D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3
 3-1 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter describes the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions present in the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) corridor to provide an understanding 

of the Project area relative to the effects of the alternatives evaluated in this Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). It also identifies environmentally sensitive features in the Project corridor. 

As described in Chapter 2, the DC2RVA corridor has been subdivided into six alternative areas⎯

Arlington (Long Bridge Approach), Northern Virginia, Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads), 

Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell), Ashland (Doswell to I-295), and Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia)⎯that correspond with proposed improvements and alternatives (Figure 3.0-1). At the 

northern terminus in Arlington, VA, the Project starts at the southern approach to Long Bridge, a 

double-track rail bridge that carries the rail corridor over the Potomac River and into Washington, D.C., 

where it connects to the southern terminus of the Northeast 

Corridor (NEC) at Union Station. Long Bridge and the tracks 

continuing north of the bridge into Union Station are not a part 

of the DC2RVA project for environmental clearance purposes. 

The southern terminus in Centralia is the junction of two CSX 

Transportation (CSXT) routes that begin in Richmond and rejoin 

approximately 11 miles south of Richmond. At Centralia, the 

Project connects to both the Richmond to Raleigh section of the 

Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor and the Richmond 

to Hampton Roads section of the SEHSR corridor. 

Additional sections of the Project include approximately 8.3 

miles of the CSXT Peninsula Subdivision CA-Line from 

Beulah Road in Henrico County, VA, to AM Junction in the 

City of Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile-long 

Buckingham Branch Railroad (BBR) from AM Junction to the 

Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad Railway 

(RF&P) crossing in Doswell, VA. 

For each resource inventoried in this chapter, the Virigina Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) defined a study area. The study areas differ from the alterantive areas 

described above, vary in size depending on the resource, and are typically centered about the 

existing rail or potential bypass alignment. The study areas for the human environment, noise, 

and air quality are larger than the natural environment boundaries. The larger study areas are 

defined by regions of influence in which a resource may potentially have noticeable projectrelated impacts. Regions of influence for human resources account for factors such as community 

sizes, geographical and political boundaries, and census boundaries. These human resources 

 

3 

From north to south, the Project 

travels through the following 

towns, cities, and counties: 

 Arlington County 

 City of Alexandria 

 Fairfax County 

 Prince William County 

 Town of Dumfries 

 Town of Quantico 

 Stafford County 

 City of Fredericksburg 

 Spotsylvania County 

 Caroline County 

 Hanover County 

 Town of Ashland 

 Henrico County 

 City of Richmond 

 Chesterfield County
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-2 

Figure 3.0-1: Alternative Areas
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-3 

include social and economic issues, community resources, and land use planning. The air quality 

study area is influenced by local and regional atmospheric conditions. The noise study area is 

determined by the limit of noise intrusions associated with the Project. The extent of the study 

areas for the other natural resources described in this chapter were defined through coordination 

with federal and state regulatory agencies, and the anticipated limits of disturbance to the 

resource from Project construction and operation. The study areas were defined to extend well 

past the expected limits of disturbance to ensure that all potentially affected resources were 

identified and were generally established as a minimum of 500 feet (Table 3.0-1) 

Table 3.0-1: Study Area by Resource 

Resource Study Area1 Comment 

Water Resources Varies 500-foot study area for review of maps, photographs, databases, etc. 

Wetland and stream delineations were performed within a 100-foot study 

area. 

Topography, Geology, Soils 600 feet Wider study area because soils in disturbed areas such as the existing 

railroad corridor are not rated, so a wider study area provides a better 

understanding of the soil profile along the corridor. 

Agricultural Lands 1,000 feet Study area established to include larger farms and Agricultural/Forestal 

Districts within rural areas. 

Mineral Resources Varies Resources identified for both a 2,000-foot wide study area and a 2-mile 

study area. Wider study area used since the resources, regardless of size, 

are identified as points on a map. 

Solid Wastes and Hazardous 

Materials 

1,000 feet Wider study area to account for potential for contamination to travel 

from adjacent properties that may be affected and to include properties 

that might be considered for acquisition or easements. 

Air Quality All counties the 

Project is located 

within 

Study area is larger than for other resources because much of the 

available data regarding regional air quality is provided at the county level 

and not at a smaller scale. 

Noise and Vibration Varies Study area for the noise and vibration analysis varies in size throughout 

the corridor to account for potential impacts and is as wide as 

approximately 3 miles through some sections. 

Energy Not applicable Analysis covers energy use from intercity travel to, from, within, and 

through the DC2RVA corridor. 

Aesthetics and Visual 

Environment 

Varies Study area includes areas from which the Project would be visible as well 

as areas visible from the rail. 

Biological Resources 500 feet Minimum study area width. Considered conservative to capture any 

potential impacts. 

Community Resources 1,000 feet Study area of 1000 feet set for consistency with Title VI and 

Environmental Justice study area and for inclusion of smaller communities 

within rural areas. Counties discussed for comprehensive planning. 

Title VI and Environmental 

Justice 

1,000 feet Includes census tracts with any portion within the 1,000-foot study area. 

Archaeological and 

Aboveground Historic and 

Cultural Resources 

Varies Study area is the Area of Potential Effect which is the limits of disturbance 

for archaeological resources and 1000 feet for aboveground resources, 

which is expanded to 2000 feet in areas of overpass recommendations. 

Parklands, Recreational 

Areas, and Refuges 

1,000 feet Wider study area to ensure inclusion of all additional right-of-way impacts 

including those related to roadway improvements. 

Transportation Facilities Varies Two study areas established. Regional study area focuses on the broader 

transportation network and transportation modes that provide the overall 

context for the existing railroad service, as well as the proposed DC2RVA 

service. It includes portions of every county and city that the proposed service 

will traverse, and its extents include I-95 and U.S. Route 1, which run roughly 

parallel to the DC2RVA corridor. The second study area is 1-mile-wide and 

was used for more-detailed analysis of the affected transportation network. 

Note: 1. Study area is centered along the corridor. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-4 

3.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Water resources are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) according to the Water Pollution Control Act of 

1972 (Clean Water Act [CWA]) and the Water Quality Act of 1987. Section 404 of the CWA regulates 

activities affecting Waters of the United States (WOUS). WOUS can be generally defined as all 

navigable waters and waters that have been or can be used for interstate or foreign commerce, their 

tributaries, and any waters that, if impacted, could affect the former. WOUS include surface waters 

(e.g., streams, lakes, bays) and their associated wetlands (i.e., inundated or saturated areas that 

support vegetation adapted for life in wet soils). EPA, USACE, the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG), the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Virginia Marine 

Resources Commission (VMRC) all issue permits for various activities in, under, and over WOUS. 

Virginia DEQ administers the Virginia Water Protection Permit program (9 VAC 25-210), Section 

401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the State Water Control Law for activities affecting 

jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other water bodies. In July 2000, Virginia DEQ authority 

was modified by the Virginia General Assembly to develop a non-tidal wetlands program and to 

provide regulations to protect fish and wildlife resources. While waters that are considered 

“isolated” do not fall under federal CWA permitting, they are regulated by Virginia DEQ. 

VMRC is authorized to permit activities in, on or over state-owned subaqueous lands in Virginia 

(Code of Virginia Chapter 2, Title 62.1). In addition, VMRC is responsible for managing and 

regulating the use of Virginia’s tidal wetlands and coastal primary sand dunes in conjunction with 

Virginia’s local wetlands boards, where established. VMRC also protects and regulates those areas 

designated as non-vegetated and vegetated tidal wetlands and state-owned subaqueous bottom land. 

Virginia’s WOUS, including wetlands, are also regulated under the Virginia Wetlands Act and 

through Subtitle III of Title 28.2 of the Code of Virginia. These laws include oversight of areas and 

activities, such as isolated wetlands or Tulloch ditching, that are not covered by the Federal 

wetland program. Through this framework, each County’s Local Wetlands Board regulates 

activities in tidal wetlands within their Counties. 

Streams, wetlands, and floodplains within a 500-foot-wide study area centered on the DC2RVA 

corridor were identified by reviewing aerial photographs and topographic maps, Virginia 

Wetlands Catalog maps from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 

(VDCR)−Division of Natural Heritage, wetlands digitized by the City of Richmond, National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD) maps from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), National 

Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) “Comprehensive Environmental Data and 

Reporting System” (CEDAR) Geographic Information System (GIS) data (VDOT, no date), VDOT 

mitigation sites, and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

DRPT conducted field surveys in September 2015 through September 2016 to verify the existence 

of potential ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams and wetlands within 100 feet of the 

existing rail on the side of the track where improvements are proposed. The field survey findings 

augmented and updated the NHD and NWI mapping. These water resources are discussed in 

greater detail in the sections below. Streams and wetlands mapped within the study areas are 

shown in Appendix M. Lengths of streams and areas of wetlands within the study corridor were 

calculated using GIS. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-5 

Due to the DC2RVA corridor being located in two geographic regions, DRPT confirmed with 

USACE at a meeting held prior to fieldwork that two different regional supplements of the USACE 

delineation manual and its forms would be used for the delineation of wetlands along the corridor. 

The Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0 would be used for all wetlands delineated west 

of I-95, and the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plane Region – Version 2.0 would be used for all wetlands 

delineated east of I-95. All stream channels with the potential to be impacted by the DC2RVA 

project were assessed using the Unified Stream Methodology (USM) form. In Virginia, the USM is 

the approved assessment methodology for existing stream condition and the necessary mitigation 

requirements for stream impacts. Field reviews by USACE and Virginia DEQ, spot checks with the 

field crews at several intervals during the field survey, ensured methods were conducted according 

to agency expectations. Additional information was obtained through the scoping process, 

participating agency meetings, and consultation with regulatory agencies. 

3.1.1 Drainage Basins 

For permitting purposes, regulatory agencies prefer that mitigation take place within the same 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 watershed as the project. The DC2RVA corridor crosses seven 

USGS Subbasins or HUC 8 watersheds: 

 Middle Potomac−Anacostia−Occoquan 

 Lower Potomac River 

 Lower Rappahannock 

 Mattaponi 

 Pamunkey 

 Middle James−Willis 

 Lower James 

Figure 3.1-1 shows these watersheds. 

Middle Potomac−Anacostia−Occoquan Watershed 

This watershed encompasses approximately 831,483 acres in Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, 

Prince William, Loudoun, Fauquier, and Stafford counties. It is one of the most polluted 

watersheds in Virginia with approximately 27 percent of the surface waters reporting reduced 

water quality, even though roughly 45 percent of the watershed is forested. 

Lower Potomac River Watershed 

Prince William, Westmoreland, King George, Northumberland, Richmond, Fauquier, and 

Stafford counties contain a portion of this watershed. Most of the 1,160,160 acres is forested (i.e., 

deciduous, evergreen, and mixed). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-6 

Figure 3.1-1: Watershed Boundaries
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-7 

Lower Rappahannock Watershed 

This watershed drains directly to the Chesapeake Bay and supplies important coastal habitat to 

waterfowl and migratory birds along the Eastern Flyway (USDA, 2004). The Lower 

Rappahannock Watershed encompasses approximately 738,446 acres in Stafford, Spotsylvania, 

Caroline, King George, Richmond, Westmoreland, Lancaster, Essex, and Middlesex counties. 

Half of the area is forested with a mixture of hardwood and pines. Of the remaining area, 

agriculture makes up approximately 21 percent of the land use, producing mainly soybeans, corn, 

and hay; 14 percent has been developed. 

Mattaponi Watershed 

This watershed encompasses approximately 582,426 acres in Orange, Spotsylvania, Caroline, 

King and Queen, and King William counties. Most of the land (approximately 70 percent) in this 

watershed is forested with a mixture of hardwood and pines. Roughly 14 percent of the land is 

used for agriculture, and 10 percent of the land has been developed. This watershed drains to the 

York River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. 

Pamunkey Watershed 

This watershed is located in Hanover, Louisa, King William, Spotsylvania, Caroline, and New 

Kent counties. Approximately 941,032 acres drain to the York River and eventually to the 

Chesapeake Bay. The area is predominantly wooded with irregular plains and low, rolling hills. 

Elevations downstream are very low, stream flow is slow, and stained water is common. Land 

use in the drainage area is mostly forested (approximately 64 percent), pasture and crop land 

account for approximately 13 percent of the area, and approximately 4 percent is developed or 

barren. 

Middle James−Willis Watershed 

This watershed contains approximately 615,449 acres in a portion of 6 counties⎯Buckingham, 

Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland, Henrico, and Powhatan⎯and the city of Richmond. 

Lower James Watershed 

Land use in this approximately 1,135,000-acre watershed is mostly urban and suburban (48 

percent), with only 31 percent forested and 12 percent agricultural. It is known for its large 

military installations, port facilities, and manufacturing. The watershed covers part or all of 

Hanover, Henrico, Prince George, New Kent, Surry, Isle of Wight, and York counties. 

