum: Analysis of the Substitute Vision Provided by SELC et al. as an Alternative to the Tri-County Parkway (June 2013); and WHEREAS, in the CTB’s resolution titled, Northern Virginia North-South Corridor Master Plan Study Recognition of Completion (approved on June 19, 2013), the CTB indicated its intention that the BCP will not be a tolled highway, nor will HOV (High- Occupancy Vehicles) lanes be installed on the BCP; and

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 5 of 94 WHEREAS, the BCP corridor overlaps with the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass (MNBP Bypass) corridor in the vicinity of Manassas National Battlefield Park (MNBP) and Manassas Battlefield Historic District, from I-66, to US Route 29 and Pageland Lane (SC Route 705), to the intersection with Route 234 at Catharpin. The FHWA and the NPS studied a No-build Alternative and five Candidate Build Alternatives for the location of the MNBP Bypass in a DEIS approved for public review by the FHWA and NPS January 28, 2005. The CTB approved the location of the MNBP Bypass on Candidate Build Alternative D by resolution dated June 15, 2006, and in response to public comment on the DEIS, the NPS subsequently developed Modified Candidate Build Alternative D; and WHEREAS, as an undertaking separate from the BCP, the NPS is re-initiating compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the NHPA for the MNBP Bypass. The purpose of the MNBP Bypass study is to develop alternatives that would allow for the closure of the portions of Route 29 and Route 234, which currently transect the MNBP and provide alternatives for traffic currently traveling through the MNBP; and WHEREAS, in Public Law 96-442, October 13, 1980, Section 2c Congress directed that, “if the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation [VDOT] determines that the proposed Route 234 bypass should be properly located between the Virginia Electric Power Company powerline easement and Route 705, the Secretary [of the Interior] shall make available the land necessary for such bypass, subject to such revisions, terms, and conditions as the Secretary deems are necessary [and] appropriate to assure that such bypass is located, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the administration of the park [MNBP].”; and WHEREAS, the construction, operations, and maintenance of the section of the MNBP Bypass that will be co-located within the BCP alignment from I-66 north to Route 234 at Catharpin will be administered by the VDOT; and

WHEREAS, in Public Law 100-647, November 10, 1988, Section 10004(a) Congress directed that “The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this section referred to as the "Secretary"), in consultation and consensus with the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Federal Highway Administration, and Prince William County, shall conduct a study regarding the relocation of highways (known as routes 29 and 234) in, and in the vicinity of, the Manassas National Battlefield Park (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "park"). The study shall include an assessment of the available alternatives, together with cost estimates and recommendations regarding preferred options. The study shall specifically consider and develop plans for the closing of those public highways (known as routes 29 and 234) that transect the park and shall include analysis of the timing and method of such closures and of means to provide alternative routes for traffic now transecting the park. The Secretary shall provide for extensive public involvement in the preparation of the study;” and

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 6 of 94 WHEREAS, the CTB resolution titled, Modification of the June 15, 2006, Location Approval for the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass (approved February 20, 2013) declared that (i) portions of Route 234 transecting MNBP may be abandoned as part of the BCP prior to “the completion of the Bypass or any other necessary regional transportation system improvements, mitigation, and other conditions” and (ii) “the abandonment action may commence upon the completion and opening to traffic [of] that portion of the TCP between Route 66 and the proposed intersection with existing Route 234 near Catharpin;” and WHEREAS, the CTB resolution titled, Modification of the November 17, 2005, Location Approval for the Tri-County Parkway Project in Prince William and Loudoun Counties and Recognition of the Intent to Abandon Portions of Route 234 Transecting the Manassas National Battlefield Park as a part of the Tri-County Parkway Project (approved February 20, 2013) declared that the CTB (i) “shall take whatever action is required for the abandonment of portions of Route 234 transecting the MNBP as part of the TCP project and that such abandonment will occur upon the completion and opening to traffic [of] that portion of the TCP between Route 66 and the proposed intersection with existing Route 234 near Catharpin,” and (ii) “recognizes that the Commissioner intends to enter into an agreement to declare certain portions of Route 234 transecting the MNBP abandoned upon completion of the portion of the TCP described above, pursuant to his authority granted by § 33.1-148 of the Code of Virginia, and in accordance with that same agreement, to convey the existing Route 234 real property interest in the abandoned sections to the National Park Service;” and WHEREAS, the FHWA has authorized the VDOT to conduct consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the Undertaking on its behalf pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, including the initiation of the Section 106 process, identification of historic properties, and assessment of adverse effects, but remains legally responsible for all required findings and determinations reached pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800; and WHEREAS, the VDOT, in consultation with the SHPO and other Consulting Parties, has defined the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for CBA West Two (Attachment 2) for the BCP in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1). The portion of the APE for direct effects is a 600-foot-wide corridor that includes the proposed highway right of way and any related temporary or permanent easements where direct impacts from construction of the proposed highway may occur. The portion of the APE for indirect effects (such as visual and auditory) is a 1000-foot-wide corridor plus any above-ground resources adjacent to or visible from the corridor. Secondary effects have the potential to occur within and beyond this 1000-foot-wide corridor, particularly adjacent to proposed intersection areas and in other rural land areas near the corridor, such as Groveton Road (SC Route 622) and Featherbed Lane (SC Route 622), where there is the potential for new development and other changes in land use induced by the Undertaking; and WHEREAS, the VDOT, in consultation with the SHPO and other Consulting Parties, has completed studies to identify within the Undertaking’s APE all buildings, structures,

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 7 of 94 non-archaeological districts, and objects meeting the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Attachment 3), in accordance with 36 CFR §800.4 (Attachment 4); and WHEREAS, the VDOT, in consultation with the SHPO and other Consulting Parties, has initiated studies to identify within the BCP’s APE archaeological sites or districts meeting the criteria for listing on the NRHP (Attachment 3) in accordance with 36 CFR §800.4 (Attachment 4); and, under the terms of this Programmatic Agreement (Agreement), will be completing remaining actions needed to identify archaeological sites and districts by studying the estimated (based on a right of way width of 150 feet) 3.8 acres of proposed highway right of way that will be acquired from within MNBP and the estimated 12.6 acres (on the east side of Pageland Lane) of the total of 36.0 acres of proposed highway right of way that will be acquired from within the NRHP-listed boundary of Manassas Battlefield Historic District and the American Battlefield Protection Program’s (ABPP) Potential National Register boundary for the Manassas II battlefield, beyond the boundary of MNBP, as well as additional areas that may be impacted by proposed mitigation activities; and WHEREAS, the VDOT, in consultation with the SHPO and other Consulting Parties, has determined that the Undertaking will have an adverse effect on historic properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. As described by VDOT in its letter of July 10, 2012, to the SHPO, properties potentially adversely affected include (i) the Manassas National Battlefield Park (MNBP) (DHR Inventory No. 076-0271, listed on the NRHP in October 1966) and the contributing elements, the unfinished Independent Line of the Manassas Gap Railroad (“Unfinished Railroad”) (44PW0580/44PW0299) and Sudley United Methodist Church (076-0062), and other contributing lands within the park; (ii) Manassas Battlefield Historic District (076-0271, amended NRHP nomination and boundary expansion January 2006 ) and the contributing elements Pageland I (076-0138), Pageland II (076-0137), the Dunklin Monument (076-0271-0062, 44PW0579), Sudley United Methodist Church (076-0062), and the “Unfinished Railroad,” and other contributing lands within the district; and (iii) the Putnam-Patton House/Deseret (076-0179); and WHEREAS, MNBP, currently comprised of 5,074 acres, was established in 1940 to preserve the landscape of the Battle of First Manassas (July 1861) and the Battle of Second Manassas (August 1862); and Manassas Battlefield Historic District, comprised of approximately 6,470 acres, encompasses MNBP and additional surrounding properties linked together through their association with the First and Second Battles of Manassas; and the 2006 NRHP form for the Manassas Battlefield Historic District boundary increase states “The battlefield retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association with the historic events that occurred on the property during the Civil War. With reference to man-made resources, such as the dwellings, military embattlements, and the Unfinished Railroad, Manassas Battlefield has integrity of design, workmanship, and material” and is listed on the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C, and D; and WHEREAS, the NPS’s ABPP, in its July 2009 update for the Commonwealth of Virginia of the 1993 Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's Civil

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 8 of 94 War Battlefields, identified 8,006 acres associated with the ABPP’s “Manassas II battlefield (VA026)” (otherwise known as Battle of Second Manassas) as potentially eligible for the NRHP, and these acres encompass the boundary of MNBP, the majority of the land included in the boundary of Manassas Battlefield Historic District, as the latter is defined in the 2006 NRHP-listed Manassas Battlefield Historic District boundary expansion, and 1,692 additional acres not included in either the MNBP or Manassas Battlefield Historic District (Attachment 5); and WHEREAS, for the purposes of the application of Section 106 of the NHPA to the Undertaking, the VDOT, in consultation with the SHPO and the Consulting Parties, has determined to assume that the 1,692 additional acres associated with the ABPP’s “Manassas II battlefield” are eligible for the NRHP, will treat this acreage as an historic property as defined at 36 CFR 800.16(l), and will treat Pageland Lane as a contributing element to this historic property. The SHPO has concurred in this approach by letter dated August 23, 2013; and WHEREAS, for the purposes of this Agreement, the acreage listed on the NRHP in 2006 as “Manassas Battlefield Historic District” and the acreage associated with the ABPP’s “Manassas II battlefield (VA026)” and identified by the ABPP in 2009 as potentially eligible for the NRHP, shall hereinafter in this Agreement be referred to collectively as “MBHD” (Attachment 5); and WHEREAS, the 4-acre Putnam-Patton House/Deseret property is historically significant under NRHP Criterion C for the main house, constructed ca. 1860, which embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Italianate style and displays a high degree of integrity; and WHEREAS, based on a maximum right of way width of 150 (one hundred fifty) feet, the BCP will convert an estimated 3.8 acres within MNBP and 36.0 acres within MBHD, beyond the boundary of MNBP, into a transportation facility, introduce into the landscape and historic setting of the MNBP and MBHD, and their contributing properties and lands, transportation infrastructure that would alter and potentially obscure significant battlefield viewsheds, result in an increase in traffic-generated noise within the battlefield landscape, and potentially induce changes in land use within MBHD and its historic setting; and these factors would result in the diminishment of the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of MNBP and MBHD; and WHEREAS, the VDOT has modified the alignment of the BCP within the corridor for CBA West Two to avoid direct effects on the Putnam-Patton House/Deseret, but the Undertaking retains the potential to introduce noise and visual elements that may diminish the integrity of the property’s historic setting; and WHEREAS, the FHWA, with the assistance of VDOT, has consulted with the SHPO and the other Consulting Parties to resolve the potential adverse effects of the BCP on historic properties in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f), and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800; and

