APPENDIX B2

RESPONSES TO STATE AGENCY COMMENTS
B-60 

RESPONSES TO STATE AGENCY COMMENTS

This Appendix Section B2 provides detailed responses to State agency letters, presented in the 

below order: 

 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) .................................................... B-61 

 Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) ......................................................... B-216 

Appendix B2 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-62 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-64 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

1. As Virginia Department of Enviro

serves as a clearinghouse for Stacomments, the FRA and DRPT have to all the State agency and locality DEQ in their Appendix A, as approptheir comment letter DEQ summcomments from the State agencies comments, DRPT responded to Dcomment. In other cases, to avoid repto the more detailed comment and dagency letter attached to DEQ’s coDRPT has responded to the commreferenced this response when the cthe attachment to DEQ’s comment.
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

2. through 4. The Project will have unav

resources, but FRA and DRPT havimpacts to the extent practicable. As 5.1.5, DRPT anticipates submitting a (JPA) for Project impacts to surface review by the US Army Corps of EVirginia Marine Resource CommissioWetlands Boards during final desigavailable and incremental improvem

will incorporate the recommended provided by Virginia DEQ in Recommendations” of their letter appropriate, and in coordination wit
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-66 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 4 on previous page) 5. Comment noted; DRPT did not re

from VRMC. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

6. and 7. Refer to DRPT-numbered state

response. Additionally, Section 5.1.5 permit authority by VMRC for asubaqueous lands in Virginia. 

8. DRPT will file erosion and sedime

specifications with DEQ for revaccordance with the Virginia Erosio(ESC) Law (§ 62. 1-44. 15:51 et seq.), Management Act (§ 62. 1-44. 15:24 regulations, where applicable and asubmittal, during final design after fuand incremental improvements are s
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-68 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 8 on previous page) 9. DRPT will develop and submit to DE

in accordance with the approved erostandards and specifications, as rsubmittal, during final design after fuand incremental improvements are land-disturbing activities associated covered by the site-specific ESC plan

10. DRPT will develop and submit 

stormwater management (SWM) plaapproved standards and specificatioof submittal, during final design available and incremental improvem

11. DRPT will register for coverage un

Permit for Discharges of StormwActivities and develop a Project-specprevention plan (SWPPP), as require

during final design after funding incremental improvements are sched

12. DRPT will consider utilizing perme

areas and walkways, where practicafter funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. DRPT areas, after construction. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

13. The Draft EIS identified the W

marginal ozone nonattainment areFigure 3.6-1, and it is reflected in the Preferred Alternative (refer to Sectio

14. DRPT will take all reasonable pre

construction to limit the emissionstatement to this effect has been addFinal EIS. 

15. Draft EIS Section 4.19.2.3 address

fugitive dust during construction, incin 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the ReguAbatement of Air Pollution. Reference been added to Section 5.19 of the Fin
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-70 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

16. If open burning or use of incineratio

during construction, DRPT would cet seq. of the Regulations for open with DEQ and local officials to deterother requirements are applicable. A has been added to Section 5.19 of the 

17. DRPT will adhere to limitations o

during construction consistent with statement to this effect has been addFinal EIS. 

18. DRPT will adhere to requirements 

Permits for New and Modified Sourfuel-burning equipment or other equipment during construction. A stbeen added to Section 5.19.2.3 of the 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

19. Comment noted. DRPT appreciate

materials sites provided by the Protection and Revitalization (DLPREIS Section 3.5, a database searhazardous materials sites within proposed rail line. Draft EIS Table included in the search and Table 3.5-type within each of the six alternativAppendix O show the locations of thEIS Appendix O provide informationoted in Section 3.5.3 of the Draft EISmapped hazardous materials sites/farea, most of which (702) are eithFacilities or Petroleum Release investigation of hazardous material potentially be affected by the ProjecPhase I Environmental Site Assessmprior to any property acquisition. 