3.1.2 Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams 

The 500-foot-wide study area along the DC2RVA corridor includes more than 350 rivers, streams, 

and other surface waters (Figure 3.1-2), including approximately 204,563 linear feet of surface 

waters, including rivers and streams (Table 3.1-1). Most of the surface waters are small perennial 

or intermittent streams. Eight of the waters are classified as navigable. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-8 

Table 3.1-1: Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams 

Alternative 

Area Water Bodies 

Number of 

Streams 

Delineated 

Linear Feet 

in Study 

Area1

Area 1: 

Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

 Roaches Run 1 214 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

 Roaches Run Marumsco Creek

 Four Mile Run Marumsco Acres Creek/Lake 

 Timber Branch (piped underground) Farm Creek 

 Taylor Run Neabsco Creek 

 Cameron Run Powells Creek 

 Long Branch Boars Creek 

 Accotink Creek Aquia Creek 

 Pohick Creek Accokeek Creek 

 Giles Run Potomac Creek 

 Occoquan River Claiborne Run 

112 49,147 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

 Claiborne Run 

 Rappahannock River 

 Hazel Run 

 Deep Run 

 Little Falls Run 

 Snow Creek 

 Meadow Creek 

67 46,778 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

 Mattaponi River

 Campbell Creek 

 Polecat Creek 

 Reedy Creek 

 North Anna River 

 Bull Run 

 Little River 

60 25,734 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

(Doswell to 

I-295) 

 South Anna River

 Falling Creek 

 Stony Run 

 Chickahominy River 

45 31,129 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia) 

 North Run 

 Hungry Creek 

 Rocky Branch 

 Horsepen Branch 

 Jordans Branch 

 Cannon Branch & Shockoe Creek (piped underground in some 

locations) 

 Goode Creek 

 Grindall Creek 

 Falling Creek 

 James River 

 Kingsland Creek 

 Proctors Creek 

 Reedy Creek 

 Broad Rock Creek 

69 51,561 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

Notes: 1. Lengthwise measurement of streams and rivers (i.e., the width of the study area across larger river crossings) 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-9 

3.1.3 Designated Waters 

Table 3.1-2 identifies special status streams and other special waterway designations in the 

DC2RVA corridor. Figure 3.1-2 shows these designated waters. 

Table 3.1-2: Special Stream Designations 

Designation Organization Water Body 

Alternative 

Area 

Navigable Waters USACE/USCG Occoquan River 

Neabsco Creek 

Powells Creek 

Aquia Creek 

Rappahannock River 

Hazel Run 

Mattaponi River 

James River 

Northern Virginia 

Northern Virginia 

Northern Virginia 

Northern Virginia 

Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg 

Central Virginia 

Richmond 

State Scenic River VDCR Occoquan River1

Rappahannock River 

North Anna River1 

South Anna River1 

James River 

Northern Virginia 

Fredericksburg 

Central Virginia 

Ashland 

Richmond 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), National Park Service 

(NPS), USFWS, United States 

Forest Service (USFS) 

There are no federally listed Wild or Scenic 

Rivers in Virginia. 

n/a 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory2 

NPS North Anna River 

South Anna River

Central Virginia 

Ashland 

Exceptional State 

Waters3

Virginia DEQ No Exceptional State Waters are located in 

the study area. 

n/a 

Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Areas 

VDCR The study area includes 2,986 acres of 

Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas 

(RPA). The remainder of the land located 

within the study area is considered to be 

Resource Management Area (RMA). 

All 

Virginia Coastal 

Zone Management 

Areas 

Virginia DEQ The entire study area is located within 

Virginia’s coastal zone. 

All 

Fisheries 

Management Areas 

VMRC No Fisheries Management Areas are located in 

the study area. 

n/a 

Shellfish Areas VMRC No commercial shellfish sites, Baylor Grounds 

(public oyster grounds), private oyster 

grounds, or state-constructed oyster reef 

areas are located in the study area. 

n/a 

Source: USACE, 2016, VDCR, 2011, VDCR, 2013, DOI, et al., 2014, NPS, 2009, Virginia DEQ, 2014, VMRC, 2012, USCG, no date. 

Notes: 1. Identified as worthy of future study (not yet a legislatively designated river); 2. More than 3,400 free-flowing river segments determined 

to possess one or more "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance; 3. Waters 

with outstanding qualities in which activities such as discharge and the temporary lowering of water quality are regulated to protect and maintain 

their exceptional status. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-10 

3.1.3.1 Navigable Waters 

According to USACE and USCG, the following waters crossed by the existing rail line are 

navigable:

 Four Mile Run  Chopawamsic Creek 

 Accotink Creek  Aquia Creek 

 Occoquan River  Rappahannock River 

 Neabsco Creek  Hazel Run 

 Powells Creek  Mattaponi River 

 Quantico Creek  James River 

USCG has jurisdiction over navigable waters. Navigable waters are defined by 33 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 2.05-25 as waters subject to the ebb and flow of tide; or any water that is 

presently used, was previously used, or is susceptible to use in its natural condition, or by 

reasonable improvement, as a means to transport substantial interstate or foreign commerce. 

Work in or near such a water may require consultation with or permits from USCG. Figure 3.1-2 

identifies the navigable waters. 

3.1.3.2 State Scenic Rivers 

The Virginia Scenic Rivers Act of 1970, §10.1-400 requires state and federal agencies to take into 

consideration how projects and programs affect state scenic rivers. The DC2RVA corridor crosses 

five scenic rivers (Table 3.1-3 and Figure 3.1-2). 

Table 3.1-3: State Scenic Rivers Crossed by the Project 

River Designated Reach 

Alternative 

Area Status 

Occoquan River Entire River Northern Virginia Potential Components—Identified as 

worthy of future study 

Rappahannock River Headwaters to Route 3 at Ferry 

Farm 

Fredericksburg Scenic River—Legislatively designated 

component 

North Anna River Route 1 at Chandler Crossing to 

Pamunkey River 

Central Virginia Potential Components—Identified as 

worthy of future study 

South Anna River Route 686 to Pamunkey River Ashland Potential Components—Identified as 

worthy of future study 

James River West limits of Richmond to 

Orleans Street (extended) 

Richmond Scenic River—Legislatively designated 

component 

Source: VDCR, 2011. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-11 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-12 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-13 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-14 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-15 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-16 

Figure 3.1-2: Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Wetlands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-17 

3.1.3.3 Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments 

in the United States, maintained by the National Park Service, that are believed to possess one or 

more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values (ORVs) judged to be of more than 

local or regional significance. ORVs include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, 

cultural, or other. Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would 

adversely affect one or more NRI reaches. Table 3.1-4 lists the resources within the DC2RVA 

corridor that are listed on the NRI. 

Table 3.1-4: Designated Nationwide River Reaches 

River Designated Reach ORVs 

North Anna River 1.5 miles above Morris Bridge 

to Lake Anna 

Historic—Historic mill sites and ruins, Civil War Battlefields and 

breastworks, Indian artifact sites 

Recreational—Popular whitewater canoe run, noted for smallmouth 

bass fishing 

South Anna River North Anna River to Gouldin Historic—Historic mill sites and ruins, Civil War Battlefields and 

breastworks, Indian artifact sites 

Recreational—Unique proximity to Richmond and Fredericksburg, 

noted for smallmouth bass fishing 

Source: NPS, 2009. 

3.1.3.4 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas 

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA) was enacted by the Virginia General Assembly in 1988 

to protect and manage Virginia's “coastal zone.” The CBPA requires local governments to include 

water quality protection measures in their zoning and subdivision ordinances and in their 

comprehensive plans. Executive Order (EO) 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, 

issued in 2009, requires DRPT to consider goals for restoring clean water by reducing nitrogen, 

phosphorus, sediment, and other pollutants; recovering habitat by restoring a network of land 

and water habitats to support priority species and other public benefits; sustaining fish and 

wildlife; and conserving land and increasing public access. 

The entire DC2RVA corridor is located within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area. Resource 

Protection Areas (RPAs) include tidal wetlands; tidal shores; non-tidal wetlands connected by 

surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or perennial water bodies; and highly erodible 

soils, as well as a 100-foot-wide vegetated buffer area located adjacent to and landward of these 

features and along both sides of any water body with perennial flow within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. When preserved in their natural condition, RPAs protect water quality; filter and 

reduce the volume of runoff; prevent erosion; and perform other important biological and 

ecological functions. These areas are subject to local CBPA requirements to minimize land 

disturbance, preserve indigenous vegetation, minimize impervious surfaces, control stormwater 

runoff, and implement erosion and sediment control plans for land disturbances. The DC2RVA 

project is conditionally exempt from additional avoidance or minimization of impacts to RPAs 

provided it is constructed in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et 

seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Stormwater Management Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code 

of Virginia). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-18 

DRPT mapped RPAs by including a 100-foot-wide buffer to the edge of perennial streams and 

adjacent wetlands. Approximately 1,760 acres of RPAs are associated with delineated wetlands 

and streams. All additional land within the DC2RVA corridor is considered a Resource 

Management Area (RMA). The RMA includes all land outside the RPA that, if improperly used 

or developed, has the potential to degrade water quality or diminish functions of the RPA. 

3.1.3.5 Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area 

Pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended, and 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Federal Consistency Regulations (15 

CFR Part 930), federal agency projects occurring within, or with reasonably foreseeable likelihood 

to affect, Virginia’s coastal uses or resources must be conducted in a manner that is consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) 

and require a consistency determination. 

Virginia DEQ administers the Virginia CZMP through a network of state agencies and local 

governments, which share responsibility for administering the enforceable policies as follows: 

Fisheries Management (VMRC and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

[VDGIF]), Subaqueous Lands Management (VMRC), Wetlands Management (VMRC and 

Virginia DEQ), Dunes Management (VMRC), Non-point Source Pollution Control (Virginia 

DEQ), Point Source Pollution Control (Virginia DEQ, State Water Control Board), Shoreline 

Sanitation (VDH), Air Pollution Control (Virginia DEQ, Air Pollution Control Board), and Coastal 

Lands Management (Virginia DEQ). 

According to Virginia DEQ, Virginia’s coastal zone “encompasses the 29 counties, 17 cities, and 

42 incorporated towns in ‘Tidewater Virginia,’ as defined in the Code of Virginia 28.2‐100” 

(Virginia DEQ, no date) (Figure 3.1-2). The entire DC2RVA corridor is located within Virginia’s 

coastal zone. Any development within this area must be consistent with the applicable 

Enforceable Regulatory Programs that comprise Virginia’s CZMP. 

3.1.4 Wetlands 

Wetlands provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife; improve water quality; perform 

important hydrologic functions, such as regulating storm flow; maintain food chain and nutrient 

cycling functions; serve socioeconomic roles; and may support rare and endangered species. EO 

11990, Protection of Wetlands, mandates that each federal agency take action to minimize the 

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance their natural values. 

Wetlands are currently defined by USACE (33 CFR 328.3[b]) and EPA (40 CFR 230.3[t]) as: 

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 

Wetlands observed in the study area were generally associated with freshwater riparian 

corridors, railway ditches, and some tidal waterways along riparian corridors in the north. Their 

functions include groundwater discharge, groundwater recharge, nutrient removal, sediment/ 

toxin retention, and wildlife habitat. Most of the emergent wetlands are railside ditches and 

include vegetation such as Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Asian spiderwort 

(Murdannia keisak), cat tails (Typha latifolia and angustifolia), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides),
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-19 

deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle 

(Lonicera japonica), soft rush (Juncus effusus), several species of Carex, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus),

and panic grass (Dichanthelium dichotomum), with a large variety of other non-dominant species. 

The most common tree species found in the palustrine forested wetlands set back from the 

railroad in rural areas include red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), 

willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and river birch (Betula nigra).

This Draft EIS uses an abbreviated version of the classification system developed by USFWS, also 

known as the Cowardin System (Cowardin, et al., 1979), for identifying wetlands. The study area 

includes palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM), palustrine scrub−shrub wetlands (PSS), and 

palustrine forested wetlands (PFO) (Table 3.1-5 and Figure 3.1-2). 

Table 3.1-5: Wetlands (acres) 

Alternative Area PEM PEM/PSS PEM/PFO PEM/PSS/PFO PSS PSS/PFO PFO Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

– – – – 9.0 – – 9.0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 13.4 1.2 23.4 15.3 0.8 – 18.7 72.8 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

9.6 1.8 19.5 – 8.6 0.0 93.2 132.7 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

14.6 4.5 106.0 13.1 2.2 11.4 36.6 188.4 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

10.3 0.1 13.6 – 0.0 1.9 24.3 50.2 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

14.7 0.5 3.8 0.8 1.7 0.2 15.4 37.1 

Total 62.6 8.1 166.3 29.2 22.3 13.5 188.2 490.2 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

3.1.5 Floodplains and Floodways 

A floodplain is an area of low-lying ground near waterways subject to flooding. Floodplains have 

many natural and beneficial values, including flood flow moderation, water quality maintenance, 

and wildlife habitat. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood 

Insurance Program, under which FEMA maps the nation’s flood-prone areas on the FIRM. The 

FIRM identifies the 100- and 500-year flood boundaries. The 100-year flood boundary is the area 

that will be inundated by a flood event having a 1.0 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded 

in any given year. The 500-year flood boundary is the area that will be inundated by a flood event 

having a 0.2 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the 

long- and short-term adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains. In accomplishing this objective, “each agency shall provide leadership and shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains 

in carrying out its responsibilities.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-20 

According to the FIRM produced by FEMA, approximately 3,574 acres of 100-year floodplains 

are within a 500-foot-wide study area along the DC2RVA corridor, as shown in Figure 3.1-3. 

Mapped floodplains include those associated with 51 waterways in the study area. Table 3.1-6 

summarizes the acres of floodplain by alternative area. DRPT also learned of localized flooding 

in Stafford County at the Brooke Fire Station and at Claiborne Run during the scoping process. 