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 9 of 94 WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to ensure continued compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, whereby VDOT will carry out consultation for design development and, prior to any effort that may directly or adversely affect the MNBP or the MBHD, will undertake planning and actions as may be necessary to avoid, mitigate and minimize harm and will afford the Signatories and Consulting Parties a reasonable opportunity to comment, respectively, as further set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Undertaking requires lands from the MNBP and the MBHD, and FHWA’s use of land from the two historic properties is contingent on compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303 (Section 4(f)); and WHEREAS, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1), the FHWA has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of the consultation to develop this Agreement by letters dated October 11, 2007, and July 10, 2012, and the ACHP has chosen to participate in consultation as stated in their letter to FHWA of August 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, the VDOT assumed a major role in initiating the Section 106 review for the Undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(4), and the FHWA has asked the VDOT to be an Invited Signatory to this Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(2)(iii); and WHEREAS, the NPS, the federal Agency with jurisdiction over the MNBP and which manages the park as a unit of the National Park System, has participated in the Section 106 consultation for the Undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(5), and the FHWA has asked the NPS to be an Invited Signatory to this Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6(c)(2)(iii); and WHEREAS, by letter dated July 25, 2012, the FHWA has provided the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma the opportunity to participate in the Section 106 process for the Undertaking as a Consulting Party pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(2)(ii); and WHEREAS, Loudoun and Prince William counties have participated in the Section 106 process for the Undertaking as Consulting Parties pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.2(c)(3), and the FHWA has invited each county to concur in this Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(c)(3); and WHEREAS, the FHWA has recognized as other consulting parties pursuant to 36 CFR §800.2(c)(5), the American Battlefield Protection Program, the Bull Run Civil War Roundtable, the Civil War Trust, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the Friends of Manassas National Battlefield Park (this organization no longer exists), the General Trimbles Community Association, the National Parks Conservation Association, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Sudley Springs Catharpin Civic Association, Sudley United Methodist Church, the Washington Airports Task Force, the Zouave Hills Roadusers Association, and property owners Mr. John Bradshaw, Ms. Denise Costley

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 10 of 94 (owner of the Putnam-Patton/Deseret property), Ms. Mary Ann Ghadban (owner of land within MBHD), Ms. Philomena Hefter, Ms. Martha Hendley, Mr. Shawn Moler, Ms. Page Snyder (owner of the Pageland II property within MBHD), and Mr. Keith Webster, and has invited each of these parties to concur in this Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(c)(3); and WHEREAS, the FHWA may identify additional Consulting Parties to the Section 106 process for the Undertaking in the future as post-agreement consultation proceeds; and WHEREAS, under agreement to the VDOT the Federal Highway Administration’s Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) will participate in further consultation on the design of the BCP pursuant to Stipulation I and assist the VDOT in implementing Stipulation II.E of this Agreement, and the FHWA has invited EFLHD to concur in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of providing the public the opportunity to comment on the Undertaking, the VDOT has maintained a public website with project information about the BCP and has held Location Public Hearings for the BCP in Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudoun counties on May 9, 10, and 11, 2005; a Citizens Information Meeting on June 3, 2013, in Prince William County; Citizens Information Meetings on October 1, 2013, in Loudoun County and October 3, 2013, in Prince William County; and additional meetings with local community groups, elected officials, and other interested parties during 2013; and WHEREAS, this Agreement contains provisions to ensure that all commitments on consultation and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of project effects contained herein are implemented if the VDOT engages a Design/Build Contractor or Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Concessionaire to design or construct the BCP; NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA, the SHPO, the ACHP, the VDOT, and the NPS (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Signatories”) agree that this Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties.


STIPULATIONS

The FHWA, in coordination with VDOT, shall ensure that the following stipulations are carried out:

I. General Design Parameters of the BCP within Approved Corridor In consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance to the process described in Paragraph K of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall apply the following design parameters to the section of the BCP between I-66 and the northern boundary of the MBHD along Pageland Lane for the purpose of minimizing and mitigating the project’s effects on MNBP and MBHD. These design parameters are not binding on VDOT for other sections of the BCP outside the boundaries of MNBP and MBHD.

A. Alignment of BCP

The VDOT shall design the BCP in the vicinity of MNBP and MBHD so that the alignment of the BCP within the 600-foot corridor studied for CBA West Two coincides with the corridor for Modified Candidate Build Alternative D for the MNBP Bypass (Attachment 6). South of Route 29, the BCP alignment will run west of the Dunklin Monument and shall avoid direct impacts to this property. As the BCP proceeds north from Route 29, the alignment will run west of Pageland Lane (Route 705) to a point north of the “Unfinished Railroad,” where the alignment will cross to the east of Pageland Lane onto MNBP property. In developing the portion of the alignment on the east side of Pageland Lane, the VDOT shall avoid or minimize impacts to the “Unfinished Railroad,” the quarry associated with the railroad, and any other archaeological properties identified pursuant to Stipulation IV of this Agreement located within the boundaries of MNBP and MBHD and considered to contribute to the significance of the battlefield properties. The Signatories, in consultation with EFLHD, shall determine the location of this portion of the alignment by mutual agreement. The alignment of the BCP shall not encroach into the already established Dominion Virginia Power easement near the western boundary of MNBP.


B. Context Sensitive Design

1. In its further development of the BCP within MNBP and MBHD the VDOT shall collaborate with the Signatories and Consulting Parties pursuant to the consultation process described in Paragraph K of this Stipulation to achieve a highway that best fits its physical and historic setting, minimizes adverse effects on historic properties, and emphasizes community, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values, without compromising transportation safety, maintenance, mobility, cost, schedule and performance. In doing so, the VDOT shall apply to the design and placement of the highway within the 600-ft corridor for CBA West Two, where practical, the processes and solutions detailed in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, and, where applicable, shall apply the general principles expressed in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68, published in the July 12, 1995 Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 133). The VDOT shall document its consideration of these processes, solutions, and general principles for the design of the highway and provide the Signatories and Consulting Parties with indication of where it has determined the application of these processes, solutions, and general principles to the design to be practical and in the public interest, taking into consideration operational effectiveness and cost, without compromising safety.

2. After consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall incorporate into the design of the BCP, at the boundaries of and within MBHD, features and elements that demarcate the highway’s entrance into MBHD and provide a continuity of positive enhancements of the transportation facility in an aesthetically appealing manner that is context-sensitive and compatible with the historic characteristics of MNBP and MBHD. Such features and elements may include, but are not limited to landscaping, lighting, signage, and specified treatments for guardrails, overpasses or underpasses, and other components of the highway streetscape (e.g., treatment of the façades of structures, color, materials).


C. Right of Way and Typical Section

1. The VDOT shall design the section of the BCP within MBHD to VDOT’s geometric design standards for a four (4)- lane, limited access, rural principal arterial highway, with a design speed not to exceed 60 miles per hour (mph), as described in VDOT’s Road Design Manual (2005, or any subsequent revisions or replacements thereto) (see Appendix A, type GS-1, Page A-7; http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/locdes/ Electronic%20Pubs/2005%20RDM/RoadDesignCoverVol.1.pdf ) and with no more than two (2) through lanes in each direction, including all lanes associated with the MNBP Bypass. The VDOT shall implement a reduced design speed as low as 55 mph for the section of the BCP within MBHD if VDOT determines the reduced speed will not compromise transportation safety or not unduly compromise the performance of the BCP in relation to its purpose and need. If after due consideration the VDOT determines that it will not implement a reduced design speed as low as 55 mph because the reduction would compromise safety or unduly compromise the performance of the BCP in relation to its purpose and need, the VDOT shall provide the Signatories and Consulting Parties a written explanation of this finding.

2. Pursuant to the standards and criteria, the typical section of this portion of the BCP shall consist of the following components: a grassed median, four (4) travel lanes, two (2) interior paved shoulders, two (2) exterior paved shoulders, and two (2) exterior ditches. The VDOT shall build these components of the highway within a right of way no wider than 150 (one hundred fifty) feet, but shall attempt to reduce the width of the right of way and roadway section and otherwise minimize the project’s impacts on the MBHD and MNBP to the maximum extent possible as follows.


a) The VDOT shall direct the project designer (whether it be VDOT itself or a consultant engaged by VDOT) to evaluate reasonable and appropriate design waivers and exceptions that would reduce adverse effects to MNBP and MBHD and specific contributing properties by reducing the width of the roadway section and right of way to minimize the section of the BCP within MNBP and MBHD. In attempting to minimize the adverse effects of the Undertaking, the VDOT shall direct the designer to consider the processes and solutions detailed in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design and the FHWA’s document, Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/). The VDOT shall direct the designer to propose solutions for VDOT’s consideration which will achieve a minimum footprint which will ultimately provide a safe and effective roadway within MNBP and MBHD.

b) The VDOT shall consider all reasonable design waivers and exceptions presented by the designer and shall accommodate, when reasonable and appropriate, such waivers and exceptions as provided for in VDOT’s Instructional and Informational Memorandum: Design Exceptions/Waivers, IIM-LD-227.5 and IM-S&B-70.3, which recognizes the FHWA publication, Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions, as providing mitigation efforts that shall be followed when processing design exceptions.

c) The VDOT shall inform the other Signatories and Consulting Parties in writing what design waivers and exceptions were presented by the designer and, if applicable, why the VDOT did not accommodate the proposals.


D. Design Features Desirable for Minimizing and Mitigating Visual and Auditory Effects

1. The VDOT shall identify and explore features that VDOT can incorporate into the design of the BCP that would minimize the potential auditory and visual effects of the undertaking on MNBP and MBHD, including effects on the viewsheds from MNBP toward areas of MBHD west of Pageland Lane and from MNBP and MBHD toward the Bull Run Mountains.

2. The VDOT, in consultation with the NPS and the SHPO, shall use viewshed analysis to determine significant viewsheds that are in need of protection and determine appropriate treatments. The analysis will use up to seven relevant Public Vantage Points and/or Historically-Based Viewsheds selected for study in the Manassas Battlefields Viewshed Plan (Revised May 10, 2010; prepared by The Walker Collaborative, History Associates, Inc., and Land Planning & Design Associates for Prince William County under ABPP Grant No. GA-2255-06-007).

3. Potential noise reduction features that VDOT will consider, either alone or in combination, include, but are not limited to, in order of preference:

• the depression of the roadway below existing grade; • quiet pavement; • the use of as low as a 55 mph design speed; • the use of a posted speed limit of 55 mph and, depending on

ultimate adjacent speed limits south of Route 29, a posted speed limit of 50 mph in the section of the BCP near Route 29; and

• berms.

4. Potential features that VDOT will consider, either alone or in combination, for minimizing visual effects include, but are not limited to, in order of preference:

• the depression of the roadway below existing grade; • vegetative screens or other landscaping; and • berms.


5. After consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall come to mutual agreement with the Signatories over which types of features that would reduce the auditory and/or visual effects of the Undertaking will be used, with consideration given to a proposed measure’s constructability, demonstrated effectiveness in reducing traffic noise and/or visual effects, ability to meet structural and safety requirements, durability, aesthetics, compatibility with the historic setting of MNBP and MBHD, and overall cost effectiveness.

6. The VDOT may require additional right of way beyond the 150 (one hundred fifty) feet to accommodate certain types of features (i.e., depression of the roadway below existing grade or the use of berms or vegetative screens) that VDOT might incorporate into the design of the BCP for the purposes of minimizing the visual or auditory effects of the BCP on historic properties. After consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall come to mutual agreement with the Signatories over the use or acquisition of additional right of way for these purposes. In no case shall the right of way exceed 200 (two hundred) feet in width.

E. Storm Water Management Facilities

The VDOT shall design the storm water management (SWM) facilities for the BCP in a manner that minimizes their physical impacts and visual effects on the historic properties. The VDOT also shall design the SWM facilities within the 150 (one hundred fifty)-foot right of way described in Stipulation I.C. If local terrain and topography prevent VDOT from accommodating SWM facilities necessary to meet environmental regulations within the 150 (one hundred fifty)-foot right of way, after consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation the VDOT shall come to mutual agreement with the Signatories over the use or acquisition of additional right of way for these purposes. In no case shall the right of way exceed 200 (two hundred) feet in width.

F. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Pursuant to the CTB’s resolution dated November 17, 2005, and titled, Location Approval for the Tri-County Parkway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be provided in the design of the BCP in accordance with VDOT’s Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations (http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/resources/bike_ped_policy.pdf). In designing these facilities within the MNBP and MBHD, the VDOT shall balance the goals of achieving the most economical and least damaging use of the land to encourage the construction of facilities that follow existing terrain. Achieving this


objective may require that such facilities are shared between VDOT and NPS, using both Commonwealth right of way associated with the BCP and MNBP property; however, the VDOT shall fund the design and construction of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If the VDOT finds it necessary or desirable to place any portion of these facilities beyond the 150 (one hundred fifty)-foot right of way, after consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation the VDOT shall reach mutual agreement with the Signatories over the acquisition of additional right of way or easements for the purposes of providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the MNBP or MBHD or over the use of any NPS lands for the facilities.

G. Access to Properties

The VDOT shall keep Pageland Lane (Route 705) open to through traffic after completion of the BCP and, to the greatest extent possible, shall utilize existing road infrastructure in meeting any of its remaining obligations associated with implementation of the BCP to provide access to a state maintained and operated public road to those properties accessed from Pageland Lane within MBHD. The VDOT shall consult with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation, and with the local community, to develop a design for local access to properties that is sensitive to the historic contexts of MNBP and MBHD. The VDOT shall come to mutual agreement with the Signatories over the final design for access roads within the MBHD and for the VDOT’s use or acquisition of additional right of way beyond 150 (one hundred fifty) feet within MBHD for the provision of access.

H. Accommodation of Pageland Lane

In developing a design for the BCP that will allow Pageland Lane (Route 705) to remain open to through traffic after completion of the BCP, the VDOT shall give consideration to minimizing potential effects on MNBP and MBHD, and on Pageland Lane itself, a contributing element to MBHD. After consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall come to mutual agreement with the Signatories over the final design for Pageland Lane and for the VDOT’s use or acquisition of additional right of way beyond 150 (one hundred fifty) feet within MBHD for accommodating this design.

I. Route 29 Crossing

The VDOT shall design and construct the BCP at the Route 29 crossing to be grade-separated. In order to minimize traffic impacts to MNBP, the manner in which vehicles will connect will be limited. To that end, the VDOT shall design and construct the grade-separated interchange with vehicular movements and connections for only:

• southbound BCP (Route 234) to southbound/westbound Route 29;


• northbound BCP (Route 234) to southbound/westbound Route 29; • northbound/eastbound Route 29 to southbound BCP (Route 234); and • northbound/eastbound Route 29 to northbound BCP (Route 234).

No other movements or connections will be designed or constructed at the Route 29/BCP (Route 234) grade-separated interchange as part of the Undertaking. VDOT shall use vertical construction at the crossing for the purpose of remaining within the 150 (one hundred fifty)-foot right of way described in Stipulation I.C of this Agreement, and after consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties and EFLHD in accordance with Paragraph K of this Stipulation shall come to mutual agreement with the Signatories over the use or acquisition of additional right of way within MBHD for these purposes. In no case shall the right of way exceed 200 (two hundred) feet along the BCP alignment. In designing the crossing, the VDOT shall minimize its height for the purpose of minimizing the crossing’s visual effects on MNBP and MBHD, while also addressing other factors, including appropriate clearance, safety, and cost.

J. Limited Access

In its resolution titled, Location Approval for the Tri-County Parkway, approved November 17, 2005, the CTB designated the BCP as a “limited access” highway, as defined in § 33.1-57 of the Code of Virginia and as described in the DEIS and presented at the Location Public Hearings. In accordance with this designation, in the vicinity of MNBP and MBHD, between I-66 and Route 234 (Sudley Road), direct access to and from the BCP is limited to three public roads -- I-66, Route 29, and Route 234 (Sudley Road) – and does not include direct access to private driveways. North of Route 234 direct access is limited to two additional public roads: Route 620 (Braddock Road) and Route 50. Pursuant to 24VAC30-401-10, changes in limited access control require CTB approval, and the CTB will not consider a change without the written determination of the VDOT Chief Engineer. In regard to the BCP, the VDOT Chief Engineer shall not propose to the CTB the approval of any future additional connections south of Route 234 (Sudley Road).

K. Consultation on Further Design

The VDOT shall develop the design of the Undertaking, including each element of design addressed in the preceding paragraphs A through J of this Stipulation, in consultation with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD in accordance with the following process.


1. After approval of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the FHWA’s issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD), and prior to initiating the design phase of the BCP, the VDOT shall conduct a preliminary design workshop with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD, the purpose of which shall be to provide these parties an early opportunity to offer comments on the design of the Undertaking. The VDOT may hold additional preliminary design workshops at its discretion.

2. Upon formal initiation of the design phase of the BCP, the VDOT shall facilitate at least two (2) additional design workshops with the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD to evaluate alternative designs for proposed reduction of adverse effects to MNBP and MBHD, and specific contributing elements to these historic properties. Consulting Parties (not to include the Signatories) representing a government agency or program or a preservation, conservation, or residents association shall be represented by no more than two (2) individuals at each design workshop.

3. VDOT shall hold the first of these additional design workshops as a first step in the initiation of the design phase of the BCP. The purpose of this workshop is to establish which design features of the BCP are of concern to the workshop participants and to obtain suggestions regarding development of concepts to address those concerns.

4. VDOT shall hold the second of these additional design workshops prior to beginning preliminary design itself or procuring a contract for the preliminary design of the BCP. The purpose of the second workshop is for VDOT to present preliminary concepts, developed in response to comments received at the first workshop, for the road’s major design features such as grade-separated interchanges, bridges, lane, shoulder and median widths, and potential noise and visual minimization features. The VDOT shall invite workshop attendees to make recommendations on which concepts should be carried forward or suggest new concepts that may be considered in the preliminary design process. If the VDOT procures a contract for the design of the BCP, the VDOT shall include provisions in any Request for Proposals for design to ensure that all commitments contained within this Agreement and agreed upon design elements that come out of the design workshops are implemented.

5. If VDOT does not design the BCP itself, but instead procures a contractor to prepare the design, the VDOT shall hold a third additional design workshop with its design consultant, the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD after the VDOT has procured the design contractor, but prior to said contractor submitting its first draft of preliminary design plans to VDOT.


6. After the second or third additional design workshop, as applicable, the VDOT or its consultant shall develop design plans, and the VDOT shall submit the design plans for review and comment to the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and the EFLHD. VDOT shall distribute the design plans electronically, by mail, or at workshop meetings, as determined appropriate by workshop participants. The Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD agree to provide comments to the VDOT on the preliminary design plans within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt. If no comments are received from a Signatory, a Consulting Party, or EFLHD, the VDOT may assume that the non-responding party has no comment. The VDOT shall review and take comments into consideration.

7. The VDOT shall hold a final design workshop to discuss final disposition of all comments received from the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD. The final preliminary design plans will become the foundation for development of the final design plans that will be used for construction of the Undertaking.

8. The VDOT shall provide the Signatories, Consulting Parties, and EFLHD a copy of the final design plans prior to the Chief Engineer’s approval of the final design, accompanied by a written summary prepared by VDOT demonstrating how the agency has taken into consideration earlier comments received from these parties.

9. Any mitigation proposed for implementation within proposed or existing VDOT right of way as a result of the workshops shall be subject to the VDOT’s regulations and approval.

10. As described in the preceding paragraphs of this Stipulation, the mutual agreement of the Signatories is required for VDOT’s location of the alignment of the BCP within the 600-ft corridor for CBA West Two in the vicinity of MNBP and MBHD, final design for access roads within the MBHD, the final design for Pageland Lane, the types of features that will be incorporated into the design to minimize the auditory and/or visual effects of the BCP on MNBP and MBHD, and the VDOT’s use or acquisition of additional right of way beyond 150 (one hundred fifty) feet in width within MBHD. The VDOT shall document design measures that are agreed upon by the Signatories in a Supplement to this Agreement (or an addendum to this Agreement), specifying the measures it will take to minimize the effects of the Undertaking on the MNBP and MBHD. FHWA shall circulate the Supplement(s)/addendum(a) to the Signatories for their signatures and, once signed by all of the Signatories, the VDOT will ensure that the Supplement(s)/addendum(a) are transmitted to all Consulting Parties and that the measures are incorporated in the final project design. If the Signatories are not in agreement regarding the final preliminary design plans, such disagreement will be addressed through the dispute resolution process outlined in Stipulation XV.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 21 of 94 II. Additional Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Effects on MNBP and MBHD The VDOT shall take the following actions to address the adverse effects to MNBP and MBHD associated with the Undertaking:

A. Access to Brawner Farm

Pursuant to the terms of Stipulation I.G of this Agreement, the VDOT shall keep Pageland Lane (Route 705) open to through traffic after completion of the BCP. If desired and requested by NPS during the design phase for the BCP, the VDOT shall either (1) design and construct any reasonable improvements NPS desires to the connection between Pageland Lane and the NPS’s existing access road to the Brawner Farm parking area (076-0168), a significant feature of MNBP, or (2) design and construct a new access road to Brawner Farm from Route 29 on MNBP property. The new access road would run north from Route 29 along the east side of a hedgerow just east of the Swart Cemetery, or follow another alignment mutually agreed upon by the VDOT and NPS. Pursuant to the requirements of Stipulation IV the VDOT, in coordination with the Signatories and Consulting Parties, shall complete archeological studies to assess the potential impacts of the improvement chosen by the NPS. The VDOT shall complete construction of either improvement chosen by the NPS prior to the commencement of construction of the BCP, or on a different schedule mutually agreed upon by the VDOT and NPS.

B. Access to Stuart’s Hill Center

Construction of the BCP on its alignment where it intersects Route 29 will require that the NPS’s existing access road to the Stuart’s Hill Center from Pageland Lane (Route 705) be closed. For the purpose of mitigating the effect of the road closure, the VDOT, in coordination with the NPS, other Signatories, and Consulting Parties, shall complete archaeological studies to assess impacts of a new access road to Stuart’s Hill Center from Route 29 pursuant to the requirements of Stipulation IV of this Agreement and design the new access road. The VDOT shall construct this new road prior to the commencement of construction of the BCP. The new access road to Stuart’s Hill Center from Route 29 shall be on an alignment mutually agreed upon by the VDOT and NPS.


C. Traffic Calming on Route 29, Groveton Road (Route 622), and Featherbed Lane (Route 622) within MNBP

1. The VDOT shall fund and implement the design and construction of traffic calming measures along Route 29 within MNBP for the purpose of controlling the speed of traffic on Route 29 through the MNBP, while preserving the historic character of the MNBP, until the MNBP Bypass has been constructed and the road can then be closed to through traffic. The maximum amount that VDOT shall be obligated to provide for the design and construction of the traffic calming measures on Route 29 shall be $300,000 (Three hundred thousand dollars). Pursuant to the terms of Stipulation VIII.B, the VDOT shall consult with the Signatories, Prince William County, and Consulting Parties in developing the design of the traffic calming measures. The VDOT will not employ the following types of traffic calming measures on Route 29 through MNBP as part of this effort: speed humps, speed tables, raised intersections, traffic circles, and roundabouts. The VDOT shall complete the construction of the traffic calming measures on Route 29 no later than six (6) months prior to the projected opening of the BCP to traffic. Should the VDOT determine in the course of consultation with the Signatories, Prince William County, and Consulting Parties that additional traffic calming measures on Route 29 through MNBP, beyond those that can be designed and constructed within the VDOT’s funding limit of Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), are desirable, the VDOT shall explore obtaining additional, third-party funding (e.g., grant funding) to cover the cost of implementing these additional measures.