 Final EIS Section 5.5.1 describes pote

sites impacts based on limits of distAlternative, which have been updaAppendix M of the Final EIS also prof the critical hazardous materials Preferred Alternative limits of distur

(Responses are continued on next page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-72 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

20. to 23. DRPT will comply with the re

hazardous wastes and hazardous mduring construction. Section 5.5.2 othe testing, removal and disposal of swaste during construction in accorSolid Waste Management RegHazardous Waste Management Racquisition of right-of-way and coninvestigations will be conducted, awhether any of the sites are contaminand extent of that contamination. Amaterial sites discovered during conand disposed of in compliance wistate, and local regulations. All strurenovated, and/or removed will bcontaining materials (ACM) and leato demolition. If ACM or LBP are ffederal waste-related regulations, stand for LBP will be followed. All nebe conducted in compliance with applocal environmental laws and will EPA, DEQ, and other federal or snecessary. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comments 22 and 23 on previou24. DRPT will reduce, reuse, and recycle 

the Project to the extent practicable. #19 regarding the database search sites reported in the Draft EIS investigation that will be conducteacquisition. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-74 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

25. Refer to the referenced attached 

Conservation and Recreation (DCRnumbered statements #103 through detailed comments that are summari
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 25 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-76 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comment 25, refer to pages B26. DRPT does not anticipate use of pe

part of Project construction or additional intercity passenger train5.10.3.2 of the Final EIS, during constthe likelihood of adverse effects endangered species, and other wilddisturbed areas with native plants. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

27. DRPT does not anticipate the need 

with DCR concerning the Crow’s Nehowever, DRPT will coordinate as re

28. and 29. As noted in Section 5.1.6.3 of 

implement appropriate erosion and sas required, in accordance with thSediment Control Regulations and Management Law and regulations. 

30. DRPT will coordinate with resou

updated sensitive resources informsignificant changes in Project scope after funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. 

31. DRPT searched VDGIF’s Virgin

Information Service (VaFWIS) as inventory of wildlife resources (see D
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-78 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

32. As discussed throughout the Draft and 

the addition of one track will primarCSXT right-of-way. DRPT will preservcrossings by extending the existing cr(provided in-kind, to the currenAdditional vehicle and pedestrian modified, as appropriate, for the new authorized track speed. The details oduring final design after funding incremental improvements are schedu

 DRPT has not identified any impacts 

would require the addition of a greefrom Leesylvania State Park to Fameasure. 

33. Addressing bicyclist and pedestrian 

East Coast Greenway is beyond the DC2RVA Project, however, the DC2and improve, as necessary, bike/pdevices at all public crossings along tin keeping with the Project’s Basis FRA, Amtrak, CSXT, and VDOT safe

34. No property will need to be acquire

Park as part of the Preferred Alterna

35. DRPT concurs; scenic rivers are pres

the Draft EIS. Potential effects on scenAlternative are presented in Section 

(Responses are continued on next page)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

36. Provision of a new shared use path 

of-way is beyond the Purpose and CSXT policies currently do not allow their right-of-way. As indicated in SeEIS, all existing bicycle and pedmaintained (provided in-kind) Alternatives and will be designed to Opportunities for additional baccessibility improvements, includinmeet Americans with Disabilitierequirements, could be incorporatecoordination with FRA, after fundinincremental improvements are sched

37. Replacement requirements for conve

as part of the Preferred Alternative 5.14.1 of the Final EIS. As indicated i

not anticipate permanent impacts to Build Alternatives, including the identified in the Final EIS. Temporarconstruction will not require replace
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-80 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

38. DRPT will coordinate with DCR re

scenic river crossings during finabecomes available and incremenscheduled. As discussed in Section 5bridges will generally reflect the profiles of existing structures and ththat the landscape and viewsheds fsimilar in context to existing conditio

39. Table 5.14-1 of the Final EIS ident

temporary impacts of the Preferred resources. Leesylvania and Widewamong the parklands affected by teither for temporary or permanent u
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

40. and 41. Close consultation with the 

Historic Resources (DHR) commenPursuant to Section 106 of the NatioAct (as amended), DRPT will concultural resource components with Dafter funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. 