Table 3.1-6: Floodplains 

Alternative Area Acres 

Percent of 

Study Area 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 47 1% 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 954 27% 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 251 7% 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 1,171 33% 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 386 11% 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 765 21% 

Total 3,574 100% 

3.1.6 Water Quality 

In compliance with Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the federal CWA and the Safe Drinking 

Water Act, Virginia DEQ has developed a prioritized list of water bodies that currently do not 

meet water quality standards. Virginia DEQ monitors streams for a variety of water quality 

parameters, including temperature; dissolved oxygen; pH; fecal coliform; Escherichia coli; 

Enterococci; total phosphorus; chlorophyll a; benthic invertebrates; metals and toxins in the water 

column; suspended sediments; and fish tissues. 

Water quality standards designate uses for waters. In Virginia, the six designated uses include 

aquatic life, fish consumption (i.e., the ability of humans to eat fish from that water body), public 

water supplies (where applicable), recreation (swimming), shell fishing, and wildlife, with some 

additional subcategories in aquatic life adopted for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. If a 

water body contains more contamination than allowed to support one or more of its designated 

uses, the waters are labeled “impaired.” A cleanup plan to restore waters to their intended uses 

is developed for these impaired waters. The maximum amount of pollutant a water body can 

receive and still meet its intended use is known as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 

The Section 303(d) list includes those water bodies and watersheds that exhibit levels of 

impairment requiring investigation and restoration. Not all parameters are monitored at each 

ambient water quality monitoring station. Citizen groups and federal agencies also monitor some 

streams and provide their data to Virginia DEQ for compilation. The DC2RVA corridor crosses 

62 assessed water bodies included on the Section 303(d) list, 51 of which are impaired (see Table 

3-9 in Appendix M). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-21 

Figure 3.1-3: Floodpains and Impaired Waters
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-22 

Figure 3.1-3: Floodpains and Impaired Waters 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-23 

3.1.7 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress to regulate the public 

drinking water supply. Amendments in 1986 and 1996 further protect the water supply by 

requiring actions that protect drinking water and its sources. The 1996 Amendments mandate 

that states assess, delineate, and map protection areas for their public drinking water sources and 

determine potential risks to those sources. Source water protection is not specifically mandated 

by the SDWA; however, states, tribes, and communities are encouraged to use this information 

to protect the sources from pollution of major concern and may pass local regulations. 

This Project is located in the Coastal Plain province, which is composed of mostly unconsolidated 

deposits/layers of sand, gravel, shell rock, silt, and clay. These pervious unconsolidated layers 

store more groundwater than Virginia’s other provinces in two separate groundwater 

systems⎯one shallow and one deep. The shallow groundwater system sits on top of a relatively 

impermeable clay layer and provides water for many domestic and smaller capacity wells. Due 

to the permeability of the soil above these shallow systems, they have a high potential for 

contamination (Virginia Tech, 2011). Release of chemicals during construction; release of 

transported chemicals; salts and chemicals used for snow and ice removal; and chemicals used 

for the removal of vegetation are the main sources of contamination to public water supplies 

along rail lines. 

As a result of the 1996 SDWA amendments, Virginia adopted a 1-mile wellhead protection zone 

around all groundwater public sources (Zone 2). Zone 1 includes a 1,000-foot radius in which 

land use activities should be assessed for their potential to contaminate water supplies (Virginia 

DEQ, 2005). Seven public wellheads are located within Zone 1 of the existing rail corridor, and 

an additional six are located outside Zone 1 but within Zone 2. This does not include private 

wells, which also have the potential to be affected by this Project. 

CEDAR GIS mapping from VDOT and mapping of wells from the Virginia Department of Mines, 

Minerals, and Energy (DMME) indicates two public and eight private water wells located within 

100 feet of the DC2RVA corridor. 

Reservoir Protection Overlay Districts are areas of zoning restricting use and require best 

management practices (BMPs) and other protective measures in areas critical to the integrity of 

public water supplies, rivers, streams, and other sensitive features. The existing rail corridor does 

not cross near any Reservoir Protection Overlay Districts (VDOT, no date). 

The Project falls within SDWA Zone 1 (5-mile radius) of three public surface water supply 

intakes⎯Fairfax County Water Authority, Hanover Suburban Water System, and City of 

Richmond. Fairfax County Water Authority and City of Richmond water supplies are located 

upstream of the existing rail corridor. 

No sole source aquifers (EPA, no date), source protection areas, or water supply reservoirs are 

located near the DC2RVA corridor. 

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Topography, geology, and soil characteristics affect development and land use, and they impact 

planning, design, and construction of roads and rail infrastructure. Topography may create 

engineering obstacles, and soil types can determine stability, durability, and choice of 

construction materials. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-24 

Information was gathered through research of USGS maps and atlases for geology and 

topography, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), under the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), for soils. 

Additional information was obtained from websites, local and regional plans, and personal 

communications with representatives from various federal, state, and local agencies and VDOT’s 

CEDAR database, which includes database records collected from Virginia regulatory agencies. 

The study area for geology and topography includes the overall landscape along the Project corridor. 

DRPT assessed soils information within a 600-foot-wide study area centered on the DC2RVA corridor, 

300 feet to each side of the existing rail and proposed alignment. A wider study area (i.e., 600 feet versus 

500 feet) was chosen because soils in disturbed areas such as the existing railroad corridor are not rated, 

so a wider study area provides a better understanding of the soil profile along the corridor. 

3.2.1 Topography 

In this region, most of the landscape is dominated by low rolling hills. Some sharper changes in 

topography exist along streams and rivers where erosion has taken away the topsoil and bedrock 

is exposed. In the north, most of the Project is located near the Potomac River on low flat plains. 

Topography in the southern stretches contains more variability. 

3.2.2 Geology 

The DC2RVA corridor crosses between two physiographic provinces⎯the Piedmont province 

and the Coastal Plain province (Figure 3.2-1). The dividing line between the provinces is the fall 

line with the Piedmont province to the west and the Coastal Plain province paralleling the coast 

to the east. The fall line (or fall zone) is the geomorphologic break between an upland region of 

relatively hard crystalline basement rock and a coastal plain of softer sedimentary rock. In 

Virginia, I-95 runs roughly along this line. 

The Coastal Plain province contains Pliocene and Miocene sedimentary rocks formed from 

former shorelines and cut into terraces by historic emergent bay and river bottoms. These 

sedimentary rocks are relatively soft, unconsolidated layers of Cretaceous and younger clay, 

sand, and gravel. West of the Coastal Plain province, the Piedmont province is made up of late 

Proterozoic and Paleozoic igneous rock (formed by molten rock that has come to the surface and 

cooled) and metamorphic rock (physically and/or chemically changed due to heat and pressure) 

that has been strongly weathered and is buried under 6 to 65 feet of soil. The metamorphic rock 

is very complex due to the number of times it has been altered and often contains mineral 

deposits, including gold, talc, kyanite, slate, and feldspar (W&M, 2016). 

3.2.3 Soils 

NRCS rates soils for suitability for building site development. These ratings are based on many 

different soil properties. Suitability for construction of railroads is not rated; however, suitability 

for building local roads and streets is rated. Some of the same properties considered in building 

local roads and streets apply to building railroads, such as frost action; flooding potential; 

ponding; amount of large stones; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; hardness of bedrock or a 

cemented pan; low strength; depth to saturation; shrink-swell potential; and slope. These 

properties affect ease of excavation and grading and traffic-supporting capacity. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-25 

Figure 3.2-1: Physiographic Provinces (Virginia)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-26 

Table 3.2-1 below shows an analysis of soil mapped within the study area. Ratings indicate the 

extent to which the soils are limited by all soil features that affect the ability to build local roads 

and streets and should be considered for construction of railroad lines and roadway crossings. 

Most of the areas where construction is expected to occur were previously disturbed and are 

considered urban or cut/fill land. These locations are not rated for characteristics of concern for 

sensitive soil types. 

Table 3.2-1: Construction-Limiting Soils 

Alternative Area 

Suitability for Building Local 

Roads and Streets (Acres) Hydric Soils (Acres) Not Rated Not Limited1 Somewhat Limited2 

Very Limited3 Unknown Not HydricPartially Hydric Hydric 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 55 – – – 55 – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 1,149 37 459 1,763 1,151 1,583 385 289 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 146 175 657 1,220 105 1,179 573 341 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 54 234 768 1,058 19 690 620 785 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 7 142 565 543 2 393 721 141 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 502 74 456 2,347 113 2,136 702 428 

Corridor Total 1,913 662 2,905 6,931 1,445 5,981 3,001 1,984 

% of Study Area 15.4 5.3 23.4 55.9 11.6 48.2 24.2 16.0 

Table Source: USDA, 2015. 

Notes: 1. Not Limited—Soil works well for specified use; good performance/low maintenance required. 2. Limitations can be overcome/ 

minimized through planning, design, and installation; fair performance/moderate maintenance. 3. Limitations may require major soil reclamation, 

special design, or expensive installation procedures to be overcome; poor performance/high maintenance. 

The rating for the Project corridor soils for building roads and railbeds is approximately 33 

percent “very limited” and 19 percent “somewhat limited.” Appendix M includes figures that 

show the soils with potential construction limitations. These ratings indicate one or more factors 

that should be taken into consideration when used for that specified purpose. The limitations can 

be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and 

moderate maintenance of the soil can be expected if these steps are taken (USDA, 2014). 

3.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

The following discussion of agricultural lands is organized into two components: farmland soils and 

agricultural/forestal districts. The farmland soils data are based on mapping and data available from 

NRCS (Appendix N). Agricultural and forestal districts are based on mapping and data available 

from local jurisdictions and VDOT. Figure 3.3-1 shows the agricultural lands in the study area. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-27 

3.3.1 Farmland Soils 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) (7 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4201 et seq.)

established regulations to “minimize the extent to which Federal programs ... contribute to ... 

conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural uses, encourage alternative actions ... that 

could lessen adverse effects on farmland, and assure that Federal programs are ... compatible” 

with state, local, and private programs that protect farmland (7 CFR 658). NRCS has jurisdiction 

over the farmland program. 

Farmland, as defined by 7 U.S.C. 4201, includes: 

 Prime Farmland: The best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops. 

 Unique farmland: Land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific 

high-value food and fiber crops. 

 Farmland of statewide or local importance: Farmland that is important for the production 

of food feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops, as determined by the appropriate state or local 

agency. 

 Pastureland, cropland, forestland, and other land that is not urban land or water. 

 All farmland and forestland meeting the criteria for farmland soils, even if zoned for 

development. 

These farmlands are based on individual soil types as determined by NRCS. Table 3.3-1 includes 

the acreage of farmland soils within 500 feet of either side of the the existing CSXT rail line and 

the centerlines of potential new alignments. 

Table 3.3-1: Farmland Soils 

Farmland Soil Type Acreage within 1,000-Foot Study Area Percent of Total 

Prime and Unique Farmland Soils 3,979 21.5% 

Statewide and Locally Important Soils 2,362 12.8% 

Not Farmland Soils 12,163 65.7% 

Source: VDOT, no date. 

3.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, agricultural and forested lands are regulated under the Local 

Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. The purpose of this act is to “encourage the development 

and improvement of the Commonwealth’s agricultural and forestal lands for the production of 

food and other agricultural and forestal products ... and to conserve and protect agricultural and 

forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open spaces for 

clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic purposes” (Code of 

Virginia 15.2-4300 to 4314 and 15.2-4400 to 4407). The lands are formed into districts within 

individual localities, and the provisions for the districts state that “no parcel within” or “added 

to an already created district shall be developed to a more intensive use than its existing use at 

the time of adoption/addition to the district for eight years from the date of adoption of the 

original district ordinance.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-28 

Figure 3.3-1: Agricultural/Forestal Districts
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-29 

Along the Project corridor, Fairfax County, Hanover County, Prince William County, and 

Spotsylvania County have agricultural and forestal district programs. Table 3.3-2 includes the 

acreage of agricultural/forestal districts within 500 feet of the existing rail or the bypass 

alignment alternatives. One agricultural/forestal district is located within the study area: the 

Stanley District in Hanover County. The Stanley District is along the Ashland Bypass section in 

Alternative Area 5. The 1,000-foot-wide study area centered on the bypass section covers 

approximately 15 percent of the Stanley District. 

Table 3.3-2: Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

Location Acreage within 1,000-Foot Study Area 

Fairfax County 0 

Hanover County 95.7 acres (all within the Stanley District) 

Prince William County 0 

Spotsylvania County 0 

Source: VDOT, no date. 

3.4 MINERAL RESOURCES 

The location of mineral deposits affects development and land use, and it impacts planning, 

design, and construction of roads and rail. Mineral resource economic opportunities can influence 

the need for transportation. Information was gathered from the DMME ArcGIS service for 

mineral resources. Mineral resources were identified within 1 mile of the existing rail or proposed 

bypass alignment to comprise a 2-mile-wide study area (Figure 3.4-1). A wider study area (i.e., 2 

miles versus 500-feet) was chosen to account for the size of mine lands that are only represented 

by a point on a map, and to account for the potential impacts to mines from road closures. 

More than 400 minerals are in Virginia. The value of non-fuel minerals produced in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia in 2012 was estimated at approximately $1.24 billion. Industrial 

minerals include kyanite; feldspar; fuller’s earth; amazonite and other semi-precious gemstones; 

iron-oxide pigments; feldspar; salt; high-purity silica sand; heavy mineral sands (titanium and 

zirconium concentrates); chemical and agricultural carbonates; dimension stone; and vermiculite. 