2. Within one (1) year following the VDOT’s abandonment and the NPS’s subsequent implementation of restrictions on through-traffic on any section of Route 234 described in Stipulation II.D of this Agreement, the VDOT shall fund and conduct a traffic study for the purpose of determining whether traffic volume rises on Groveton Road and/or Featherbed Lane as a result of these actions. The VDOT shall provide the results of this study to the Signatories, Prince William County, and Consulting Parties for review and comment pursuant to the requirements of Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement. Should the VDOT determine during the course of consultation with the Signatories, Prince William County, and Consulting Parties that traffic calming measures are warranted to mitigate higher volumes of traffic on Groveton Road and/or Featherbed Lane within MNBP resulting from abandonment of any section of Route 234 within MNBP, the VDOT shall fund and implement these additional measures. The maximum amount that VDOT shall be obligated to provide for the design and construction of traffic calming measures on Groveton Road and Featherbed Lane shall be $100,000 (One hundred thousand dollars).


3. The VDOT shall ensure that any traffic calming measures the agency implements on Route 29, Groveton Road, and Featherbed Lane are consistent with the standards of the NPS, Prince William County, and the VDOT and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (1996) (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hps/contents.htm) (or any revision or replacement to that document), and are compatible with the historic character of the MNBP. Pursuant to the terms of Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement, the VDOT shall provide the NPS, other Signatories, and Consulting Parties the opportunity to review and comment on draft traffic calming plans prior to installation.


D. Abandonment and Restriction of Through-Traffic on Route 234 within MNBP

The VDOT, with the cooperation of the NPS, shall pursue the abandonment of Route 234 within MNBP, and the NPS shall restrict through-traffic on such abandoned sections of Route 234 within MNBP by working through the following processes for the segment of existing Route 234 that transects MNBP, from the north side of the Northern Virginia Community College, Manassas Campus, entrance road northward to the south side of Featherbed Lane (Route 622).

1. CTB Resolution

In furtherance of the objective to abandon Route 234 upon the completion of the BCP, the CTB has already considered and acted on two resolutions. The CTB resolution titled Modification of the June 15, 2006, Location Approval for the Manassas National Battlefield Park Bypass (approved February 20, 2013) declared that (i) portions of Route 234 transecting MNBP may be abandoned as part of the BCP prior to “ the completion of the [MNBP] Bypass or any other necessary regional transportation system improvements, mitigation, and other conditions” and (ii) “the abandonment action may commence upon the completion and opening to traffic [of] that portion of the [BCP] between Route 66 and the proposed intersection with existing Route 234 near Catharpin.” The CTB resolution titled Modification of the November 17, 2005, Location Approval for the Tri-County Parkway Project in Prince William and Loudoun Counties and Recognition of the Intent to Abandon Portions of Route 234 Transecting the Manassas National Battlefield Park as part of the Tri-County Parkway Project (approved February 20, 2013) declared that the CTB (i) “shall take whatever action is required for the abandonment of portions of Route 234 transecting the MNBP as part of the [BCP] project and that such abandonment will occur upon the completion and opening to traffic [of] that portion of the [BCP] between Route 66 and the proposed intersection with existing Route 234 near Catharpin,” and (ii) “recognizes that the Commissioner intends to enter into an agreement to declare certain portions of Route 234 transecting the MNBP abandoned upon completion of the portion of the [BCP] described above, pursuant to his authority granted by § 33.1-148 of the Code of Virginia, and in accordance with that same agreement, to convey the existing Route 234 real property interest in the abandoned sections to the National Park Service.”


2. Abandonment of Road

a) For the purposes of this Agreement, four sections of the segment of existing Route 234 that transects MNBP, from the north side of the Northern Virginia Community College, Manassas Campus, entrance road northward to the south side of Featherbed Lane (Route 622), have been defined as follows (Attachment 7):

(i) Section A is that portion of existing Route 234 from the north side of the Northern Virginia Community College, Manassas Campus, entrance road to existing Route 29; this portion has no private property ownership, and the NPS owns at least a portion of the underlying property interests and presently grants to VDOT, under a permit agreement that expires on September 1, 2020, the permission to operate and maintain existing Route 234;

(ii) Section B is that portion of existing Route 234 from existing Route 29 to a point approximately 0.9 miles north of existing Route 29; this portion has no private property ownership;

(iii) Section C is that portion of existing Route 234 from approximately 0.9 miles north of existing Route 29 to the south side of Poplar Ford Trail; and

(iv) Section D is that portion of existing Route 234 from the south side of Poplar Ford Trail to the south side of Featherbed Lane.

b) The VDOT and the NPS hereby agree and determine that VDOT shall abandon Section A and Section B of Route 234 immediately upon the opening and acceptance of the BCP replacement project, as further defined herein, into the State System of Highways, in accordance with the authority granted to VDOT under law.


c) No later than six (6) months prior to the anticipated completion of the construction and opening of that portion of the BCP between I-66 and the proposed intersection with existing Route 234, near Catharpin, the VDOT and NPS shall initiate a process to determine property owners that have access to their property from Section C or Section D of Route 234. The VDOT and NPS shall prepare and agree upon a draft memorandum of agreement, in a form that can be recorded and run with the land records, whereby these property owners may agree to ingress and egress their property through a NPS-administered roadway. The VDOT and NPS shall notify these property owners of the pending highway system change and their continuing legal right to access a State maintained and operated public road for purposes of gaining ingress and egress to their property, and shall provide each property owner the opportunity to execute a memorandum of agreement with NPS accepting the NPS assumption, control, and maintenance of former Route 234 as the property owner’s alternative access to the State public road in Sections C and D and releasing VDOT from its obligations to the property owner. The memorandum of agreement shall require that NPS shall provide for maintenance and continued access for purposes of gaining ingress and egress to properties within the boundary of MNBP accessed from Sections C and D of Route 234, as appropriate. The FHWA and the VDOT shall not have any obligation or duty to enforce the property owner’s rights against the NPS.

d) To the extent that such agreements are reached between the NPS and the property owners that have access to their property from Section C or Section D of Route 234, the VDOT will determine which of these sections of Route 234 can be abandoned and which sections must remain in the system of state highways. The VDOT shall abandon Section C if the NPS obtains the agreement described above from the property owners located within the limits of that section of existing Route 234. The VDOT shall abandon Section D if the NPS obtains the agreements described above from all property owners located within the limits of both Section C and Section D of existing Route 234.


e) In accordance with the above determinations, the Commissioner, pursuant to §33.1-148 of the Code of Virginia, shall abandon Sections A and B of existing Route 234 immediately upon opening and acceptance of the BCP replacement project, as further defined herein, into the State System of Highways, from I-66 to Route 234 at Catharpin, and, if eligible for abandonment as described above, shall also abandon Sections C and/or D of existing Route 234, as applicable. The Commissioner shall enter all such abandonments upon the records of the VDOT.

f) The entry by the Commissioner of the abandonment of any section of Route 234 upon the records of the VDOT shall constitute the action required by 16 U.S.C. §429b-1(d) that allows the Secretary of the Interior to close or restrict the abandoned section to through traffic.

3. Agreement for Subsequent Administration of Route 234

Immediately upon the completion of any abandonment process, the VDOT and the NPS shall enter into an agreement providing NPS with the right to administer the abandoned section(s) of Route 234 including, but not limited to, road maintenance and repair, snow and ice control, traffic signing, pavement marking, and adopting appropriate traffic restrictions. No agreement between VDOT and NPS is necessary for the NPS’s administration of the portion of abandoned Section A to which the NPS already owns underlying property interests. The VDOT shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of any sections not abandoned.

4. NPS to Consult on Route 234 Access Rules and Procedures

The NPS shall hold at least two (2) public meetings, the purpose of which shall be for the NPS to consult with Prince William County, owners of property within the boundaries of MNBP, and other interested citizens to solicit input on the specific rules and procedures the NPS shall develop and implement for governing the future use of these sections of the road. The NPS also shall use the comments received at these meetings to inform its development of the rules and procedures the NPS will implement governing the use of Sections C and D of Route 234, should VDOT also abandon those sections of the road as described in Stipulation II.E.2.d, and which NPS may include in the memorandum of agreement described in Stipulation II.E.2.c. The NPS shall hold these public meetings prior to closing Sections A and B of Route 234 to through traffic, and shall provide notice of the date and location of each meeting to the Consulting Parties to this Agreement at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the scheduled dates.


5. Directional Signage for Sudley United Methodist Church

Prior to the NPS’s closing of Sections A and B of Route 234 to traffic, the VDOT shall install directional signage on the BCP and other appropriate roads indicating to travelers how Sudley United Methodist Church may be reached. The VDOT shall consult with Sudley United Methodist Church on the design and location of this signage.

6. Conveyance of Right of Way

Upon completion of any abandonment process, if the NPS so requests, the Commissioner shall initiate a process for the execution of a quitclaim deed conveying to NPS whatever property interest the Commonwealth has in the abandoned roadway right of way associated with the abandoned section of existing Route 234. The VDOT’s conveyance will be executed through donation of the Commonwealth’s highway property interest to the NPS, as acknowledgement of the land being made available within the boundary of MNBP for the Commonwealth’s construction of the BCP and related facilities (such as SWM, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or traffic calming on Route 29). The exact amount of Federal land administered by the NPS that will be needed for the BCP corridor segment approved by the CTB within MNBP will be determined as the design and plans are developed for the BCP to a point that the final right of way requirements are established.

7. NPS Administration of Abandoned Route 234

Upon execution of an agreement between the VDOT and the NPS authorizing the NPS’s administration of abandoned sections of Route 234, or upon the VDOT’s conveyance of the Commonwealth’s property interests in abandoned sections of Route 234 to the NPS, whichever occurs first, the NPS shall administer the abandoned highway right-of-way for park purposes consistent with any agreements the NPS has executed with property owners pursuant to Stipulation II.D.2.c of this Agreement and other applicable laws, NPS regulations, guidance, and policies. The NPS shall immediately adopt restrictions on through-traffic on the abandoned sections including restrictions that prohibit traffic from using Route 234 to access Route 29. The FHWA and the VDOT shall not have any obligation or duty to enforce such requirements against the NPS. The NPS may provide for access on a case by case basis for property owners adjacent to the park for special event and in limited circumstances.


8. Separate Agreement between VDOT and NPS

Upon the VDOT Chief Engineer’s approval of a design for the BCP following the Design Public Hearing, the VDOT and the NPS shall enter into a separate agreement that further describes and implements the commitments defined in Stipulation III.D of this Agreement, including the details for the specific responsibilities of VDOT and NPS in carrying out the process of abandoning and conveying the Commonwealth property interest to the United States and conveying of the United States property interest to the Commonwealth.

E. Preliminary Engineering and Design for MNBP Bypass

1. To mitigate further for the effects of the Undertaking on MNBP, the VDOT shall provide the following support to the NPS in their efforts to remove through-traffic on Route 29 within the park. The VDOT shall, on behalf of the NPS and after completion of the FEISs and issuance of RODs for both the BCP and the MNBP Bypass, execute an agreement with the EFLHD to complete the preliminary engineering and design of the MNBP Bypass. The VDOT shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with NPS and EFLHD to outline the process for preliminary engineering and design of the MNBP Bypass and the use and disbursement of Four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) that VDOT shall provide to fund the agreement with EFLHD. The VDOT shall not commit any funds pursuant to this section until the later of five (5) months after the issuance of the RODs for the BCP and MNBP Bypass or, if litigation is filed concerning the BCP or the MNBP Bypass, the issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction of a final, non-appealable order allowing the BCP or the MNBP Bypass to proceed. In no case shall the VDOT be responsible to provide such funds if the BCP is not constructed.