42. Refer to DRPT-numbered statement

detailed lists provided by Virginia (VDH), and DRPT’s responses. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-82 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 42 on previous page) 43. As noted in Section 5.1.6.3 of the Fina

and sediment control practices will construction in accordance with thSediment Control Regulations and Management Law and regulations. Dwithin or adjacent to the Project Limwill be field marked to protect them 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

44. DRPT will coordinate with local uti

impacts to public water distributsewage collection systems during fibecomes available and incremenscheduled. 

45. DRPT will contact local health distri

private wells and sewage systemDisturbance during final design, available and incremental improvemnumber of churches and schools DC2RVA rail line are listed for each 5 of the Draft EIS. Among the listed facilities and 10 schools within the C

46. See response to DRPT-numbered 

construction, DRPT will inform locautility impacts and will develop aminimize or mitigate impacts coordination with local health depar

47. During final design, after funding 

incremental improvements are schean application to the local health deonsite sewage system that will be im
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-84 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

48. and 49. Build Alternative 3C: Add Tw

Fredericksburg) was not selected Alternative (refer to Final EIS SectiArea 3, the Preferred Alternative is Track East of Existing, which does Outdoors Foundation (VOF) easemanticipate any impacts to VOF easem
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

50. During final design, after funding 

incremental improvements are scheProject conformance with applicable areas protected by the Chesapeake specified in 9VAC 25-830-130 oPreservation Area Designation and and local ordinances, including min

and impervious cover. 

51. As discussed in Section 5.1.1.1 of the 

be constructed in accordance with Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 Virginia) and the Stormwater Managseq. of the Code of Virginia); the termquality permits required by USAVMRC; and an erosion and sedimenplan approved by Virginia DEQ. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-86 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

52. Refer to the referenced attached Fair

numbered statements #136 to #13detailed comments that are summari

53. Refer to the referenced attached 

Authority letter (DRPT-numbered stfor responses to the detailed commehere. 

54. Refer to the referenced attached Fair

numbered statements #136 to #13detailed recommendations that are s
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 54 on previous page) 55. Refer to the referenced attached 

Authority letter (DRPT-numbered stfor responses to the detailed recsummarized here. 

56. DRPT received and has responded t

Fredericksburg under separate covDRPT’s responses are included as pa

57. and 58. Refer to the referenced attache

(DRPT-numbered statements #14responses to the detailed commenthat are summarized here. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-88 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comments 57 and 58 on previou
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 58, refer to pages 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-90 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 58 on page B-87) 59. Comment noted; DRPT did not re

from the Richmond Regional PDC. 

60. Comment noted; DRPT did not re

from the Crater PDC. 

61. Railroad operators maintain the

management systems. For exampleManagement System Manual (issued March 2004) and CSX’s Public SafeManagement System (https://w

responsibility/environment-and-effimanagement-system/) have been compliance with environmental reenvironmental impacts. DRPT wmaterials and practices for construcProject to the extent practicable. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 61 on previous page) 62. During final design, after funding 

incremental improvements are schedincorporating water-reducing measuwhere practicable. Maintenance determined by the facilities operator 

63. Final design, after funding becomes 

improvements are scheduled, will federal guidelines and industry conservation and efficiency. DRPT environmental, and sustainability coGreen Building Rating System for fac
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-92 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 63 on previous page) 64. and 65. Permit requirements and mit

Sections 5.1.5 and 5.1.6 of the Final coordination with the federal and during the final design and construcafter funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. For impact wetlands and/or surface waJPA to be submitted to the DEQ, Vwetland boards. 

66. It is the responsibility of CSXT, as o

operator of freight service, to file gencontrol standards and specificationreview and approval. 