DMME has interactive ArcGIS maps for eight resource categories: Abandoned Coal Mine 

Reclamation Lands, Wind Energy Study Locations, Oil and Gas Wells, Active and Abandoned 

Underground Mines, Reclaimed Mines, Mineral Mines, Mineral Resources, and Gas and Oil 

Wells. Of these categories, only Mineral Mines and Mineral Resources had locations mapped 

within 1 mile of the DC2RVA corridor. The mines and resources identified are listed by 

alternative area in Table 3.4-1. To avoid double counting resources, each resource was only 

counted once even if it was within 1 mile of two different areas. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-30 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-31 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-32 

Figure 3.4-1: Mines & Mineral Resources 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-33 

Table 3.4-1: Mineral Resources 

Alternative Area 

Mineral Mine Mineral Resources 

Within 

1 mile Within 1,000 feet 

Within 

1 mile Within 1,000 feet 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

– – – –

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

– – 35 5 gravel resource areas (204C-908, 204C-906, 

204C-913, 204C-804, 204C-805) 

1 clay resource (194D-901) 

1 sand and gravel resource (182B-901) 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

 8 2 active sand and gravel 

mines (90385AA, 06100AA) 

2 orphaned sand mines 

(DMM10104, DMM10108) 

 34 5 sand and gravel resources (182C-501, 182C-502, 

182C-808, 169A-101, 182C-802) 

3 sand and gravel resources (169B-210, 169B-205, 

182C-501) 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

 2 1 orphaned granite mine 

(DMM06028) 

 16 3 sand and gravel resources (169C-602, 169C-905, 

169D-703) 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

 8 1 orphaned gravel mine 

(DMM8951) 

 6 2 clay resources (149B-703, 149B-702) 

1 sand and gravel resource (149C-403) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

 25 1 orphaned sand and gravel 

mine (DMM13007) 

2 sand and gravel mines 

(DMM12094, DMM13016) 

5 orphaned granite mines 

(DMM12070, DMM13009, 

DMM13010, DMM12075, 

DMM13025) 

 56 18 sand and gravel resources (126C-104, 

126C-101, 126C-505, 126C-404, 126C-403, 126C708, 126C-701, 126C-501, 126C-503, 126C-502, 

126C-915, 126C-914, 126C-913, 126C-912, 

126C-911, 126C-908, 126C-907, 126D-709) 

1 granite resource (099B-206) 

4 clay resources (099B-202, 099B-203, 099B-501, 

126C-401) 

Note: To avoid double counting resources, each resource was only counted once even if it was within one mile of two different areas 

3.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Hazardous materials are substances that are ignitable, explosive, corrosive, or toxic. Concerns 

associated with them include health hazards, environmental damages, liability issues, and 

potentially high costs of cleanup. Hazardous material sites can include gas stations; industrial 

sites; businesses that use hazardous materials in commercial operations; aboveground storage 

tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs); disposal sites; spill sites; and others. 

Solid wastes refer to wastes produced as a result of construction-related activities such as debris 

produced from clearing and grubbing, excess materials, and removal of old materials. Disposal and 

reuse issues have been recognized in the construction industry, and an effort is being made to 

reduce volumes of waste produced by construction and demolition that are disposed of in landfills. 

The study area for hazardous materials and solid wastes extends 500 feet to each side of the 

existing or proposed rail in the bypass areas, to comprise a 1,000-foot-wide study area. A wider 

study area (i.e., 1,000 feet versus 500 feet) was chosen to account for potential for contamination 

to travel from adjacent properties that may be affected, and to include properties that might be 

considered for purchase or easements for the construction of the DC2RVA project. Further 

investigation of hazardous sites/facilities that could potentially be affected by the Project would 

be completed in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that would occur prior to construction. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-34 

3.5.1 Regulatory Context 

The federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia, primarily through EPA and Virginia 

DEQ, respectively, regulate hazardous materials under multiple statutes. The two main statutes 

that regulate materials of primary concern include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) and their respective amendments. The RCRA regulates generators, transporters, and 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities of hazardous materials. RCRA defines these materials 

as those that have ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. The CERCLA was passed to 

provide an avenue to correct those sites already contaminated with hazardous substances. EPA 

and Virginia DEQ maintain databases of regulated sites and facilities. 

3.5.2 Data Collection 

DRPT conducted an environmental records review to identify hazardous material (hazmat) 

database records along the Project corridor from Environmental Risk Information Service (ERIS), 

a commercial database search and environmental risk information provider. Records within 500 

feet of the existing track or potential bypass track were reviewed to identify sites with the known 

or potential presence of contamination. Additional information was obtained on potential 

hazardous materials sites from VDOT’s CEDAR database, which includes database records 

collected from Virginia regulatory agencies. This information was compiled and compared with 

the results of the ERIS database search. Table 3.5-1 lists the databases that were searched. 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases 

Database Definition 

FEDERAL RECORDS (databases marked with an asterisk had no records within the search area) 

BROWNFIELDS The Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) Brownfield Database and 

EPA Listing of Brownfields⎯Property on which use or development activities may be complicated 

by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. 

Generally, these consist of abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities that may be 

available for reuse or redevelopment. 

CERCLIS/National 

Priorities List (NPL)/ 

Superfund Sites 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System⎯

Superfund is a program administered by EPA to locate, investigate, and cleanup the worst hazardous 

waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed 

hazardous waste sites at which the EPA Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites 

that are either proposed to be or are on the NPL, as well as sites that are in the screening and 

assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. EPA administers the Superfund program in 

cooperation with individual states and tribal governments. EPA is transitioning to the Superfund 

Enterprise Management System (SEMS). SEMS includes the same data fields and content as 

CERCLIS. This database is made available by EPA and includes: 

 Sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status 

indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and EPA 

has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the NPL. This decision does not 

necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based on 

available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. 

 Sites on which liens can exist by operation of law where EPA has spent Superfund monies. 

 NPL deletions. 

 Property on which EPA has filed liens to recover remedial action expenditures or when the 

property owner received notification of potential liability. 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-35 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases 

Database Definition 

Emergency Response 

Notification System 

(ERNS) 

Records of spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The National Response 

Center serves as the sole national point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, radiological, 

biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its 

territories. 

Engineering Controls Locations maintained by EPA of physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, subsurface venting systems, 

mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent exposure to contamination on a property. 

Facility Registry System 

(FRS) 

Centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental 

regulations or of environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility 

identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate 

information from program national systems, state master facility records, data collected from EPA's 

Central Data Exchange registrations, and data management personnel. 

Hazardous Materials 

Information Reporting 

System (HMIRS) 

Incident reported to and managed by the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 

Institutional Controls Sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such

as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and postremediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining onsite. 

Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. 

National Clandestine 

Drug Labs 

Locations where law enforcement agencies report they found chemicals or other items that indicate 

the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. 

RCRA RCRA, including: 

 Large Quantity Generators (more than 1,000 kilograms [kg] of hazardous waste or more than 

1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month). 

 Small Quantity Generators (between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month). 

 Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (less than 100 kg of hazardous waste or less 

than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month). 

 Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility. 

 Hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity⎯Owners are required to clean 

up hazardous materials released at these sites. 

 Hazardous waste handlers with no RCRA corrective action activity requirements. 

 Facilities that do not presently generate hazardous waste. 

STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS 

Brownfields SiteSpecific Assessments 

(State) 

Property on which use or development activities may be complicated by the presence or potential 

presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. This list is maintained by Virginia 

DEQ. 

Institutional Controls Legal or contractual restrictions on property use that remain effective after remediation is 

completed and are used to satisfy remediation levels. This list is maintained by Virginia DEQ. 

Landfills and Solid 

Waste Facilities 

Facilities that regulate the disposal and treatment of solid waste (sanitary landfills, construction/ 

demolition debris landfills, transfer stations, materials recovery facilities, energy recovery/ 

incineration facilities, and RMW (Regulated Medical Waste) facilities). Set up by Virginia DEQ, solid 

waste program to encourage the reuse and recycling of solid waste and to ensure that hazardous 

waste is properly managed. 

Petroleum Release 

Sites 

Location of petroleum release sites from USTs and ASTs as collected by Virginia DEQ. 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-36 

Table 3.5-1: Hazardous Material Databases 

Database Definition 

Spills Records of responses to air, water, and waste pollution incidents to protect human health and the 

environment maintained by the Virginia DEQ Pollution Response Program (PREP). PREP staff often 

assist emergency responders, state agencies, federal agencies, and responsible parties to manage 

pollution incidents. Examples include oil spills, fish kills, and hazardous materials spills. 

Storage Tanks (UST, 

AST) 

USTs (regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA) and ASTs containing hazardous substances and 

petroleum products as collected by Virginia DEQ. 

Voluntary Remediation 

Program 

Sites where owners of contaminated sites have acted to conduct voluntary cleanups that meet state 

environmental standards. These sites are generally open dumps or unpermitted solid waste disposal 

facilities. 

TRIBAL RECORDS 

No Tribal environmental record sources available for this state. 

Source: VDOT, no date; and ERIS, 2014. 

All parcels with database records of known or potential contamination or a hazardous materials 

release were mapped, along with points to indicate facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose 

of hazardous materials or facilities that store petroleum products. The parcels were sorted into 

categories based on the likelihood and potential level of contamination that Project activities 

could affect (Table 3.5-2). Hazardous materials and petroleum facilities with no records of release 

have a low chance of affecting the Project, unless removal of the facility is required. 

Table 3.5-2: Hazardous Waste and Special Waste Screening Criteria 

Category Description 

PARCELS 

Superfund/ 

CERCLA/NPL 

High level of concern. 

These are known contamination sites with a high priority for remediation. Remediation of these sites 

is likely to be extremely costly and would have a high chance of causing Project delays. Even if the site 

is in the process of being remediated or has been remediated, these properties could contain highly 

contaminated soil depending on the level of remediation performed. 

Known Hazmat 

Release 

Medium to high level of concern. 

Purchase of these properties may result in remediation being the responsibility of the owner. 

Remediation may be costly and cause Project delays. 

Potential Hazmat 

Contamination 

Medium level of concern. 

Although a record of release may exist for a property, it may be difficult to determine where the 

release occurred. Should contaminated soil be discovered, remediation may be required. 

Potential Petroleum 

Contamination 

Lower level of concern. 

If petroleum-contaminated soil is encountered, the soil will need to be taken to a facility that deals 

with petroleum-contaminated soil. Removal of petroleum-contaminated soil is not as costly as other 

hazardous contaminants, and local facilities can be found. 

POINTS 

Hazmat Facility Low level of concern, if there are no reported leaks or spills. 

Consideration should be made if the facility requires removal. 

Petroleum Facility Low level of concern, if there are no reported leaks or spills. 

Consideration should be made if the facility requires removal. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-37 

3.5.3 Hazardous Materials Sites within Study Area 

All hazardous materials sites within the study area are shown in Figure O-1 in Appendix O. A 

summary of the types of sites is provided in Table 3.5-3. There are 1,034 mapped hazardous 

materials sites/facilities within the study area. Most of the sites are either Petroleum Registered 

Facilities or Petroleum Release Sites (702). 

Table 3.5-3: Hazardous Materials Sites within the Study Area 

Alternative Area 

Superfund/ 

CERCLA/NPL* 

Known 

Hazmat 

Release1

Potential 

Hazmat 

Contamination2

Petroleum 

Release3

Hazmat 

Facility4

Petroleum 

Storage 

Tanks5

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1 – 5 3 2 5 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia 

2 1 54 78 59 80 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

2 1 20 15 20 35 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

1 – 3 3 4 9 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

– – 2 15 3 14 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

9 1 63 205 79 240 

Total Sites Counted 15 3 147 319 167 383 

Source: VDOT GIS database, 2014. 

Notes: *Includes those sites that have or are being remediated 1. Area known to be contaminated by hazmat or has had a toxic release of unlisted 

chemicals. 2. Area with history of use for hazmat or has had a release. 3. Area where a petroleum product is known to have been released. The 

case may be closed; however, there is the potential for uncovering petroleum-contaminated soil through construction/soil disturbance. 4. Facilities 

that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. 5. Facilities with ASTs and USTs that store petroleum or hazardous 

substances; most store petroleum products. 

Naturally Occurring Asbestos 

Asbestos occurs naturally in some rocks and soils as a result of natural geological processes. 

Construction activities in areas where asbestos occurs have the potential of releasing mineral 

fibers into the air, which may pose a risk for human exposure through inhalation. According to 

mapping available through USGS, no known locations of naturally occurring asbestos occur in 

the study area (Van Gosen, 2006). 

Orphan Sites 

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard database reports listed 

approximately 2,500 additional sites in the Project vicinity that did not have accurate location 

information to place on a map (Orphan Sites). Most of these sites are petroleum spills, and many 

of the sites listed are repeats. The location of Orphan Sites that could potentially be affected by 

the Project would be further researched in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment that would 

occur before acquisition of new right-of-way. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-38 

3.6 AIR QUALITY 

Transportation sources generate varying amounts of ozone (O3) and its precursors; nitrogen 

oxides (NOX); hydrocarbons (HC) (specifically volatile organic compounds [VOCs]); particulate 

matter (PM); and/or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, all of which are concerns for human and 

environmental health. 