2. Within six (6) months of completion of the preliminary engineering and design work funded pursuant to this provision, NPS shall take all steps within its authority to obtain full funding for the MNBP Bypass. The VDOT agrees to support this request.

3. If so requested by NPS after completion of the FEISs and issuance of RODs for both the BCP and MNBP Bypass, the VDOT may apply a portion of the Four million dollars ($4,000,000.00) it shall allocate for the preliminary engineering and design of the MNBP Bypass, not to exceed One million dollars ($1,000,000.00), to the purchase of right of way for the MNBP Bypass in furtherance of the NPS’s preservation goals to close Route 29 through the MNBP and in accordance with procedures agreed to between VDOT, NPS, and FHWA for right of way acquisition for the MNBP Bypass.


4. The EFLHD and the NPS shall consult on the MNBP Bypass as a separate undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.

F. Conservation and Protection of Land Associated with MNBP and MBHD

1. The VDOT shall partner with a land conservation organization, in consultation with the NPS, the SHPO, and ACHP, and an Advisory Committee (as defined below), to achieve the permanent protection/conservation of land located adjacent to MNBP, or within the boundary of MBHD, and immediately adjacent to the section of the BCP where it is collocated with the MNBP Bypass (Attachment 7). The purpose of this initiative is to preserve the historic setting of MNBP and MBHD, preclude the widening of the BCP and direct access from the BCP to any private driveways and public roads other than I-66 and Route 29 within the area of the BCP adjacent to MNBP and within MBHD, and provide a buffer for the MNBP and MBHD and adjacent community from the BCP.

2. The VDOT shall provide a minimum of Five million dollars ($5,000,000) to fund this land protection/conservation initiative, and shall provide up to an additional Two million dollars ($2,000,000) to match, at a 1:1 (one-to-one) ratio, any funds provided by another party or parties (public or private parties using non-state and non-federal funds), contributing to the land protection/conservation initiative. The VDOT shall transfer these funds to its partnering organization according to the following schedule; however, the VDOT, at its discretion, may modify this schedule for disbursement of funds if so requested by the NPS, SHPO, or partnering organization:

• Three million dollars ($ 3,000,000) payable after the VDOT Chief Engineer’s approval of a design for the BCP following the Design Public Hearing [payable within three to six (3 to 6) months, extended day for day by the number of days of delay occasioned by litigation involving the BCP];

• Two million dollars ($ 2,000,000) payable after the VDOT Chief of Planning and Programming’s authorization of Right of Way for the BCP [payable within three to six (3 to 6) months, extended day for day by the number of days of delay occasioned by litigation involving the BCP]; and

• Two million dollars ($ 2,000,000) with two million dollars ($2,000,000) match payable at the initiation of the construction of the BCP [payable within three to six (3 to 6) months, extended day for day by the number of days of delay occasioned by litigation involving the BCP] provided that the matching funds have been made available by another party or parties.


3. If litigation is filed concerning the BCP, the VDOT shall not commit any funds pursuant to this section until the issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction of a final, non-appealable order allowing the BCP to proceed.

4. In the event the BCP is not constructed for any reason, the following provision shall apply. The VDOT shall in no case be responsible to provide the funds described in this Stipulation II.F. Following a request by the VDOT, the partnering organization shall return to the VDOT any and all unexpended funds transferred to the partnering organization by the VDOT pursuant to this Stipulation II.F; provided, the partnering organization shall have no obligation to reimburse the VDOT for any funds transferred pursuant to this Stipulation II.F that were expended by the partnering organization for the land protection initiatives described herein prior to the date of such request.

5. The VDOT shall add to the land protection/conservation fund any unexpended funds that may remain from the Four million dollars ($4,000,000) VDOT shall make available pursuant to Stipulation II.E.1 for the contract with EFLHD for preliminary engineering and design of the MNBP Bypass after final payment on that contract if the remaining funds have not been allocated to the purchase of right of way for MNBP Bypass at the request of the NPS under the terms of Stipulation II.E.3 of this Agreement. There are no requirements that these funds be matched by another party contributing to the land protection/conservation initiative before VDOT will apply them to the land protection/conservation fund.

6. Working as the VDOT’s agent, the land conservation organization shall use the funds provided by VDOT to work with willing sellers in order to protect battlefield lands, viewsheds, open space, archaeological sites, or other lands deemed important for their cultural or natural characteristics through either fee simple purchase, the purchase of conservation easements, or other legal mechanisms enforceable in perpetuity. For the purposes of this Agreement, “protect” shall mean to preserve by means of appropriate stewardship the significant conservation values present such as cultural and battlefield landscapes, viewsheds, archaeological sites, or open space.


7. The VDOT otherwise shall implement the land protection initiative as follows:

a) The VDOT’s choice of a partnering land conservation organization shall be approved by a majority of the Signatories.

b) The VDOT and the partnering land conservation organization shall implement this initiative in consultation with the NPS, the SHPO, the ACHP, and an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee shall be comprised of members invited by VDOT to represent interested individuals or organizations recognized as Consulting Parties to the Undertaking, and, at VDOT’s discretion, additional representatives of local, state, or federal government or conservation/preservation organizations.

c) The partnering agreement that VDOT shall execute shall specify what portion of the land protection funds provided by VDOT may be used to cover reasonable administrative costs incurred by the land conservation organization.

d) Prior to undertaking this initiative, the VDOT and its partnering land conservation organization shall consult with the NPS, the SHPO, the ACHP, and the Advisory Committee to develop cost containment measures that will govern the land transactions to be executed.

e) The VDOT and the partnering land conservation organization shall also develop and follow a process for consulting closely with the NPS, the SHPO, and the Advisory Committee on determining the specific land transactions on which the VDOT’s funds will be used and the terms of each conservation easement and fee simple transaction that will be purchased with the VDOT’s funds. Prior approval of the VDOT, the NPS, the SHPO, and the ACHP shall be required before the partnering organization may execute any such transaction.


f) VDOT’s partnering land conservation organization shall hold in perpetuity any lands it acquires through fee simple transactions using the VDOT’s funds or transfer ownership of these lands to the NPS (if the NPS so agrees) or to another land trust approved by a majority of the Signatories; and hold in perpetuity any conservation easements it acquires using the VDOT’s funds or transfer these easements to the NPS (if the NPS so agrees) or to another land trust approved by a majority of the Signatories.

g) Under this initiative, first priority for protection shall be provided to land located adjacent to MNBP, or within the boundary of MBHD, and immediately adjacent to the section of the BCP where it is collocated with the MNBP Bypass. If the partnering organization is unable to expend all available funds on these priority lands within three (3) years following completion of VDOT’s construction of the BCP, VDOT’s partnering land conservation organization may expand the geographic focus of its efforts to include any lands within MBHD that, if preserved through fee simple acquisition, purchase of an easement, or other legally enforceable mechanism, would contribute to the preservation or protection of MNBP or its historic characteristics as determined by the organization through consultation with VDOT, the NPS, the SHPO, the ACHP, and the land protection Advisory Committee.


h) Upon five (5) years following completion of VDOT’s construction of the BCP, the partnering organization shall return any unused funds to the VDOT if the organization is unable to expend all of the available funds for the purposes defined herein. VDOT shall not deny any reasonable request from the NPS or the SHPO to allow the partnering land conservation organization to continue its efforts to preserve land for the purposes defined herein for a specified period of time beyond five (5) years following completion of construction of the BCP. Upon receipt of the unused funds, the VDOT shall transfer these funds to the Commonwealth’s Civil War Site Preservation Fund. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources, pursuant to § 10.1-2202.4 of the Code of Virginia, shall use the monies transferred by VDOT to the Civil War Site Preservation Fund solely for the purpose of making grants to private nonprofit organizations to match federal and other matching funds. All such grants shall be made solely for the fee simple purchase of, or purchase of protective interests in, the Manassas II battlefield as defined in the Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, issued in 1993 or as amended or reissued pursuant to the Civil War Battlefield Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-359) as amended or supplemented by new information by the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program.

i) If the VDOT is unable to identify a suitable land conservation organization with which to partner on the implementation of the land protection initiative, the VDOT shall consult with the Signatories to identify another means by which VDOT will implement the initiative.

G. Construction Management Plan

The VDOT shall develop and implement a construction management plan for the Undertaking for the purpose of minimizing the temporary effects of construction operations (e.g., construction noise, dust from earth moving operations, and impacts to vegetation) on the historic setting of MNBP and MBHD and interpretive programming within MNBP. Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement, the VDOT shall provide the Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement and the public an opportunity to review and comment on the construction management plan.

H. VDOT and NPS Communications Plan

Recognizing (i) the NPS’s role as the federal Agency with jurisdiction over MNBP, one of the affected historic properties, and the agency which manages the park as a unit of the National Park System, and (ii) the potential effect VDOT’s design, construction operations, and construction schedule for the Undertaking


may have on the NPS’s day-to-day operations and management and long-term planning for the MNBP, the VDOT and the NPS shall develop a process and schedule for the frequent exchange of information related to the Undertaking and discussion of issues of mutual interest or concern. The VDOT shall contact the NPS to initiate development of this communications plan within three (3) months of execution of this Agreement.

III. Minimization and Mitigation of Potential Effects on Putnam-Patton House/Deseret (DHR Inventory No. 076-0179)

The VDOT shall take the following actions to address the potential adverse effects to the Putnam-Patton House/Deseret associated with the Undertaking:

A. Once preliminary engineering of the BCP is sufficiently advanced so that the typical section and elevation of the portion of the highway in the vicinity of the Putnam-Patton House/Deseret is more clearly understood, the VDOT shall assess the visual and auditory effects of the BCP on the historic property in consultation with the SHPO, other Signatories, and Consulting Parties, and with the property owner, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5.

B. If the FHWA determines, and the SHPO concurs, that the BCP will have adverse visual or auditory effects on the Putnam-Patton House/Deseret, the VDOT shall seek the permission of the owner of the historic property to design and install a landscape plan on the private property that would obscure the view of the highway or minimize the noise.

C. If the owner of the historic property so agrees, the VDOT shall install a landscape design approved by the SHPO and the property owner. Pursuant to the terms of Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement, the VDOT shall provide the SHPO and the property owner the opportunity to review and approve the draft landscape plan, and shall provide the draft landscape plan to the other Signatories and Consulting Parties for review and comment. The VDOT shall install the landscape plan prior to the completion of BCP construction, and shall maintain any plantings for an establishment period of three (3) years after installation.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 36 of 94 IV. Identification and Treatment of Archaeological Historic Properties and Cemeteries

A. The VDOT shall prepare Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) electronic inventory records (“reconnaissance-level”) for the following two cemeteries in Prince William County that are located outside of the portion of the Undertaking’s APE for direct effects: Gwatkin cemetery, located at 3440 Pin Oak Court, and Heath cemetery, located at 12512 Bridle Lane, Catharpin, VA. The VDOT shall submit these records to the DHR Archives, and enter the information into the DHR’s Virginia Cultural Resources Information System (V-CRIS), or subsequent replacement, within six (6) months of execution of this Agreement. The purpose of this recordation is to facilitate VDOT’s ability to take these cemeteries into account should a future change in the location of the portion of the Undertaking’s APE for direct effects require that VDOT re-examine the Undertaking’s effect on historic properties.