67. DRPT will develop site-specific 

sediment control plans as part of tphase, after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. coordination at that time with the DEin accordance with the approved stan
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 67 on previous page) 68. Construction activities associated wi

improvement elements will disturb land. These improvements include new mainline track and crossovers, improvements, new sidings animprovements at grade-crossings. Dplans for these improvements to be under the Virginia Stormwater ManaPermit for Discharges of Stormwatfinal design phase of the Project, available and incremental improvemSections 5.1.6 and 5.19.2 of the Final 

69. Demolition and construction activitie

increases in air pollutants. DPRT negative effects during construction that time) with the application of Sections 5.1.6 and 5.19.2 of the Final 

70. All solid waste, hazardous waste, 

generated by the Project will be haccordance with federal, state and lothe Virginia Solid Waste ManagemenImpacts from the Preferred Alternatihazardous material sites have been id

Section 5.5 of the Final EIS. 

71. Any asbestos, lead, or contaminate

construction of the Project will be hathe VSWMR and transported in accoregulations governing the TranspMaterials. DRPT will continue coordthe Virginia Department of Labor a

design, after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. See S

Final EIS. 

72. Any use of lead-based paints dur

performed in accordance with OccupAdministration (OSHA) regulationLead-Based Paint Activities Rules an
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-94 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 72 on previous page) 73. Any environmental release (e.g., pet

etc.) during construction will be immsite and the appropriate DEQ Rcontacted. 

74. The installation and operation or th

any regulated petroleum storage underground) during construction accordance with Virginia Regulationand/or 9 VAC 25-580-10 et seq. 

75. See responses to DRPT-numbered 

and #38. 

76. DRPT will continue to coordinate 

Conservation and Recreation – State final design, after funding becomes aimprovements are scheduled. 

77. DRPT will continue to coordinat

compliance with requirements of SeHistoric Preservation Act. DRPT reDHR under separate cover; refer tincluded as part of the agency respo

78. Final confirmation of all public ut

during the final design phase of tbecomes available and incremenscheduled. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

79. Build Alternative 3C – Add Two

Fredericksburg) was not selected Alternative. (refer to Final EIS SectArea 3, the Preferred Alternative is Track East of Existing. 

80. The DC2RVA Project is conditio

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regwill be in accordance with erosiorequirements and water quality protnumbered statements #66, #67 and #

81. See responses to DRPT-numbered 

#55. 

82. DRPT coordinated with the Town 

selection of the Preferred Alternative DRPT-numbered statements #142 thto comments submitted by the Town

83. As part of final design after fundin

incremental improvements are schagency will submit a Federal Consithe recommended Preferred Alterncoastal effects of the Project in light oof the Virginia CZMA program and comply with those policies. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-96 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 83 on previous page) 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-98 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

84. The content on this page is included 

Sediment Control and Stormwater main letter. Refer to DRPT-numbere#11. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 84 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-100 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

85. The content on this page is inclu

Pollution Control”) of DEQ’s main numbered statements #13 through #
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

86. The content on this page is included 

main letter. Refer to DRPT-numfollowing sections: Section 5 (DRPT-through #24) for hazardous materi(DRPT-numbered statements #14 pollution control; Section 1 for wa(DRPT-numbered statements #2 thr(DRPT-numbered statements #8 throSediment Control and Stormwater M
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-102 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

87. through 93. DRPT appreciates the li

sites provided by DLPR. The extent o

comparable to the number of sites idthe Draft EIS that have the potentia484 sites, including CERCLA, potenmaterial releases/contamination, an

Section 5.5 of the Final EIS lists those permanent Limits of Disturbance Alternative; updated mapping of crisites in relation to that LOD are inclu
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-104 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-106 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-108 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-110 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-112 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-114 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 87 through 93, ref
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-116 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comment 93, refer to page B-94. Further evaluation of hazardous 

Pollution Complaint cases, that couProject, will be completed in a PhAssessment (ESA) prior to property athat time, Phase I ESA investigatoPrograms at the DEQ Regional Offion sites of concern. 

95. As noted in Section 3.5.1 of the 

government and the Commonweahazardous materials under muconstruction and operation will compof all applicable federal and state hazardous materials. 