O3 is a highly reactive pollutant that damages lung tissue, causes congestion, reduces vital lung capacity, 

and can also damage vegetation. From 1980 to 2013, there was a 33 percent decrease in the 8-hour design 

value O3 concentrations in the United States. A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality 

status of a given area relative to the level of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Nitrogen oxides are an important precursor to O3 and acid rain and may affect terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. The major mechanism for the formation of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the 

atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide (NO). NOX plays a major 

role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOX forms when fuel is 

burned at high temperatures. The two major emissions sources are transportation and stationary 

fuel combustion sources, such as electric utilities and industrial boilers. NOX can also contribute 

to the formation of secondary PM, which can cause headaches, eye and nasal irritation, chest pain, 

and lung inflammation. From 1980 to 2013, was a 58 percent decrease in the annual NO2 average 

(i.e., arithmetic mean) in the United States. 

PM is the term for particles found in the air, including dust, dirt, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. 

Particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) pose a health concern because they can be inhaled 

into and accumulate in the respiratory system. Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) 

are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the largest health risks. From 1990 to 2013, 

there was a 34 percent decrease in the design value PM10 concentration averages. From 2000 to 2013, 

there was a 34 percent decrease in the design value PM2.5 concentration averages in the United States. 

CO is a colorless, odorless, and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. 

Exposure to elevated CO levels can cause impairment of visual perception, manual dexterity, learning 

ability, and performance of complex tasks (Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS], 1990). From 1980 to 

2013, there was an 84 percent decrease in the 8-hour design value CO concentrations in the United States. 

The counties that the DC2RVA corridor is located within form the air quality study area. The study area 

for this resource is larger than for other resources because much of the available data regarding regional 

air quality is provided at the county level and not at a smaller scale. 

3.6.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required EPA to 

establish NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The 

NAAQS are implemented by EPA under 40 CFR Part 50. The CAA established two types of national 

air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of 

“sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set 

limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to 

animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Table 3.6-1 lists the primary and secondary standards. 

Units of measure for the standards are parts per million (ppm) by volume, milligrams per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) of air, and micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air. With the exception of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), the secondary standards for all pollutants are the same as the primary standards. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-39 

Table 3.6-1: National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

Primary/ 

Secondary Averaging Time Level Form 

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

1-hour 35 ppm 

Lead (Pb) Primary and 

Secondary 

Rolling 3-month 

average 

0.15 μg/m3(1) Not to be exceeded 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Annual 53 ppb(2) Annual Mean 

Ozone (O3) Primary and 

Secondary 

8-hour 0.070 ppm(3) Annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged 

over 3 years 

Particle 

Pollution 

PM2.5 Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years 

PM10 Primary and 

Secondary 

24-hour 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year on 

average over 3 years 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary 1-hour 75 ppb(4) 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Notes: 1. In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards before promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 

μg/m3

 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. 2. The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of 

parts per billion (ppb) for the purposes of clearer comparison to the 1-hour standard level. 3. Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and became 

effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) 

O3 standards and transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards. 4. The 

previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not 

yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards, and (2) any area for which implementation plans providing 

for attainment of the current (2010) standard have not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous 

SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). 

A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its SIP to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-40 

Title I of the CAAA addresses nonattainment issues related to O3, CO, and PM10. Nonattainment areas 

are progressively ranked according to the severity and type of their air pollution problems. Each 

category of nonattainment has a label, such as severe or moderate, and a date for meeting the NAAQS. 

Title II of the CAAA addresses mobile sources and stipulates more-stringent emission standards 

for cars, trucks, and buses. This title also regulates fuel quality (e.g., gasoline volatility and diesel 

sulfur content); requires reformulated gasoline in the highest O3 areas and oxygenated fuels in the 

highest CO areas; and requires clean-fueled vehicles for certain fleets and other pilot programs. 

3.6.2 Clean Air Act Conformity 

The CAAA require federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the appropriate State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). States are required to develop SIPs that explain how they will meet the 

requirements of the CAA. The SIP is a plan for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 

the NAAQS, and it includes emission limitations and control measures to attain the standards. 

States must involve the public in development of the SIP through hearings and opportunities to 

comment. In Virginia, the state Air Pollution Control Board administers the SIP. In the District of 

Columbia, the Air Quality Division of the District Department of Energy and Environment 

administers the SIP. Conformity to a SIP, as defined in the CAAA, means conformity to a SIP’s 

purpose of reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS to achieve attainment of 

such standards. The federal agency responsible for the action is required to determine if its action 

conforms to the applicable SIP. EPA has developed two sets of conformity regulations: 

 Transportation projects developed or approved under the Federal Aid Highway Program 

or Federal Transit Act are governed by the “transportation conformity” regulation (40 

CFR Part 3, Subpart A). 

 Other projects, which include the federal action planned for the DC2RVA project, are 

governed by the “general conformity” regulations. The regulations for Determining 

Conformity of General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans were published 

in the Federal Register on November 30, 1993. The general conformity regulation (40 CFR 

Part 93, Subpart B) became effective January 31, 1994. On March 24, 2010, EPA revised the 

general conformity regulations to improve the process federal entities use to demonstrate 

that their actions will not contribute to a violation of an NAAQS. In Virginia, general 

conformity criteria and procedures are set forth in 9 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 5-

10-20. In the District of Columbia, these criteria and procedures are set forth in 57 DCR 527. 

The conformity regulations apply to federal actions occurring in air basins designated as 

nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants or in attainment areas subject to maintenance plans 

(maintenance areas). Federal actions occurring in air basins that are in attainment with criteria 

pollutants are not subject to the conformity rule. 

3.6.3 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule 

In June 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA finalized new requirements for 

nonroad diesel fuel that will decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in locomotives by 

99 percent. Because sulfur damages exhaust emission control devices, these fuel improvements 

will reduce PM from existing engines. Diesel fuel currently has a sulfur content of approximately 

3,000 ppm. The new rule cut that amount to 500 ppm in 2007 and to 15 ppm in 2010. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-41 

3.6.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule 

Effective April 27, 2007, EPA adopted controls on mobile source air toxics (MSATs). MSATs are 

emitted by motor vehicles, nonroad engines (e.g., lawn and garden equipment, farming and 

construction equipment, locomotives, and ships), aircraft, and their fuels. Also in 2007, EPA 

proposed more-stringent standards for large diesel engines used in locomotives, as well as certain 

marine diesel engines. In June 2008, EPA published the final rule adopting a comprehensive 

program to dramatically reduce pollution from locomotives, applying to all types of locomotives. 

This final rule completes an important step in EPA's ongoing National Clean Diesel Campaign 

(NCDC) by adding new programs for locomotives and marine diesel engines to the clean diesel 

initiatives that have already been undertaken for highway, other nonroad, and stationary diesel 

engines in 2004. It significantly strengthens the locomotive and marine diesel programs, 

especially in controlling emissions during the critical early years through the early introduction 

of advanced technologies and the more complete coverage of existing engines. When fully 

implemented, this coordinated set of new programs will reduce harmful diesel engine emissions 

to a small fraction of their previous levels. 

Locomotives and marine diesel engines account for approximately 20 percent of mobile source 

NOX emissions and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5 emissions in the United States. 

Absent this final action, by 2030 the relative contributions of NOX and PM2.5 from these engines 

would have grown to 35 and 65 percent, respectively. 

On a nationwide annual basis, these reductions will amount to 800,000 tons of NOX and 27,000 

tons of PM by the year 2030. For locomotives, the reduction from existing standards in PM range 

from 60 to 90 percent depending on the date of manufacture. The reduction in NOX range from 

20 to 80 percent. Locomotive idle emissions are predicted to be reduced by 50 percent for PM and 

NOX. 

3.6.5 Ambient Air Quality Conditions in the DC2RVA Corridor 

In this section, existing ambient air quality conditions and emissions in the DC2RVA corridor and 

at specific locations are identified. 

3.6.5.1 Attainment/Nonattainment/Maintenance Designations 

EPA publishes a list of all geographic areas in compliance with the NAAQS, as well as those areas 

not in attainment of the NAAQS. The designation of an area is made on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. Areas classified as “attainment areas” comply with the applicable NAAQS. Areas once 

classified as nonattainment that have since demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS are classified 

as “maintenance areas.” Areas not in compliance with the NAAQS are classified as 

“nonattainment areas.” 

The current attainment status in the DC2RVA project area is listed in Table 3.6-2. The 

nonattainment areas are also identified in Figure 3.6-1. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-42 

Table 3.6-2: Attainment Status 

City/County 

Pollutant and Attainment Status in the Project Area 

CO Pb NO2 O3 PM2.5 PM10 SO2 

Arlington County Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Alexandria Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Fairfax County Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Prince William County Attainment Attainment Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Stafford County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Fredericksburg Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Spotsylvania County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Caroline County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Hanover County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Henrico County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Richmond Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

Chesterfield County Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment 

3.6.5.2 Ambient Air Quality 

Air quality monitors are located throughout the study corridor. Table 3.6-3 shows data for criteria 

pollutants of greatest concern within the study corridor⎯those for which one or more counties 

through which the DC2RVA corridor passes are nonattainment areas. Table 3.6-3 provides 

statistical pollutant concentration values relevant to assessing NAAQS compliance. These values 

are provided for each county or area where the indicated pollutant is of concern. For these 

pollutants, Table 3.6-3 then indicates whether the applicable NAAQS was exceeded. 

Data are provided for the most recent 5 years for which comprehensive and official monitoring 

data are available. Determination of attainment status for O3 is based on a multiyear evaluation, 

whereas any violations indicated in Table 3.6-3 are based only on a single year of data. 

Table 3.6-3: Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period Parameter City/County 

Value 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Ozone 8-hour 

Maximum Concentration 

(ppm) for 4th-Highest Day 

Arlington County 0.087 0.087 0.084 0.067 0.071 

Alexandria 0.081 0.084 0.086 0.063 n/a 

Fairfax County 0.089 0.087 0.084 0.067 0.065 

Prince William County 0.073 0.071 0.072 0.066 0.062 

> 2015 NAAQS (0.070 ppm) 

Arlington County Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Alexandria Yes Yes Yes No n/a 

Fairfax County Yes Yes Yes No No 

Prince William County Yes Yes Yes No No 

Source: EPA Air Data www.epa.gov/airdata. 2010-2014. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-43 

Figure 3.6-1: NAAQS Nonattainment Areas
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-44 

3.6.5.3 Air Quality Index 

EPA created the Air Quality Index (AQI) to enhance the public's understanding of air pollution 

across the nation. Previously known as the Pollutant Standards Index, this uniform air quality 

index is used by state and local agencies for reporting on daily air quality to the public. The AQI 

provides general information to the public about air quality and associated health effects. It 

provides information on pollutant concentrations for ground-level O3, PM, CO, SO2, and NOX. 

The AQI is “normalized” across pollutants so that a value of 100 represents the level of health 

protection associated with the health-based standard for each pollutant, and a value of 500 

represents the significant harm level. 

An AQI value between zero and 50 is considered “good.” Air quality is considered satisfactory, 

and air pollution poses little or no risk. Values between 51 and 100 are considered “moderate.” 

Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants there may be a moderate health concern 

for a very small number of people. For example, people who are unusually sensitive to O3 may 

experience respiratory symptoms. AQI values between 101 and 150 are considered “unhealthy 

for sensitive groups.” This means they are likely to be affected at lower levels than the general 

public. For example, people with lung disease are at greater risk from exposure to O3, while 

people with either lung disease or heart disease are at greater risk from exposure to particle 

pollution. The general public is not likely to be affected when the AQI is in this range. 

AQI values greater than 150 are considered “unhealthy.” This includes the AQI categories 

unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous. In general, very few locations across the United States 

ever have days in the very unhealthy or hazardous categories. 

The 2014 AQI through the DC2RVA corridor is presented in Table 3.6-4. With the exception of 

Arlington County, air quality was either good or moderate 100 percent of the days measured in 

the counties in the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 3.6-4: 2014 Air Quality Index Summary 

City/County 

Percent of Days 

Good Moderate 

Unhealthy for 

Sensitive 

Groups Unhealthy 

Very 

Unhealthy 

Arlington County 90% 9% 1% 0% 0% 

Alexandria 98% 2% 0% 0% 0% 

Fairfax County 84% 16% 0% 0% 0% 

Prince William County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Stafford County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Fredericksburg 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Spotsylvania County n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Caroline County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Hanover County 96% 4% 0% 0% 0% 

Henrico County 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% 

Richmond 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Chesterfield County 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 

Source: EPA Air Data www.epa.gov/airdata. 2014. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-45 

3.6.6 Greenhouse Gas 

In December 2009, the EPA Administrator issued findings under the federal CAA that the current 

and projected greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere threaten the health and 

welfare of current and future generations. In response, EPA has introduced a series of policies 

designed to slow the growth of GHG emissions, invest in science and technology, and enhance 

international cooperation. 

These policies include a Renewable Fuel Standard Program that mandates a minimum volume of 

renewable fuel in all transportation fuel sold in the United States. EPA partnered with the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to enable the production of a new generation of 

clean vehicles with improved fuel economy and reduced emissions of GHGs (EPA, 2015). Lastly, EPA 

introduced the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Through this program, EPA tracks GHG data 

from large emission sources across a range of industry sectors (EPA, 2015). EPA has also established 

multiple incentive-based programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions. These programs 

include “ENERGY STAR,” “Climate Leaders,” and Methane Voluntary Programs (EPA, 2015). 