B. The VDOT shall review the final plans for the BCP, any new access roads associated with the Undertaking (local access, Stipulation I.G; Brawner Farm, Stipulation II.A; and Stuart’s Hill Center, Stipulation II.B), ancillary areas (e.g. construction storage, borrow, staging, and disposal areas, etc.) within MNBP or MBHD, and the traffic calming measures (Stipulation II.C) to be implemented on Route 29, and Groveton Road and Featherbed Lane, if applicable, to determine if known archaeological resources on or eligible for the NRHP will be impacted by BCP construction, the access roads, ancillary sites within MNBP or MBHD, or the traffic calming measures along Route 29, or if construction impacts will otherwise extend beyond the APE previously surveyed for archaeological resources. The VDOT shall report its findings from these reviews to the Signatories and Consulting Parties, pursuant to the requirements of Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement. If the VDOT, in consideration of the comments of the Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement, determines that further efforts to identify, evaluate, or treat archaeological historic properties are necessary to take into account the effects of the BCP, the access roads, the ancillary areas within MNBP or MBHD, or the Route 29, Groveton Road, and Featherbed Lane traffic calming measures on archaeological resources, the VDOT shall implement these efforts as stipulated below, and if within MNBP, pursuant to a NPS Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470ee, et seq.) permit.

1. The VDOT shall complete efforts to identify archaeological historic properties in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.4(b). The VDOT shall conduct these identification efforts pursuant to Stipulation VIII.A of this Agreement. Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement, the VDOT shall provide the SHPO and the NPS the opportunity to review and approve, and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement the opportunity to review and comment on a report on its findings.


2. The VDOT shall conduct any further investigations necessary to evaluate the NRHP-eligibility of any resources identified as a result of the activities described in Stipulation IV.B.1 of this Agreement. These evaluations shall be conducted in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.4(c), and pursuant to Stipulation VIII.A of this Agreement. Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.B, the VDOT shall provide the SHPO and the NPS the opportunity to review and approve, and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement the opportunity to review and comment on a report on its findings.

3. If archaeological historic properties are identified as a result of the activities described in Stipulations IV.B.1 and IV.B.2 of this Agreement, the VDOT shall assess the effects of the Undertaking on these properties in a manner consistent with 36 CFR § 800.5, and submit its findings to the SHPO and the NPS for review and concurrence, and to the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement for review and comment pursuant to Stipulation VIII.B.

4. If the VDOT, in consultation with the Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement, determines that an archaeological historic property will be adversely affected by the BCP, the access roads, ancillary areas within MNBP or MBHD, or the Route 29, Groveton Road, and Featherbed Lane traffic calming measures, the VDOT, in consultation with the FHWA and NPS, shall determine whether avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to the property is prudent and feasible. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, the VDOT, in consultation with the Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement, shall develop a treatment plan for the archaeological historic property. Pursuant to Stipulation VIII.B of the Agreement, the VDOT shall provide the SHPO and the NPS the opportunity to review and approve, and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement the opportunity to review and comment on the treatment plan.


5. In the case of necessary minimization of adverse effect to the archaeological historic property, the VDOT shall ensure that the treatment plan is implemented and that any agreed upon data recovery field operations are complete before ground-disturbing activities associated with the Undertaking are initiated at an affected archaeological historic property. The VDOT shall notify the SHPO and the NPS upon initiation and upon completion of data recovery field operations so that a site visit may be scheduled, if the SHPO or the NPS find a visit appropriate. The proposed construction may proceed following the VDOT’s notification of the completion of data recovery field operations and fulfillment of any field visits requested by the SHPO and NPS while the technical report is in preparation. The VDOT shall ensure that the archaeological site inventory record on file in the DHR’s Archives is updated to reflect the implementation of the treatment plan for each affected site.

V. Post-Review Discoveries

A. In the event that a previously unidentified archaeological resource is discovered or unanticipated effects on historic properties are found during ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the BCP, access roads, ancillary areas (e.g., construction storage, borrow, staging, or disposal areas, etc.) within MNBP or MBHD, or Route 29, Groveton Road, and Featherbed Lane traffic calming measures, the VDOT, in accordance with Section 107.16(d) of the VDOT’s Road and Bridge Specifications, shall require the construction contractor to halt immediately all construction work involving subsurface disturbance in the area of the resource and in the surrounding areas where additional subsurface remains can reasonably be expected to occur. Work in all other areas of the Undertaking may continue.

B. The VDOT shall notify the FHWA, the SHPO, and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement of the discovery as soon as possible, but no later than two (2) working days after the discovery. In the case of prehistoric or historic Native American sites, the FHWA shall also notify any federally recognized Indian tribes with an interest in the area and the VDOT shall notify appropriate Indian tribes recognized by the Commonwealth (hereinafter “Virginia Indian tribes”) within two (2) working days of the discovery.


C. The VDOT shall ensure that an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44739) investigates the work site and the resource, and then the VDOT shall forward to the FHWA, the SHPO, the federally recognized Indian tribes, the appropriate Virginia Indian tribes, and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement an assessment of the NRHP eligibility of the resource (36 CFR Part 60.4) and proposed treatment actions to resolve any adverse effects on historic properties. The SHPO, the federally recognized Indian tribes, the appropriate Virginia Indian tribes, and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement shall respond within five (5) working days of receipt of the VDOT’s assessment of NRHP eligibility of the resource and proposed action plan. The VDOT, in consultation with the FHWA, shall take into account the recommendations of the SHPO, the federally recognized Indian tribes, the appropriate Virginia Indian tribes, and the other Signatories and Consulting parties to this Agreement regarding the NRHP eligibility of the resource and the proposed action plan, and then carry out the appropriate actions.

D. The VDOT shall ensure that construction work within the affected area does not proceed until the appropriate treatment measures are developed and implemented or the determination is made that the located resource is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.

VI. Treatment of Human Remains

A. The VDOT shall treat all human remains and gravesites in a manner consistent with the ACHP’s Policy Statement Regarding Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects (February 23, 2007; http://www.achp.gov/docs/hrpolicy0207.pdf).

B. Human remains and associated funerary objects encountered during the course of actions taken as a result of this Agreement shall be treated in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Virginia Antiquities Act, § 10.1-2305 of the Code of Virginia and its implementing regulations, 17 VAC5-20, adopted by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources and published in the Virginia Register on July 15, 1991, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001) and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 10. In accordance with the regulations stated above, the VDOT may obtain a permit from the SHPO for the archaeological removal of human remains should removal be necessary.

C. In the event that the human remains encountered are likely to be of Native American origin, whether prehistoric or historic, the FHWA shall immediately notify any federally recognized Indian tribes with an interest in the area, and the VDOT shall immediately notify appropriate tribal leaders of Virginia Indian tribes. The FHWA and the VDOT shall determine the treatment of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the federal Indian tribes and appropriate tribal leaders of Virginia Indian tribes.


D. The VDOT shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that the general public is excluded from viewing any Native American gravesites and associated funerary objects. The Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement shall release no photographs of any Native American gravesites or associated funerary objects to the press or to the general public.

VII. Professional Qualifications All archaeological work carried out pursuant to this Agreement shall be conducted by or under the direct supervision of an individual or individuals who meet, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (48 FR 44738-44739, September 29, 1983).

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 41 of 94 VIII. Preparation and Review of Plans and Documents

A. All archaeological studies, technical reports, and treatment plans prepared pursuant to this Agreement shall be consistent with the federal standards entitled Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (48 FR 44716-44742, September 29, 1983), the SHPO’s Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resource Survey in Virginia (October 2011), and the ACHP’s Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archaeological Sites (1999), or subsequent revisions or replacements to these documents.

B. The SHPO and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement agree to provide comments to the FHWA and the VDOT on all plans, technical materials, findings, and other documentation arising from this Agreement within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. If no comments are received from the SHPO or other Signatories or Consulting Parties to this Agreement, the FHWA and the VDOT may assume that the non-responding party has no comment. The FHWA and VDOT shall take into consideration all comments received within the thirty (30) calendar day review period in writing from the SHPO and the other Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement.

C. The VDOT shall provide the SHPO three (3) copies [two (2) hard copies and one in Adobe Acrobat format (PDF) on compact disk] of all final reports prepared pursuant to this Agreement. The VDOT shall also provide any other Signatory or Consulting Party to this Agreement a copy of any final report (in hard copy or Adobe Acrobat format) if so requested by the party. Such requests must be received by the VDOT in writing prior to completion of construction of the Undertaking.

IX. Reassessment of Efforts to Identify Historic Properties If construction of the BCP is not initiated within five (5) years of execution of this Agreement, prior to initiating construction the VDOT shall reassess its efforts to identify historic properties that may be affected by the Undertaking. Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.4(c)(1), the VDOT shall determine whether the passage of time, changing perceptions of significance, or incomplete prior evaluations indicate that properties previously determined eligible or ineligible for the NRHP warrant reevaluation or whether there are unevaluated resources fifty (50) or more years of age within the APE which warrant evaluation. The VDOT shall provide a report on its reassessment and a plan for implementing any further efforts it believes are warranted for identifying historic properties to the SHPO and the ACHP for review and approval, and to the other Signatories and Consulting Parties for review and comment pursuant to the terms of Stipulation VIII.B of this Agreement. Prior to initiating construction of the Undertaking, the VDOT shall consider comments received from the Signatories and the Consulting Parties, and shall complete any further actions the SHPO or ACHP indicate are warranted

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 42 of 94 for identifying historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4, and shall assess effects on any newly identified historic properties and consult on resolving any adverse effects on those properties in a manner consistent with 36 CFR 800.5 and 36 CFR 800.6..

X. Curation Standards

A. Except as described in Paragraph C of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall ensure that all original archaeological records (e.g., research notes, field records, maps, drawings, and photographic images) produced in connection with the BCP and all collections recovered from VDOT highway right of way in association with the BCP are provided to the DHR for permanent curation. In exchange for its standard collections management fee as published in the DHR’s State Collections Management Standards (June 26, 2009), or subsequent revisions or replacements to that document, the SHPO agrees to maintain such records and collections in accordance with 36 CFR 79, Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections.

B. Except as described in Paragraph C of this Stipulation, the VDOT shall return to an individual property owner any artifact collection that the VDOT has recovered from his or her property, unless the VDOT and the property owner have reached agreement on an alternative arrangement. If the property owner donates the artifact collection to the DHR by executing a donation agreement for the collection with the DHR within ninety (90) days of receipt of written notification from the VDOT of its intent to return the collection to the private property owner, the VDOT shall assume responsibility for payment of DHR’s standard collections curation fee for the donated artifact collection.

C. The disposition of original archaeological records (e.g., research notes, field records, maps, drawings, and photographic images) and collections produced or recovered in association with investigations conducted on MNBP shall be governed by NPS requirements, the terms of this Agreement, and the terms of the federal permit issued pursuant to the ARPA permit authorizing the investigations.

XI. Requirements for Archaeological Investigations on NPS Lands The VDOT shall obtain all necessary permits required under ARPA and otherwise by the NPS prior to conducting any archaeological investigations within MNBP. Preparation, submittal, and review of VDOT’s ARPA permit applications shall be subject to NPS requirements as described in the NPS Archaeology Guide. Part 1. Permits for Archaeological Investigations (http://www.nps.gov/archeology/npsGuide/permits/overview.htm#permit), or any subsequent revisions or replacements to this document. Archaeological investigations carried out under the terms of an ARPA permit shall meet the requirements of that permit, which may supersede the requirements of Stipulations VI, VIII, and X of this Agreement.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 43 of 94 XII. Authorization of Design/Build Contractor or PPTA Concessionaire It is permissible for the VDOT to authorize a Design/Build Contractor or Public Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Concessionaire to act on the VDOT’s behalf in fulfilling VDOT’s obligations under Stipulations I-VI of this Agreement (with the exception of VDOT’s obligations under Stipulations II.D, II.E, and II.F), including consultation and coordination with the SHPO, other Signatories and Consulting Parties, provided the VDOT so notifies the FHWA, the SHPO, other Signatories and Consulting Parties in advance. The VDOT shall include provisions in any Design/Build or PPTA contract to ensure that all commitments contained within this Agreement are implemented. The VDOT shall ensure that work conducted by the Design/Build Contractor or PPTA Concessionaire meets the requirements of Stipulations VII-XI. The responsibility to ensure that the stipulations of this Agreement are carried out remains that of the FHWA.