96. This requirement is contained with

Hazardous Wastes and Hazardous Mletter. Refer to DRPT-numbered state

97. This statement is contained within 

Prevention”) of DEQ’s main letter. Rstatement #61. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

98. This content is addressed within 

Sediment Control and Stormwater main letter. Refer to DRPT-numbere#12. 

99. This content is addressed within Sect

Wetlands”) of DEQ’s main letter. Rstatements #2 through #4. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-118 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

100. This content is addressed within 

Control”) of DEQ’s main letter. Rstatements #13 through #18. 

101. This content is addressed within 

Hazardous Wastes and Hazardoumain letter. Refer to DRPT-numbere#24. 

102. This content is addressed within 

Hazardous Wastes and Hazardoumain letter. Refer to DRPT-numbere#24. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

103. This topic is covered in Section 7 

Scenic Rivers and Byways”) in DEDRPT-numbered statement #32. 

104. Viewsheds from the Potomac Herit

have been clarified as sensitive applicable; refer to the errata table fAppendix A of the Final EIS. 

105. The requested clarifications have be

table for the Draft EIS, which is App

106. This topic is covered in Section 7 

Scenic Rivers and Byways”) in DEDRPT-numbered statement #33. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-120 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 106 on previous page) 107. The requested modifications were a

The requested clarification has beetable for the Draft EIS, which is App

108. An updated discussion of publ

provided in Final EIS Section 5.18. the Project right-of-way is beyond the DC2RVA Project. The DC2RVbike/pedestrian safety at public at-DC2RVA rail corridor, in keeping wDesign and applicable FRA, Amtrakstandards. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 108 on previous page) 109. This topic is covered in Section 7 

Scenic Rivers and Byways”) in DEDRPT-numbered statement #34 and 

110. Section 4.2 of the Scoping Report e

1,614 public scoping letters receive

form letter from Virginians for High from the East Coast Greenway Allsummarized in the scoping report, provided for each one. The informreport has been clarified in the Fintable for the Draft EIS, which is App
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-122 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

111. Comment noted. The Preferred Alte

Final EIS is based osubstructure/foundation for a new the S-Line across the James River, pexisting CSXT James River Bridge cStation, on the downstream (eastProject will only construct a single-tadd a second track, if required for fucontinue to coordinate with DCR funding becomes available and inare scheduled. 

112. and 113. Table 5.10-2 of the Final EIS 

acreage of permanent and temporarAlternative to Priority ConservatioVDCR-DNH-Natural Heritage Plan 

Stream Conservation Units, and site

Wildlife Conservation Areas datase

114. The species list for the analyses con

was provided by the USFWS on Olisting of the Rusty patched bumble 

Final EIS (Section 5.10.3) has beediscussion of the Rusty patched bum

115. This recommendation is provided w

Heritage Resources”) of DEQ’s manumbered statement #26. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

116. DRPT appreciates the informat

concerning the Marumsco Conserlined emerald (Somatochlora filosa

5.10.2.3 of the Final EIS, DRPT antiProject will not adversely affect dowith implementation of Best including use of silt curtains and dredging equipment, and other erosmeasures. DRPT will continue to wand USFWS to develop specific minimization, and mitigation of imduring final design, after funding incremental improvements are sche

117. Information regarding Crow’s Nes

and its sensitive habitats is presenteDraft EIS. As noted in Section 5.10Preferred Alternative will avoid dstate and county wildlife conserva

Mattaponi Wildlife Management impacts to downstream aquatic hSection 5.20.1.6 of the Final EIS. As of the Final EIS, indirect impactminimized with implementatiopermanent stormwater managemeand sediment controls. BMPs for anew invasive species and preventipopulations will also help minimizaquatic habitats. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-124 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

118. This recommendation is provided w

Heritage Resources”) of DEQ’s manumbered statement #27. 

119. Information regarding the South Fre

Site and the Hazel Run Stream Conthe natural communities associapresented in Table 3.10-2 of the DraFinal EIS documents the estimated atemporary impacts of the Preferred since the Draft EIS) to Priority Coinclude VDCR-DNH-Natural Heritaand Stream Conservation Units, anPriority Wildlife Conservation AreaCSXT right-of-way, approximately impacts, and 0.35 acres of temporary the South Fredericksburg ConsePreferred Alternative 3B. 