3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the Project are subject to 

review by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA has noise and vibration impact 

assessment methods (FRA, 2012) that are appropriate to evaluate noise and vibration from trains 

that travel at speeds of 90 miles per hour (mph) or higher. For train speeds lower than 90 mph, 

FRA endorses use of noise and vibration impact assessment methodologies published by the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (FTA, 2006). The Maximum Authorized Speed for 

passenger trains for the DC2RVA corridor is 90 mph, and actual train speeds with the proposed 

improvements will generally be lower than 90 mph through much of the DC2RVA corridor; 

therefore, Project-related noise and vibration levels were determined using FTA and FRA 

methods. Additionally, certain aspects of the FRA locomotive horn noise model were adapted for 

use on this Project. The study area for the noise and vibration analysis varies in size throughout 

the corridor to account for potential impacts and is as wide as approximately 3 miles through 

some sections. Detailed information on the noise and vibration analyses conducted for the Project 

can be found in Appendix P, Noise and Vibration Technical Report. 

3.7.1 Noise 

Noise is usually defined as sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech 

communication and hearing, or it is otherwise annoying. Under certain conditions, noise may 

cause hearing loss, interfere with human activities, and, in various ways, may affect people’s 

health and well-being. Noise along a railroad corridor typically consists of noise from 

locomotives, noise from steel wheels operating over rails, and noise from train horns. 

3.7.1.1 Noise Descriptors 

The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude of sound because it 

accounts for the large variations in sound pressure amplitude. When describing sound and its 

effect on a human population, A-weighted (dBA) sound pressure levels are typically used to 

account for the response of the human ear to different frequencies. The term “A-weighted” refers 

to a filtering of the noise signal in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-46 

sound. The A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of 

the noisiness of different sounds and has been used for many years as a measure of community 

noise. Figure 3.7-1 illustrates typical A-weighted sound pressure levels for various noise sources. 

Figure 3.7-1: Typical Noise Levels 

Community noise levels usually change continuously during the day. The equivalent continuous 

A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq) is normally used to describe community noise. The Leq is 

the equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound pressure level that would contain the same 

acoustical energy as the time-varying A-weighted sound pressure level during the same time 

interval. The maximum sound pressure level (Lmax) is the greatest instantaneous sound pressure 

level observed during a single noise measurement interval. 

Another descriptor, the day-night average sound pressure level (Ldn), was developed to evaluate 

the total daily community noise environment. The Ldn is a 24-hour average sound pressure level 

with a 10-dB time-of-day weighting added to sound pressure levels that occur during the nine 

nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This nighttime 10-dB adjustment is an effort to 

account for the increased sensitivity to nighttime noise events. FRA uses Ldn and Leq to evaluate 

train noise effects at the surrounding communities (FRA, 2012). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-47 

3.7.1.2 Existing Noise Measurements 

In accordance with FRA and FTA noise assessment methodologies, existing noise levels were 

measured throughout the Project area. Existing noise levels were measured for a continuous 24-

hour period at 29 residential locations. Noise levels were also measured for 1-hour durations at 8 

institutional locations. 

3.7.1.3 Existing Noise Levels 

Table 3.7-1 presents the results of the 24-hour and 1-hour noise measurements. The table shows 

the measured Ldn at each residential measurement location (ML) and the Leq at each institutional 

measurement location. Figure 3.7-2 shows the noise measurement sites. 

Land use adjacent to the railroad right-of-way varies throughout the DC2RVA corridor and can 

be broadly described as ranging from urban to suburban and rural. Ambient noise levels among 

those three categories of land use are typically highest in urban areas, where population density 

and the density of roadways and vehicular traffic are also highest among these three broad land 

use categories. In urban areas, human activities and traffic noise typically dominate the ambient 

soundscape. That is also true in suburban areas; however, the density of population and traffic 

is usually lower and that corresponds to noise levels generally being lower in suburban areas. 

Rural areas have the lowest population density of these three land use categories. The density 

of roadways and vehicular traffic is also lowest, and ambient noise levels are also generally 

lower than urban and suburban areas. Rural areas also exhibit noise from traffic and human 

activities; however, noise from agricultural activities is also common. Trains are a noise source 

that all three of these broad land use categories also have in common. Noise measurement 

results presented in Table 3.7-1 generally indicate higher noise levels in urban areas and lower 

noise levels in rural areas; however, the proximity between the measurement locations and the 

rail line or local roadways also influenced noise measurement results in urban, suburban, and 

even rural areas. 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address 

Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML01 1801 Crystal Drive, Arlington 24-hour 66 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML02 301 Mt. Vernon, Alexandria 24-hour 68 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML03 DC Metro Church, 1100 N. Fayette Street, 

Alexandria 

1-hour 61 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML04 Summers Grove Homeowners Association, 

Alexandria 

24-hour 65 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML05 6261 Franconia Station Court, Franconia 24-hour 63 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML06 6701 Jerome Street, Springfield 24-hour 75 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-48 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address 

Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML07 8923 Milford Haven Court, Lorton 24-hour 69 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML08 Lorton Station Elem School, 9298 Lewis 

Chapel, Lorton 

1-hour 64 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML09 10526 Old Colchester Road, Lorton 24-hour 62 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML10 14726 Featherstone Road, Woodbridge 24-hour 69 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML11 333 3rd Avenue, Quantico 24-hour 68 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML12 945 Widewater Road, Stafford 24-hour 62 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML13 71 Mt. Hope Church Road, Stafford 24-hour 77 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

ML14 Andrew Chapel, Andrew Chapel Road, 

Stafford 

1-hour 62 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML15 7 Fairfax Circle, Falmouth 24-hour 63 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML16 432 Summit Street, Fredericksburg 24-hour 68 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML17 10235 Sunset Hill Lane, Fredericksburg 24-hour 77 

Area 3: Fredericksburg ML18 9015 McAlister Street, Fredericksburg 24-hour 64 

Area 4: Central Virginia ML19 Jackson Shrine, 12023 Stonewall Jackson 

Road, Woodford 1-hour 60 

Area 4: Central Virginia ML20 15503 Nelson Hill Road, Milford 24-hour 69 

Area 4: Central Virginia ML21 11491 Chesterfield Road, Ruther Glen 24-hour 71 

Area 5: Ashland ML22 14158 Independence Road, Ashland 24-hour 49 

Area 5: Ashland ML23 Randolph Macon, 204 Henry Street, Ashland 1-hour 60 

Area 5: Ashland ML24 403 S. Center Street, Ashland 24-hour 74 

Area 5: Ashland ML25 15503 Ashcake Road, Ashland 24-hour 60 

Area 5: Ashland ML26 Gwathmey Church, Ashland 1-hour 68 

Area 5: Ashland ML27 Glen Allen Freewill Baptist Church, 

11101 Old Washington Highway, Glen Allen 1-hour 61 

Area 6: Richmond ML28 2912 Allen's Crossing, Glen Allen 24-hour 69 

Area 6: Richmond ML29 2733 Hungary Road, Richmond 24-hour 73 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-49 

Table 3.7-1: Existing Train Noise Measurement Sites 

Alternative Area Location ID Address 

Measurement 

Type 

Ldn

(dBA) 

Leq(h) 

(dBA) 

Area 6: Richmond ML30 1415 Chamberlayne Parkway, Richmond 24-hour 61 

Area 6: Richmond ML31 1901 5th Avenue, Richmond 24-hour 77 

Area 6: Richmond ML32 Hebrew Cemetery, N. 4th & Hospital Street, 

Richmond 

1-hour 59 

Area 6: Richmond ML33 5516 Parker Street, Richmond 24-hour 77 

Area 6: Richmond ML34 912 Hill Top Drive, Richmond 24-hour 75 

Area 6: Richmond ML35 2290 Ruffin Road, Richmond 24-hour 75 

Area 6: Richmond ML36 4405 Atlantic Avenue, Richmond 24-hour 71 

Area 6: Richmond ML37 2900 Kingsland Road, Richmond 24-hour 73 

Note: *ML refers to “measurement location.” 

3.7.2 Vibration 

Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or 

acceleration. Displacement, in the case of a vibrating floor, is simply the distance that a point on 

the floor moves away from its static position. The velocity represents the instantaneous speed of 

the floor movement, and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. The response of humans, 

buildings, and equipment to vibration is normally described using velocity or acceleration. 

Velocity will be used in describing ground-borne vibration. 

Ground-borne vibration (GBV) can be a serious concern for residents or at facilities that are 

vibration-sensitive, such as laboratories or recording studios. The effects of GBV include 

perceptible movement of building floors, interference with vibration-sensitive instruments, 

rattling of windows, and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. Additionally, GBV can 

cause the vibration of room surfaces resulting in ground-borne noise (GBN). GBN is typically 

perceived as a low-frequency rumbling sound. 

Existing vibration levels in areas adjacent to the rail line are dominated by train-induced groundborne vibration during train pass-by events. In the study area, the duration of train pass-by events 

varies between less than a minute (for faster passenger trains) to more than a minute (for long 

freight trains). In general, heavier rail cars produce higher ground-borne vibration levels than 

lighter cars. According to FTA and FRA vibration assessment guidance, diesel-electric 

locomotives typically produce some of the higher levels of train-induced ground-borne vibration 

levels. In the absence of trains, existing vibration levels in the study area are usually low. Heavy 

trucks and buses on local roadways likely produce the highest levels of ground-borne vibration 

in the absence of trains. Ground-borne vibration from roadway traffic is usually much lower than 

from trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-50 

Figure 3.7-2: Noise Measurement Locations
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-51 

Figure 3.7-2: Noise Measurement Locations 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-52 

3.7.2.1 Vibration Descriptors 

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean 

square (RMS) velocity. PPV is used to evaluate the potential for building damage. It is defined as 

the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. PPV is not considered the appropriate 

measurement for evaluating the human response to vibration. RMS is used to evaluate human 

response because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. The RMS 

of a signal is the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. For sources 

such as trucks or motor vehicles, PPV levels are typically 6 to 14 dB higher than RMS levels. FRA 

and FTA use the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration dBs for RMS and PPV to reduce the potential 

for confusion with sound dBs (FRA, 2012). 

Decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required in measuring vibration. Similar 

to the noise descriptors, Leq and Lmax can be used to describe the equivalent vibration and the 

maximum vibration levels observed during a single vibration measurement interval. 

Figure 3.7-3 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to 

ground-borne vibration. As shown in Figure 3.7-3, the threshold of perception for human 

response is approximately 65 VdB; however, human response to vibration is not usually 

significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. 

Figure 3.7-3: Example Vibration Velocity Levels 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-53 

In contrast to airborne noise, neither GBV nor GBN is an everyday experience for most people. 

The background vibration level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower⎯well below the 

threshold of perception for humans. Levels at which vibration interferes with sensitive 

instrumentation can be much lower than the threshold of human perception, such as for medical 

imaging equipment or extremely high-precision manufacturing. Most perceptible indoor 

vibration is caused by sources within a building, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, 

movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible GBV are 

construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads; though in most soils, 

GBV dissipates very rapidly, and it is not a common environmental concern. 

Soil types and other subsurface conditions affect GBV. For example GBV can propagate more 

efficiently in areas where the soil is characterized by stiff shallow clay, or where there is shallow 

bedrock. This assessment briefly reviewed publicly available and reasonably obtainable soils and 

geologic data for the purpose of evaluating where GBV might propagate very efficiently. Based 

on this limited review, most of the soils in the corridor consist of coarse-grained unconsolidated 

deposits; soils of this type generally propagate GBV less efficiently than highly efficient soils such 

as stiff clay. 

3.8 ENERGY 

Current energy consumption by the four basic transportation modes⎯rail, automobile, bus, and 

air⎯used for intercity travel in the study corridor was calculated for this Project. Because 

different types of fuel are used by these modes, comparison of the energy consumed by each 

required conversion to a common base unit. The British Thermal Unit (BTU) was the measure 

used to compare the total annual energy consumed. 

The following energy consumption rates were used to calculate annual consumption for the four 

transportation modes. 

 Rail: 1,629 BTUs per passenger mile 

 Automobile: 3,877 BTUs per passenger mile 

 Bus: 823 BTUs per passenger mile 

 Air: 2,329 BTUs per passenger mile 

These rates were taken from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics (2016) website and are 

based on year 2014 data, which is the last year that data were available. These consumption rates 

indicate that rail travel is the most energy-efficient mode of transportation. 

To determine the total BTUs consumed for each mode, the BTU rates were calculated by the 

corresponding annual passenger miles from the year 2015 (Table 3.8-1). As shown in the table, 

the rail system consumes approximately 1 percent of all energy used for intercity passenger 

service in the study corridor while serving 2 percent of all passenger miles of travel. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-54 

Table 3.8-1: Existing Annual Passenger Miles of Travel and Energy Consumption 

Mode 

Passenger Miles 

(millions) 

Percent of All Four 

Modes 

Energy 

Consumption 

(billions of BTUs) 

Percent of All Four 

Modes 

Rail 750 2 1,222 1 

Automobile 24,909 81 96,571 90 

Bus 1,620 5 1,333 1 

Air 3,819 12 8,895 8 

Total 31,098 100 108,021 100 

3.9 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

Visual resources are those physical features that make up the visual landscape, including land, 

water, vegetation, and man-made elements. These elements are the stimuli on which one’s visual 

experience is based. Substantial visual and aesthetic resources within the study area include historic 

structures, parklands, waterways, and undeveloped open space/natural areas. Potential sensitive 

visual receptors include people affected by negative changes in the visual and aesthetic character 

of the study area. The study area for visual resources is variable and includes areas from which the 

Project would be visible and potentially have an effect on visual quality, as well as areas visible 

from the rail. In general, the study area will be narrower in developed areas where adjacent 

buildings limit the viewshed and wider in rural areas where large expanses can be viewed. 