XIII. Monitoring and Reporting Each January 31st following the execution of the Agreement until it expires or is terminated, the FHWA, in coordination with the VDOT, shall provide all Signatories and Consulting Parties to this Agreement a summary report detailing work undertaken pursuant to its terms. Such report shall include the implementation status of all stipulations in this Agreement, any scheduling changes proposed, any problems encountered, and any disputes and objections received in the FHWA’s efforts to carry out the terms of this Agreement.

XIV. Recognition of Additional Consulting Parties Subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, the FHWA shall consider all written requests of individuals or organizations to participate in consultation on the implementation of this Agreement as Consulting Parties and, in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP, determine which parties should be recognized as Consulting Parties.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 44 of 94 XV. Dispute Resolution

A. Objection by Signatory or Consulting Party

1. Should any Signatory or Consulting Party to this Agreement object in writing to the FHWA, within thirty (30) days to any plans or actions proposed pursuant to this Agreement, the FHWA shall first consult with the objecting party to resolve the objection. If the FHWA determines that the objection cannot be resolved through such consultation, the FHWA shall then consult with all Signatories to resolve the objection. If the FHWA then determines that the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, the FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection to the ACHP, including the FHWA’s proposed response to the objection.

2. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the ACHP shall exercise one of the following options:

a) Advise the FHWA that the ACHP concurs with the FHWA’s proposed response to the objection, whereupon the FHWA will respond to the objection accordingly; or

b) Provide the FHWA with recommendations, which the FHWA shall take into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection; or

c) Notify the FHWA that the objection will be referred for comment pursuant to 36 CFR 800.7(a)(4), and proceed to refer the objection and comment. The FHWA shall take the resulting comment into account in accordance with 36 CFR 800.7(c)(4).

Should the ACHP not exercise one of the above options within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the FHWA may assume the ACHP’s concurrence in its proposed response to the objection.

3. The FHWA shall take into account any ACHP recommendation or comment provided in accordance with this stipulation with reference only to the subject of the objection; the FHWA’s responsibility to carry out all actions under this Agreement that are not the subjects of the objection shall remain unchanged.

B. Objection from Public

At any time during the implementation of this Agreement, should a member of the public object to the FHWA or the VDOT regarding actions or plans proposed pursuant to this Agreement, the FHWA shall notify the Signatories and consult with the objector to resolve the objection. The Signatories may request that the


FHWA notify the Consulting Parties to this Agreement about the objection as well.

XVI. Amendments Any Signatory to this Agreement may propose to the FHWA that the Agreement be amended, whereupon the FHWA shall consult with the other Signatories and the Consulting Parties to consider such an amendment. This Agreement is amended when such an amendment is agreed to in writing by all Signatories. The FHWA or its designee shall provide a copy of the amended Agreement to the Consulting Parties within thirty (30) days of execution by the Signatories.

XVII. Termination

A. If any Signatory to this Agreement determines that the terms of this Agreement cannot be or are not being carried out, the Signatory may terminate the Agreement by providing thirty (30) days notice to the other parties, provided that the Signatories and Consulting Parties will consult during this period prior to termination to seek agreement among the Signatories on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. The FHWA shall notify the Consulting Parties that the Agreement has been terminated within thirty (30) days of termination.

B. If the FHWA and the VDOT decide they will not proceed with the BCP before commencement of work, they shall notify the Signatories and the Consulting Parties to this Agreement in writing to terminate the Agreement. If work has commenced, the FHWA and VDOT shall notify the Signatories to arrange a meeting to discuss closing out the activities underway pursuant to the Agreement.

C. In the event that this Agreement is terminated, the VDOT shall submit to the SHPO and the NPS a technical report on the results of any archaeological investigations conducted prior to and including the date of termination, and shall ensure that any associated collections and records recovered are curated in accordance with Stipulation X of this Agreement.

D. In the event of termination, and prior to work continuing on the Undertaking, the FHWA shall (i) reinitiate consultation and comply with 36 CFR Part 800 or (ii) request the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR 800.7(a). The FHWA shall notify the Signatories as to the course of action it will pursue.

E. Upon termination, any funds provided by VDOT to third parties and not already used for intended purposes under this Agreement shall be returned to VDOT within ninety (90) days.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 46 of 94 XVIII. Duration If right of way acquisition for the BCP is not underway within twenty (20) years after the date of the last signature of a Signatory, this Agreement shall expire. Once right of way acquisition for the BCP is underway, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until the Undertaking is complete and the requirements of all Stipulations of this Agreement have been met. The Undertaking is considered complete only upon agreement by the FHWA, the ACHP, the SHPO, the VDOT, and the NPS. At any time in the six (6)-month period prior to such date, the VDOT may request that the Signatories consider an extension of this Agreement. No extension or modification shall be effective unless all Signatories to the Agreement have agreed with it in writing. The FHWA or its designee shall notify the Consulting Parties that the Agreement has been extended within thirty (30) days of written agreement of the Signatories to the extension.

XIX. Execution This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, with a separate page for each Signatory. Separate pages may also be provided for each Consulting Party. The FHWA shall ensure that each Signatory and Consulting Party is provided a copy of the executed Agreement.

XX. Miscellaneous

A. Anti-Deficiency Act – Federal agencies who are Parties: This Agreement is subject to applicable laws and regulations. As to the Signatories who are Federal agencies, fulfillment of this Agreement is subject to available funds pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq. This Agreement is not an obligation of funds in advance of an appropriation of such funds, and it does not constitute authority for the expenditure of funds. If that Federal agency does not have sufficient funds available to fulfill the Agreement, it shall so notify the other Signatories and shall take such actions as are necessary to otherwise comply with 36 C.F.R. Part 800. The Federal agencies shall make reasonable and good faith efforts to seek funding for implementing this Agreement.

B. Any amounts due and owing by the VDOT under this Agreement shall be subject to appropriation by the General Assembly and allocation by the CTB.

C. Recitals and Exhibits -- The recitals (Whereas clauses) and exhibits are incorporated herein as a substantive part of this Agreement.

D. Authority of Signers -- Each Signatory hereto represents that the person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of such Signatory has full authority to do so.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 47 of 94 XXI. Compliance of Other Agencies with Section 106 for the Undertaking A Federal agency, other than the original Signatories and the Corps, that has Section 106 responsibility for the Undertaking may satisfy its responsibility through that federal agency’s “agency official,” as defined in 36 CFR § 800.2(a), writing the Signatories stating that the agency agrees to the terms of this Agreement. When the letter is received by the Signatories, the Federal agency will be deemed to be a Signatory of this Agreement.

SIGNATURES Execution and submission of the Agreement, and implementation of its terms, is evidence that the FHWA, the Corps, and the NPS have afforded the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the proposed Undertaking and its effects on historic properties, and that the FHWA, the Corps, and the NPS have taken into account the effects of the Undertaking on historic properties.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 48 of 94 SIGNATORY: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Irene Rico, Division Administrator Virginia Division

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 49 of 94 SIGNATORY: VIRGINIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Julie V. Langan, Acting Director Virginia Department of Historic Resources

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 50 of 94 SIGNATORY: ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ John M. Fowler, Executive Director

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 51 of 94 SIGNATORY: VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Gregory A. Whirley, Sr. Commissioner of Highways

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 52 of 94 SIGNATORY: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Stephen E. Whitesell, Regional Director

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 53 of 94 CONCUR: LOUDOUN COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Tim Hemstreet, County Administrator

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 54 of 94 CONCUR: PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Melissa S. Peacor, County Executive

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 55 of 94 CONCUR: AMERICAN BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION PROGRAM By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Paul Hawke, Chief

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 56 of 94 CONCUR: BULL RUN CIVIL WAR ROUNDTABLE By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mark Trbovich, President

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 57 of 94 CONCUR: CIVIL WAR TRUST By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ James Lighthizer, President

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 58 of 94 CONCUR: COALITION FOR SMARTER GROWTH By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 59 of 94 CONCUR: GENERAL TRIMBLES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Barry G. Cline, President 12100 General Trimbles Lane Manassas, VA 20109

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 60 of 94 CONCUR: NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Thomas C. Kiernan, President

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 61 of 94 CONCUR: NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Stephanie K. Meeks, President and Chief Executive Officer

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 62 of 94 CONCUR: PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Chris Miller, President

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 63 of 94 CONCUR: SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Rick S. Middleton, Executive Director

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 64 of 94 CONCUR: SUDLEY SPRINGS CATHARPIN CIVIC ASSOCIATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________

Address (please print):

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 65 of 94 CONCUR: SUDLEY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mr. Bass Mitchell, Pastor

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 66 of 94 CONCUR: WASHINGTON AIRPORTS TASK FORCE By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Leo Schefer, President

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 67 of 94 CONCUR: ZOUAVE HILLS ROADUSERS ASSOCIATION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mr. Ray Wotring, President 11715 General Warren Avenue Manassas, VA 20109

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 68 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mr. John Bradshaw


_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 69 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Ms. Denise Costley 3200 Sanders Lane Catharpin, VA 20143-1027

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 70 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mary Ann Ghadban 6389 Pageland Lane Gainesville, VA

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 71 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Philomena Hefter 5595 Pageland Lane Gainesville, VA 20155

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 72 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Martha Hendley 5704 Featherbed Lane Manassas, Virginia 20109

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 73 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mr. Shawn Moler


_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 74 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Ms. Page Snyder 6312 Pageland Lane Gainesville, VA 20155

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 75 of 94 CONCUR: PROPERTY OWNER By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Mr. Keith Webster


_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 76 of 94 CONCUR: FHWA, EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION By: _________________________________________ Date: ________________ Karen A. Schmidt, Director Program Administration


ATTACHMENT 1

LOCATION OF THE BI-COUNTY PARKWAY



ATTACHMENT 2

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND LOCATIONS OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED HISTORIC PROPERTIES




ATTACHMENT 3

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF TECHNICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES (ORGANIZED BY DATE OF REPORT)

Bamann, Susan, Loretta Lautzenheiser, Maral Kalbian, and Bill W. Hall

March 2003 Final Cultural Resources Overview. Prepared by Coastal Caroline Research, Inc., in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

(Historic context and review of known cultural resources within the Tri-County Parkway study area, an area measuring 15 miles long and nine miles wide and covering approximately 110 square miles in portions of Prince William, Fairfax, and Loudoun counties. Stewart, Jennifer, and Loretta Lautzenheiser

May 2004 Architectural Survey. Prepared by Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.

(Survey of corridor segments C, D, F, and G. The Area of Potential Effects included 1000-ft-wide corridors plus above-ground resources adjacent to or visible from the corridor.)

Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.

June 2004 Architectural Survey, Alternative B. Prepared by Coastal Caroline Research, Inc., in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

(Survey of corridor segment D. The Area of Potential Effects included a 1000-ft-wide corridor plus above-ground resources adjacent to or visible from the corridor.)