 Refer to DRPT-numbered statement 

indirect impacts to downstream measures to minimize impacts. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 119 on previous page) 120. Information regarding the South A

SCU is presented in Table 3.10-2 of 2 of the Final EIS documents thpermanent and temporary imp

Alternative to Priority ConservatioVDCR-DNH-Natural Heritage Plan Stream Conservation Units, and site

Wildlife Conservation Areas dataseof impacts to specific Natural Herand Stream Conservation Units, are Appendix M Natural Resources TecEIS. As noted there, the only impact– Falling Creek SCU are under Buil– Ashcake, neither of which were Alternative. In Area 5, Alternative Preferred Alternative (refer to Sectiodetails). 

 The state threatened green floater 

identified in Table 3.10-8 of the Draft Ethat may occur within the vicinitdescription of this species is provideDraft EIS. Potential direct impacts Preferred Alternative are identified iEIS. Indirect impacts to aquatic habitaSection 5.20.1.6 of the Final EIS, are populations of green floater and othe
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-126 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 120 on previous page) 121. This recommendation is provided w

Heritage Resources”) of DEQ’s manumbered statement #28. 

122. DRPT appreciates the informat

concerning the Laura’s clubtail (Stylanalysis of potential Project effefocuses on federal and state listed thspecies. Potential Project effects on addressed in Section 5.10.2 of the Fimpacts analyses in the Final EIS iimpacts to streams (Section 5.1.1), and water quality (Section 5.1.3). 

123. The Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmido

in Table 5.10-5 of the Final EIS as haffected by the Preferred Alternativ5 (i.e. Northern Virginia through ADRPT-numbered statement #28 foand sediment control, stormwater measures to minimize impacts to aqcoordinate with VDGIF in accordEndangered Species Act during fpermitting, after funding becomes aimprovements are scheduled. 

124. This recommendation is provided w

Heritage Resources”) of DEQ’s manumbered statement #30. 

125. This recommendation is provided w

Heritage Resources”) of DEQ’s manumbered statement #31. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 125 on previous page) 126. This topic and recommendation are 

8 (“State Parks”) of DEQ’s main numbered statement #39. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-128 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(No comments on this page)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(No comments on this page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-130 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

127. DRPT received notification from D

refer to DHR’s letter, which is incluresponses in the Final EIS, for comm
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

128. This recommendation is provided w

Water Supply”) of DEQ’s main numbered statement #44. 

129. DRPT appreciates the list of pu

provided by VDH – Office of DrinkVDH’s list (11 wells within 1.0 mile which are within 1,000 feet of the number of wells identified in Sectiowells within 1.0 mile of the Project also within 1,000 feet of the LimitPreferred Alternative). 

130. DRPT appreciates the list of surface 

mile radius of the Project site provDrinking Water. Three of the surfwere identified in Section 4.1.4 of recently obtained an updated verVDOT’s Comprehensive EnvironmSystem, which identifies all eight olocations within a 5-mile radius of from VDH. The additional five locatof the Project. This information haSection 5.1.4 of the Final EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-132 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

131. DRPT appreciates the list of publ

within the same watershed as the POffice of Drinking Water. Hanover which is identified in Section 5.1.4 osurface water intake within the wmiles of the Project. 

132. These recommendations are prov

(“Public Water Supply”) of DEQ’s mnumbered statement #43. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

133. This topic and its recommendatio

Section 11 (“Septic Tanks and DrDEQ’s main letter. Refer to DRPT-nthrough #47. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-134 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

134. This topic and its recommendatio

Section 12 (“Open Space”) of DEQDRPT-numbered statements #48 an
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 134 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-136 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

135. This topic and its recommendatio

Section 13 (“Chesapeake Bay Presemain letter. Refer to DRPT-numbe#51. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 135 on previous page)