3.9.1 Regulatory Context and Methodology 

NEPA and CEQ regulations address visual effects under the heading of aesthetics. These 

regulations identify aesthetics as one of the elements or factors in the human environment that 

must be considered in determining the effects of a project. Furthermore, 23 U.S.C. 109(h) cites 

“aesthetic values” as a matter that must be fully considered in developing a project. FRA’s 

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that an EIS should identify any significant 

changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed environment and any 

aesthetic and design quality impacts (FRA, 1999). 

Aerial photography and field reconnaissance were used to identify natural landforms, 

topography, vegetation, water resources, and man-made developments. VDOT’s CEDAR 

database was also consulted and a literature search conducted to identify any specific scenic or 

visually sensitive resources such as designated scenic rivers or byways, scenic vistas, or historic 

landscapes. Visually sensitive resources are those locations where there are viewers of the 

landscape and where a certain type of visual landscape is anticipated. Viewers in visually 

sensitive resource areas are typically involved in outdoor activities where their sensitivity to the 

surrounding visual environment may be heightened; therefore, visually sensitive resources 

typically include parklands and outdoor recreation areas, such as school playgrounds. Visually 

sensitive historic resources are identified in Section 3.13. 

The DC2RVA corridor was characterized in terms of visual assessment units (VAU) based on the 

data collection discussed above. A VAU is an area with a distinct uniformity of landscape character. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-55 

3.9.2 Affected Environment 

The rail corridor predates much of the surrounding development and has become a major 

component of the landscape. This established linear landform and corridor defined by the 

clearing of trees and absence of buildings characterizes the right-of-way. The rail corridor is 

divided into six alternative areas. For the visual assessment, these areas may be further divided 

into VAUs based on similar visual characteristics. Figure 3.9-1 depicts the VAUs. In the sections 

below, the visual environs of the rail corridor are initially described for each VAU. The visual 

environs include the typical viewsheds encountered within that VAU. These are the general 

views that may be experienced by residents, road users, or train passengers within the area. 

Representative photographs of these typical environs are included for each VAU. Visually 

sensitive resources and scenic views were also identified within each VAU. 

Additionally, each VAU is described in terms of more-specific rail features, such as number of 

tracks, notable bridge structures, and visual features of the railroad itself. Photographs of notable 

rail visual features are included for each VAU as appropriate. 

Diverse visual environs along the corridor. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-56 

Figure 3.9-1: Visual Assessment Units
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-57 

3.9.2.1 Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

VAU 1-1 – CFP 110 to CFP 109.3 

This VAU is urban in nature but is 

dominated by parklands adjacent to 

the existing tracks. Long Bridge Park 

is located to the west of the tracks, 

and Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary 

and the George Washington 

Memorial Parkway are located to the 

east of the existing tracks. 

Within this VAU, the railroad 

transitions from two tracks at the 

north end, where it leaves the Long 

Bridge, to four tracks (three mainline 

tracks and one siding track) adjacent 

to Long Bridge Park. The tracks are 

an integral part of the landscape with 

numerous views of the trains 

available from Long Bridge Park. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. George Washington Memorial Parkway 

2. Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary 

3. Long Bridge Park 

Visual Environs: Parkland – Long Bridge Park 

View of Railroad from Long Bridge Park 

Roaches Run Wildlife Sanctuary 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-58 

3.9.2.2 Area 2: Northern Virginia 

VAU 2-1 – CFP 109.3 to CFP 100 

This VAU consists of urban to 

suburban development. Crystal City, 

located at the north end of this VAU, 

is almost exclusively populated by 

high-rise apartment buildings, offices, 

hotels, shops and restaurants. Farther 

south in Alexandria, development is 

primarily residential. Several urban 

parks occur in this unit. WMATA’s 

rapid transit route shares the corridor. 

The existing railroad tracks pre-date 

much of the development and are an 

integral part of the community fabric. 

The southern portion includes the 

Norfolk Southern (NS) Rail Yard and 

WMATA rail yards. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Crystal Park North 

2. Crystal City Water Park 

3. Crystal City Courtyard Green 

4. Crystal City Children’s Park 

5. Four Mile Run 

6. George Washington Memorial Parkway 

7. Potomac Greens Park 

8. Potomac Yard Park 

9. Daingerfield Island Park 

10. Metro Linear Park 

11. Hooff’s Run Park and Greenway 

12. Sunset Mini Park 

13. Dog Run Park at Carlyle 

14. Cameron Run Regional Park 

15. Clermont Natural Park 

16. Hensley Park 

17. Backlick Stream Valley Park 

Visual Environs: Urban Greenspace – Crystal City 

Courtyard Green 

View of Tracks from Dog Run Park at Carlyle 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-59 

VAU 2-2 – CFP 100 to CFP 92 

This VAU is primarily industrial 

with large expanses of parks, and 

conservation lands as well as 

extensive wetlands. Some residential 

areas are located at the north end of 

this unit, but they are not directly 

adjacent to the tracks. There are also 

scattered institutional land uses. 

The rail corridor in the northern half 

of this VAU consists primarily of 

three tracks with another two tracks 

located immediately to the west. The 

southern half transitions down to 

two tracks. WMATA rapid transit 

continues to share the alignment in 

this VAU. The view of the tracks is 

limited due to adjacent tree lines 

throughout much of this VAU. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Accotink Stream Valley Park 

2. Pohick Stream Valley Park 

3. Lorton Station Elementary School 

Visual Environs: Institutional Land Use – Lorton Station 

Elementary School 

Source: Bing Map 

View of tree-lined tracks north of Lorton Station 

Commercial Land Uses 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-60 

VAU 2-3 – CFP 92 to CFP 85 

This VAU includes a mix of residential, 

commercial, and industrial uses. In the 

northern half of this unit, the tracks 

parallel I-95. The land between the 

interstate and the tracks is primarily 

vacant/wooded, or industrial uses. 

Numerous parks and conservation 

lands are in this VAU, with the 

southern end of the VAU dominated 

by Featherstone National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

The rail corridor consists of two 

tracks through most of this VAU. 

Where there is adjacent 

development, bands of tree shelter 

the tracks from open view. The 

Occoquan River Railroad Bridge is 

the most notable rail visual feature. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Mason Neck West Park 

2. Old Colchester Preserve and Park 

3. Occoquan River 

4. Veterans Memorial Park 

5. Marumsco Acre Lake Park 

6. Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

Visual Environs: Parklands – Mason Neck West Park 

Occoquan River Railroad Bridge 

Pedestrian Crossing over Tracks near 

Veterans Memorial Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-61 

VAU 2-4 – CFP 85 to CFP 62 

This VAU is largely undeveloped. The 

rail corridor generally parallels the 

shore of the Potomac River and crosses 

several large creeks. Some industrial 

land use pockets are located near the 

Potomac River. This unit includes large 

expanses of vacant forested lands, 

parks, scattered low-density 

residential, and some small agricultural 

areas. Most notably, this VAU traverses 

the Quantico Marine Corps Base. 

The rail corridor includes two tracks 

throughout most of this VAU. As part 

of a separate project, a third track is 

under construction through the 

Arkendale to Powells Creek section of 

this VAU. Notable rail features are the 

numerous bridges, including Neabsco 

Creek, Powells Creek, Quantico Creek, 

and Aquia Creek. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Neabsco Creek 

2. Leesylvania State Park 

3. Powells Creek 

4. Cockpit Point Battlefield Heritage Park 

5. Quantico Creek 

6. Quantico Unnamed Recreation Area 

7. Widewater State Park 

8. Aquia Creek 

Visual Environs: Vacant Land – Potomac Shores Area 

Neabsco Creek 

Source: Bing Map 

Powells Creek 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-62 

3.9.2.3 Area 3: Fredericksburg 

VAU 3-1 – CFP 62 to CFP 48 

This VAU follows the existing rail 

corridor and consists of a variety of 

land uses. The northern part is 

primarily residential. The middle part 

consists of low-density commercial 

and industrial land uses. The 

southern portion of the unit is largely 

undeveloped and includes forested 

lands, parks, scattered agricultural 

lands, and low-density residential. 

This section of the railroad corridor 

primarily consists of two tracks, 

though it broadens out to three and 

more on the south side of 

Fredericksburg. The most notable 

visible feature of the rail corridor is 

the Rappahannock River Bridge. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Embry Farm 

2. Rappahannock River 

3. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Park 

4. Cobblestone Park 

5. Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm 

6. Mary Lee Carter Park 

Visual Environs: Historic Battlefields – Pierson/Slaughter 

Pen Farm 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 

Mary Lee Carter Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-63 

VAU 3-2 – CFP 62 to CFP 48 (Bypass) 

The northern end of this VAU consists 

primarily of suburban residential and 

commercial land uses. Continuing 

east and south within this VAU, the 

land transitions to a mix of forests and 

agricultural lands and includes a new 

crossing of the Rappahannock River. 

The southern end of this unit consists 

of forested lands, scattered 

agricultural lands, and low-density 

residential. 

This VAU shares common areas on 

the north and south end with VAU 3-

1. Near CFP 61, it follows the existing 

single track. Most of this VAU is 

along new alignment, and there are 

no notable existing rail features. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Embry Farm 

2. George Washington’s Ferry Farm 

3. Rappahannock River 

4. Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary 

Visual Environs: Forested Land – Alexander Berger 

Memorial Sanctuary 

George Washington’s Ferry Farm 

View of Corridor Looking Northeast from Kings Highway 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-64 

3.9.2.4 Area 4: Central Virginia 

VAU 4-1 – CFP 48 to CFP 19 

This VAU is largely undeveloped. It 

consists primarily of forested lands 

with some agricultural lands 

interspersed. Wetlands are also 

extensive within this VAU. The 

Mattaponi River, the North Anna 

River, and several smaller creeks are 

crossed and the tracks are adjacent to 

portions of the Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National Park and the 

Mattaponi State Wildlife 

Management Area. Residences are 

scattered and rural in nature. 

There are primarily two tracks within 

this VAU. Notable rail features 

include minor bridges crossing the 

North Anna and Mattaponi Rivers. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Park 

2. Mattaponi River 

3. Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area 

4. North Anna River 

Visual Environs: Forested Land – Mattaponi State 

Wildlife Management Area 

View of Tracks 

Agricultural Lands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-65 

3.9.2.5 Area 5: Ashland 

VAU 5-1 – CFP 19 to CFP 9 

The northern portion of this VAU is 

primarily vacant forested land. The 

middle portion consists of the town of 

Ashland, which includes a 

concentration of commercial and 

residential land uses. South of town, 

land uses are vacant and agricultural. 

There are primarily two existing 

tracks throughout this VAU. The 

tracks are located in the middle of 

downtown Ashland along Center 

Street/Railroad Avenue and are a 

dominant feature of the landscape, 

with the town buildings directly 

abutting the tracks. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. North Ashland Park 

2. Railside Park 

3. Carter Park 

4. Downtown Ashland 

Visual Environs: Commercial Land Uses – 

Downtown Ashland 

Ashland Station / Visitor Center 

View of Tracks through Downtown Ashland 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-66 

VAU 5-2 – CFP 19 to CFP 9 (Bypass) 

This VAU is generally rural with a 

mix of forested and agricultural 

lands and scattered low-density 

residential units. Residential density 

increases at the south end of the unit 

approaching Henrico County. No 

sensitive visual resources are 

identified within this unit. Large 

open expanses of agricultural land 

and older farmhouses dominate the 

landscape. 

This VAU shares a northern terminus 

and southern terminus with VAU 5-

1. The remainder of this VAU is along 

new alignment and includes no 

notable existing rail visual features. 

Sensitive Resources 

None identified 

Visual Environs: Agricultural Land – West of Ashland 

Agricultural Lands 

Agricultural Lands 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-67 

3.9.2.6 Area 6: Richmond 

VAU 6-1 – CFP 9 to CFP 2 

This VAU is primarily residential 

land uses. There are also some 

commercial and industrial land use 

areas, as well as parks and recreation 

areas, dispersed throughout this unit. 

Several small creeks are crossed with 

minor bridges and culverts. The 

floodplains of those creeks include 

extensive wetlands and remain 

largely undeveloped. 

This VAU consists of two existing 

tracks on the north end with an 

increasing number of tracks 

approaching the large CSXT Acca 

Yard. There are no notable existing 

rail visual features located within this 

unit. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. RF&P Park 

2. Laurel Recreation Area 

3. Joseph Bryan Park 

Visual Environs: Mixed Land Uses – North of Richmond 

Source: Bing Map 

Acca Yard 

RF&P Park 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-68 

VAU 6-2 – CFP 2 to SRN 0 

This VAU is an urban mix of 

residential, commercial, and 

industrial land uses. Redevelopment 

efforts have recently resulted in the 

conversion of some industrial land 

uses to residential loft apartments in 

the downtown area. 

This VAU begins in the Acca Yard 

area with a large expanse of tracks. It 

tapers down to two existing tracks at 

the southern terminus. The most 

notable rail visual feature within this 

VAU is the historic Main Street 

Station. Main Street Station was 

originally opened in 1901. It is one of 

Richmond’s most visible landmarks. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 

2. Main Street Station 

Visual Environs: Redevelopment Areas – Residential and 

Industrial Development 

View of Tracks beyond Maggie Walker Governor’s School 

Fields 

Main Street Station 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-69 

VAU 6-3 – SRN 0 to A 11 (via S-Line) 

This VAU consists of a mix of 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

land uses. Near the James River, many 

of the industrial buildings have been 

converted into commercial spaces and 

loft apartments. Extensive walking 

trails are located along the banks of the 

river. 