Coastal Carolina Research, Inc.

January 2005 Architectural Evaluations. Prepared by Coastal Caroline Research, Inc., in association with Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

(Architectural evaluation studies were conducted for five properties: George Hancock House/Oak Level Farm (DHR Inventory No. 053-0971); Gallagher Farm (053-6040); Old Barrett Farm/Barn at Sunny Brook Farm (076-0073); Putnam-Patton House/Deseret (076-0179), Conway Robinson Memorial Forest (076-0297)

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 83 of 94 Luchsinger, Heidi, Loretta Lautzenheiser, and Bill Hall

September 2006 Archaeological Survey. Prepared by coastal Carolina Research, Inc. for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

(Archaeological survey of the corridor for the selected alternative corridor. The survey corridor was 500 feet wide. )

James, Tiffany A., Loretta Lautzenheiser, Bill Hall, and Dennis C. Gosser

April 2010 Evaluation of Sites 44PW0579 (VDHR# 076-0271-0062) and 44PW0623 and Dunklin Monument Avoidance Metal Detection Survey. Prepared by Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., in association with PB Americas and the Louis Berger Group, for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

(Archaeological evaluation studies of two reported cemetery sites. Site 44PW0579 is the site of the Dunklin Monument. Also reports on the results of systematic metal detection within a modification to the proposed alignment designed to avoid the Dunklin Monument.)

Gosser, Dennis, and Dawn M. Bradley

September 2010 Supplemental Archaeological Survey and Metal Detecting. Prepared by Coastal Carolina Research for the Louis Berger Group and the Virginia Department of Transportation.

(Archaeological survey of three discontiguous areas totally 18.3 acres within a 600-ft-corridor along the west side of Pageland Lane where permission for access the properties was denied by the owners during the 2006 archaeological survey. Supplemental metal detector survey was conducted of 68 previously surveyed acres within a 600-ft-corridor located at the north end of the Dunklin Shift and extending north for a distance of one mile.)


ATTACHMENT 4

KEY AGENCY SECTION 106 CORRESPONDENCE (FHWA, VDOT, SHPO, ACHP)

July 7, 2004. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT forwards Tri-County Parkway Location Study Architectural Survey Report (May 2004) and Tri-County Parkway Location Study Draft Architectural Survey Alternative D (June 2004) reports to SHPO. VDOT requests SHPO concur:

• Properties 029-0027, 029-5271, 0053-0971, 29-5321 through 029-5335, 053-5242, 053-5321, 053-6038, 063-6039, 053-6041 through 053-6044, 053-6046 through 053-6057, 076-0073, 076-0180, 076-0200, 076-0257, 076-0292, 076-0297, 076-0360, 076-0362, 076-0363, 076-0433 through 076-0435, 076-0441, 0076-5099 through 076-5103, 076-5105, 076-5106 are not eligible for the National Register;

• Gallagher Farm (053-6040) and Putnam-Patton House (076-0179) warrant further evaluation to establish their National Register eligibility; and

• Bull Run Stone Bridge (029-0084), Dulles International Airport (053-0008), Pageland II (076-0137), Pageland I (076-0138), and Manassas Battlefield (076-0271) are listed on or eligible for the National Register.

July 23, 2004. SHPO to VDOT. SHPO concurs that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register:

SHPO also provides comments on the following properties:

• Further research is needed to establish National Register eligibility of these properties: Kline House (076-5099). WKDV Transmitter Site (076-5100). Cub Run Primitive Baptist Church (029-5321). House (029-5327). Class Farm (076-5105). Underwood House (076-5106). Stuart’s Crossing/Shaver Farm (029-5271). George Hancock House/Oak Level Farm (053-0971). Barn at Sunny Brook Farm/Old Barrett Farm (076-0073). Haislip Cemetery and House Site (076-0292). Conway Memorial State Forest (076-0297). Shed (076-0362). Byrne House (053-6056). Shockley House (053-6057). Putnam-Patton House (076-0179).

• Ruins (029-0027). Not eligible as an architectural resource, but would require further research to establish its National Register eligibility as an archaeological resource.

• Ex-Slave House, Brawner Farm (076-0257). No longer standing. Would require further research to establish its National Register eligibility as an archaeological resource.

• Swart Family Cemetery (076-0441). SHPO determined this cemetery eligible as a contributing resource to the Manassas National Battlefield Park in May 1994.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 85 of 94 January 24, 2005. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT provides supplementary documentation or further comments on 12 architectural properties:

• Shed (076-0362). Should be considered a contributing element to the Manassas National Battlefield Park (076-0271).

• Swart Family Cemetery (076-0441): Should be considered a contributing element to the Manassas National Battlefield Park (076-0271).

• The following properties are not eligible for the National Register: Kline House (076-5099); WKDV Transmitter Site (076-5100); Cub Run Primitive Baptist Church (029-5321); House (029-5327); Class Farm (076-5105); Underwood House (076-5106); Stuart’s Crossing/Shaver Farm (029-5271); Haislip Cemetery and House Site (076-0292); Byrne House (053-6056); Shockley House (053-6057).

February 16, 2005. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT forwards evaluation studies for 5 architectural properties. Requests SHPO concurrence that:

• Gallagher Farm (053-6040) and Putnam-Patton House (076-0179) are individually eligible for the National Register.

• George Hancock House (053-6040), Old Barrett Farm/Barn at Sunny Brook (076-0073), and Conway Robinson Memorial State Forest (076-0297) are not eligible for the National Register.

February 24, 2005. SHPO to VDOT.

• SHPO concurs that the Shed (076-0362) should be considered a contributing element to the Manassas National Battlefield Park (076-0271).

• SHPO concurs that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register: Kline House (076-5099); WKDV Transmitter Site (076-5100); House (029-5327); Underwood House (076-5106); Stuart’s Crossing/Shaver Farm (029-5271); Haislip Cemetery and House Site (076-0292); Byrne House (053-6056); Shockley House (053-6057).

• SHPO finds Cub Run Primitive Baptist Church (029-5321) eligible for the National Register.

March 10, 2005. SHPO to VDOT. SHPO response to significance evaluations for 5 architectural properties:

• Conway Robinson Memorial State Forest (076-0297) is not eligible for the National Register in its own right as a state forest or because of connection with the Civilian Conservation Corps;

• Barn at Sunny Brook (076-0073) is not eligible for the National Register;

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 86 of 94 • Gallagher Farm (053-6040) is potentially eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for its association with settlement patterns in Loudoun Co, and Criterion C as a rate surviving mid to late-18th-century residence in Loudoun Co. SHPO concurs with VDOT’s proposed National Register boundary;

• Oak Level Farm/George Hancock House (053-6040) is not eligible for the National Register; and

• Putnam-Patton House (076-0179) is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as a rare surviving example of the Italianate style in Prince William Co. The present parcel serves as the National Register boundary.

December 20, 2006. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT forwards report entitled Tri-County Parkway Location Study, Archaeological Survey, prepared by Heidi Luchsinger, Loretta Lautzenheiser, and Bill Hall of Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., and reviews surveys conducted by others within the BCP corridor. VDOT requests SHPO concur:

• Site 44LD0853 is individually eligible for the National Register, but will require reassessment after extent of recent data recovery operations is fully understood;

• Sites 44LD0854, 44LD1027, 44LD1186 and 44LD1363 are not eligible for the National Register;

• Site 44LD1187 is individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion D;

• Site 44PW0579 is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A, as contributing element to Manassas National Battlefield and Historic District. Further assess may be needed to better define the site boundary and the nature of the site;

• Site 44PW0580 is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A, as contributing element to Manassas National Battlefield and Historic District, and is individually eligible under Criterion D; and

• Site 44PW0623 is potentially eligible for the National Register, as a contributing element to the Manassas National Battlefield and Historic District under Criteria A and D, and warrants further investigation to conclusively establish its eligibility.

SHPO concurs with VDOT’s recommendations on January 22, 2007, with these exceptions:

• Site 44LD0853 is not eligible for the National Register; and

• Eligibility of Site 44LD0854 cannot be established until report is complete.

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 87 of 94 October 11, 2007. FHWA to ACHP. Notification to the ACHP of the adverse effect of the project, and provision of documentation for the ACHP’s use in determining whether it will participate in consultation.

November 20, 2007. ACHP to FHWA. ACHP chooses not to participate in consultation.

November 19, 2007. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT agrees that site 44LD0853 is not eligible for the National Register, as previously determined by SHPO. VDOT forwards report entitled Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 44LD0854 on the Smith Property, Loudoun County, Virginia, prepared by Stephanie Taleff Sperling and Johanna Flahive of Thunderbird Archaeology for Greenvest, LC, November 2005. VDOT requests SHPO concur site 44LD0854 is not eligible for the National Register.

SHPO concurs with these findings December 19, 2007.

July 7, 2010. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT forwards report Evaluations of Sites 44PW0579 (VDHR# 076-0271-0062) and 44PW0623 and Dunklin Monument Avoidance Metal Detector Survey and requests SHPO concur:

• Site 44PW0579 is not eligible for the National Register individually, but is eligible as a contributing element to the National Register-listed Manassas National Battlefield Historic District (VDHR# 076-0271) under Criterion A;

• The National Register-eligible boundary of Site 44PW0579 is the 5-by-7-foot parcel purchased by the Dunklin family in 1873 and containing the Dunklin Monument; and

• Site 44PW0623 is not eligible for the National Register.

SHPO concurred with these determinations on July 27, 2010

October 7, 2010. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT forwards report Supplemental Archaeological Survey and Metal Detecting (August 2010). VDOT requests SHPO concur that:

• Portions of the linear archaeological resources 44PW0580 (portion of “Unfinished Railroad”) and 44PW0595 (remnant of Centreville Road) within the BCP APE have no potential to yield new information and therefore are not eligible for the National Register under Criterion D;

• Site 44PW0593’s (“mass burial”) boundary does not extend into the APE and the boundary should be updated; and

• Site 44PW0594 (“pit latrine”) is not eligible for the National Register under Criterion D.

SHPO concurred November 2, 2010

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT BI-COUNTY PARKWAY PRINCE WILLIAM AND LOUDOUN COUNTIES, VA Page 88 of 94 July 10, 2012. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT assesses the Undertaking’s effects on historic properties and provides for review and comment draft Programmatic Agreement with proposed measures to resolve the adverse effects.

July 17, 2013. VDOT to SHPO. VDOT proposes to assume, for the purposes of the application of Section 106 to the BCP, that the 2009 ABPP PotNR boundary for the Manassas II battlefield is eligible for listing on the NRHP, and that Pageland Lane is a contributing element to this historic property.

August 23, 2013. SHPO to VDOT. The SHPO concurs in VDOT’s determination, for the purposes of the application of Section 106 to the BCP, that the 2009 ABPP PotNR boundary for the Manassas II battlefield is eligible for listing on the NRHP, and that Pageland Lane is a contributing element to this historic property.


ATTACHMENT 5

BOUNDARIES OF NRHP-LISTED BATTLEFIELD DISTRICT, ABPP PotNR FOR MANASSAS II BATTLEFIELD, AND REDEFINED “MBHD”



ATTACHMENT 6

LOCATIONS OF THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED CORRIDORS AND ALIGNMENTS FOR THE BI-COUNTY PARKWAY AND THE

MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK BYPASS IN THE VICINITY OF MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK



ATTACHMENT 7

SECTIONS OF ROUTE 234 WITHIN MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK PROPOSED FOR ABANDONMENT FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF

THE BI-COUNTY PARKWAY (STIPULATION II.D)