The historic rail viaduct is an integral 

part of the downtown scenic views. 

Most of this VAU south of the James 

River consists of two tracks with some 

areas with as many as eight tracks. 

The most notable rail visual features 

in this VAU are the James River 

crossing which is a single track 

crossing and the unique Triple 

Crossing. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. Triple Crossing 

2. Canal Walk 

3. James River 

4. Walkers Creek Retention Basin Park 

5. Falling Creek Park 

Visual Environs: Redevelopment Area – Canal Walk 

Source: Bing Map 

James River Railroad Bridge via S-Line 

Triple Crossing 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-70 

VAU 6-4 – CFP 2 to A 11 (via A-Line) 

This VAU consists primarily of 

single-family residential with 

scattered commercial and industrial 

land uses. The Bellwood Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot occupies a 

large expanse of land at the south end 

of this unit. 

This VAU consists primarily of two 

existing tracks. The most notable 

feature in this VAU is the scenic 

railroad bridge over the James River 

on the A-Line. This aesthetically 

pleasing bridge is visible from many 

nearby roads, parks, and residential 

areas, as well as from the river itself, 

which is highly used for recreational 

purposes. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. James River 

2. James River Park 

3. Gates Mill Park 

4. Falling Creek Park 

Visual Environs: Residential Land Uses along 

Monument Avenue 

James River Railroad Bridge via A-Line 

Falling Creek Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-71 

VAU 6-5 – SRN 0 to CA 87 

This VAU is a small section that 

consists of urban residential land 

uses at the north end transitioning to 

industrial land uses within the south 

end of the unit. The tracks are located 

between the interstate and an area of 

forested lands. Valley Road parallels 

the tracks for a short distance. The 

Richmond Juvenile Detention Center 

and City Sherriff’s Office are located 

to the immediate east of the tracks. 

No sensitive rail visual resources are 

in the DC2RVA corridor within this 

VAU. There is a single track within 

this VAU. 

Sensitive Resources 

None identified 

Visual Environs: Industrial Area – Near Hospital Street 

Juvenile Detention Center 

Sherriff’s Office 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-72 

VAU 6-6 – SRN 0 to CA 80 

This VAU consists of commercial, 

residential, and parkland land uses. 

Similar to other locations in the 

downtown Richmond area, 

numerous former industrial land 

uses have been converted into 

residential units. Steep elevation 

changes exist in this area with much 

of the residential development on a 

hill with views of the James River. 

This VAU includes 2 existing tracks 

where it parallels the James River, 

expanding to more than 10 tracks to 

the east of Richmond. The most 

notable rail feature is the raised rail 

bridge that is parallel to the James 

River and highly visible to 

surrounding areas. 

Sensitive Resources 

1. James River 

2. Great Shiplock Park 

3. Libby Hill Park 

Visual Environs: Vacant Industrial/Potential 

Redevelopment – Williamsburg Avenue in Richmond 

Raised Rail Bridge 

Steep Slopes at Libby Hill Park 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-73 

3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

EPA defines ecoregions as areas where ecosystems (and the type, quality, and quantity of 

environmental resources) are generally similar. Ecoregions serve as a spatial framework for the 

research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and their components. There 

are four different hierarchical levels of ecoregions, ranging from general regions to more detailed: 

 Level I—12 ecoregions in the continental United States 

 Level II—25 ecoregions in the continental United States 

 Level III—105 ecoregions in the continental United States 

 Level IV—967 ecoregions in the conterminous United States 

Most of the DC2RVA corridor is located in EPA Level III Ecoregion 65–Southern Plains (Figure 

3.10-1). This ecoregion is composed of irregular plains covered by cropland, forest, and pasture. 

Natural vegetation consists of mostly Oak−Hickory−Pine Forest (dominants: hickory [Carya], 

longleaf pine [Pinus palustris], shortleaf pine [Pinus echinata], loblolly pine, white oak [Quercus 

alba], and post oak [Quercus stellata]) and, in the northeast, Appalachian Oak Forest (dominated 

by white oak and red oak [Quercus rubra]). The Southern Plains area crossed by the Project is split 

further into two level IV ecoregions: Chesapeake Rolling Coastal Plain (65n) (north of Occoquan 

River) and Rolling Coastal Plain (65m) (from Occoquan River south). 

The Chesapeake Rolling Coastal Plain is a hilly upland, with local relief ranging from 25 to 225 

feet in elevation, narrow stream divides, incised streams, and well-drained loamy soils. Stream 

margins can be swampy, and it is common for water to be stained by tannic acid from decaying 

vegetation. Soils are low in nutrients and require amendments to be productive for agriculture. 

Urbanization is extensive along corridors connecting Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Wilmington, 

and Annapolis. In other areas, less-intensive agriculture, general farming, or part-time agriculture 

occurs. 

The Rolling Coastal Plain is more forested than the Chesapeake Rolling Coastal Plain and is 

comprised of a mosaic of woodland and farmland with elevations ranging from 30 to 250 feet. 

Soils in this area tend to have good drainage. Stream margins can be swampy, and stained water 

can occur. The westernmost portion includes parts of the Fall Zone, where aquatic habitats 

include islands, pools, swampy streams, and cascades. The Fall Zone or Fall Line is the 

geomorphologic break between an upland region of relatively hard rock and a coastal plain of 

softer sedimentary rock. 

The existing track occasionally crosses into EPA Ecoregion 45−Piedmont to the west, which is 

separated from the Southern Plains by the fall line (generally along I-95). This transitional area 

between the mountains and the coast is a mostly wooded area of irregular plains, low hills and 

ridges, shallow valleys, and scattered monadnocks (isolated hills of bedrock). This area 

traditionally supported Oak−Hickory−Pine forest (dominants: hickory, shortleaf pine, loblolly 

pine, white oak, and post oak); however, it has since been cultivated and is now a mixture of 

farmland and fields that are reverting to pine and hardwoods. The Piedmont area crossed by the 

Project is split further into one level IV ecoregion: Northern Inner Piedmont (45e) (north of 

Fredericksburg). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-74 

Figure 3.10-1: EcoRegions
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-75 

The Northern Inner Piedmont ranges in elevation from 200 to 1,000 feet, including landforms 

such as hills, irregular plains, and isolated ridges and mountains, and monadnocks far more 

common than in the Northern Outer Piedmont. Streams have silt, sand, gravel, and rubble 

bottoms with low to moderate gradients. The landscape is comprised of forests of 

loblolly⎯shortleaf pine, agricultural activity, and in the northeast, urban and suburban areas. 

A general map of habitats within a 500-foot-wide study area along the DC2RVA corridor was 

developed by reviewing the aerial photographs and topographic maps; Virginia Wetlands 

Catalog maps from the VDCR−Division of Natural Heritage; Wetlands digitized by the City of 

Richmond; field verified wetlands and streams; Northeast Terrestrial Habitat Map (TNC, 2014); 

Urban Tree Canopy Land Cover (VGEP, 2008); Municipality land cover data; NHD maps from 

USGS, VDOT GIS data (VDOT, 2014); and VDOT mitigation sites. A more-detailed display of the 

streams and wetlands mapping within the study area is provided in Appendix M. 

Table 3.10-1 summarizes the general habitat types along the Project in a 500-foot-wide study area. 

3.10.1 Regulated Natural Communities 

The communities described below are areas intended for the preservation of habitat, plants, or 

wildlife. They are maintained to different degrees by regulatory agencies. These communities can 

be publically or privately owned. Figure 3.10-2 shows these communities. 

3.10.1.1 National Wildlife Refuges 

A requirement of the Secretary of the Interior is to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of National Wildlife Refuges, which are managed by the USFWS for the 

protection and conservation of our nation's wildlife resources. This network of diverse and 

strategically located habitats is protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (see also Chapter 5). 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. This sanctuary is part of the George Washington 

Memorial Parkway. It is located near the northern terminus of the DC2RVA corridor. The 

sanctuary consists of a tidal open water wetland that provides important wintering habitat for 

waterfowl. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), green heron (Butorides virescens), red-winged blackbird 

(Agelaius phoeniceus), and mallards (Anas plathyrhynchos) are all common during the summer, 

along with other wetland wildlife. 

Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Located on the south side of the Occoquan River 

where it meets Belmont Bay, this refuge offers important grassland and wetland habitats in a 

highly urbanized area. The purpose of this refuge is to provide a sanctuary and breeding area for 

migratory birds and endangered species; provide a wildlife education center to the public; and 

support other recreational uses, where possible. One square mile of a variety of habitat types is 

accessible by trails offering visitors the opportunity to view the many types of wildlife. 

Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. Established with the purpose of protecting 

contiguous wetland habitat, this refuge contains 325 acres of upland woodland and freshwater 

tidal marsh along the mouth of Neabsco Creek and Occoquan Bay. This area provides important 

habitat for migrating birds, wintering waterfowl, and many other wildlife species. Access to the 

refuge is limited to a nonmotorized boat ramp; however, it is open to the public. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-76 

Table 3.10-1: General Habitat Types (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Aqueous 

Habitat 

(wetlands/ 

streams/ 

open water) 

Agriculture 

(pasture/ 

row crop/ 

grassland) 

Shrub 

Area/Old 

Field 

Upland 

Forest 

Riparian/ 

Bottomland 

Forest/PFO 

Urban/ 

Developed 

Lands Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

32 

28% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1 

1% 

81 

71% 

114 

100% 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

488 

8% 

196 

3% 

9 

0% 

1,890 

32% 

228 

4% 

3,059 

52% 

5,870 

100% 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

191 

5% 

666 

19% 

0 

0% 

1,527 

43% 

359 

10% 

765 

22% 

3,508 

100% 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

342 

10% 

619 

17% 

144 

4% 

1,360 

38% 

651 

18% 

451 

13% 

3,567 

100% 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

26 

1% 

279 

14% 

72 

4% 

1,014 

49% 

91 

4% 

577 

28% 

2,059 

100% 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

103 

2% 

62 

1% 

22 

0% 

950 

17% 

316 

6% 

4,083 

74% 

5,536 

100% 

Total 1,182 

6% 

1,822 

9% 

247 

1% 

6,741 

32% 

1,646 

8% 

9,016 

44% 

20,654 

100% 

Source: VDCR, 2014, TNC, 2014, VGEP, 2008, USGS, 2014, and VDOT, 2014. 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Refuge 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-77 

Figure 3.10-2: Designated Wildlife Areas
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-78 

Figure 3.10-2: Designated Wildlife Areas 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-79 

3.10.1.2 State Wildlife Lands 

This network of diverse and strategically located habitats is also protected by Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (see also Chapter 5). 

Crow's Nest Natural Area Preserve. Located northeast of Fredericksburg, Crow’s Nest preserves 

2,872 acres of natural area and habitat managed by VDCR. This resource consists of approximately 

750 acres of tidal and nontidal wetlands; 21 miles of stream, riparian, and wetland buffer; and 2,200 

acres of mature hardwood forest, including two forest types that are recognized as globally rare by 

VDCR's Natural Heritage Program. This habitat supports bald eagles (Haliaeetus heucocephalus); 

federally listed shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum); 22 plant species that are significant for the 

Coastal Plain of Virginia; approximately 60 species of neotropical migratory songbirds; spawning, 

nursery, and/or feeding habitat for 49 species of interjurisdictional (involving more than 1 political 

or management unit) fish; and 7 species of mussels and commercially valuable shellfish. This site has 

a biodiversity ranking from the VDCR of B2–very high significance. 

Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area. Nestled between nearly 6.5 miles of the Mattaponi 

and South rivers, this area conserves important upper coastal plain wildlife habitat managed by 

VDGIF. Diverse natural communities provide important habitat, including mature upland hardwood 

and mixed forests, managed loblolly pine stands, wetlands, and rivers. Wildlife-related recreation is 

allowed on this land, including hunting, trapping, primitive camping, fishing, hiking, and birding. 

3.10.1.3 County Wildlife Lands 

Pohick Seeps Conservation Site. Located adjacent the east side of the tracks and south side of 

Pohick Creek in Area 2, parcels owned by Fairfax County are set aside in a permanent wildlife 

conservation easement. The site contains a Northern Coastal Plain Terrace Gravel Bog, a saturated 

woodland known to occur in fewer than 10 places in the world, all of which are located just east 

of the fall line in Maryland and Northern Virginia. The site has been given a Biodiversity Ranking 

of B2–Very High Significance by VDCR and a Global Status of G1–Critically Imperiled due to its 

limited distribution in the Mid-Atlantic fall-line zone existing in fewer than 20 sites rangewide 

occurring in very small patches subject to multiple disturbances. 

3.10.1.4 Private Wildlife Lands 

Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary. Approximately 10 miles south of Fredericksburg 

along the proposed Fredericksburg Bypass alignment, the DC2RVA corridor bisects the larger of 

two areas encompassed by this approximately 868-acre preserve owned and managed by The 

Nature Conservancy. The sanctuary consists of mature, second-growth forest that has remained 

relatively undisturbed since 1864, when it was used by the Confederate army as an encampment. 

The two wooded parcels that were donated in 1963 were originally part of the historic Belvedere 

Peony Farm. The area contains trails that are open to the public year-round. 

Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF). VOF open-space easements restrict property use to 

protect certain conservation values including, but not limited to, productive agricultural or 

timberlands, scenic vistas, rare species, caves, unique geologic features, rivers or streams, 

wetlands, wildlife habitat and corridors, and/or historic resources. For a property to be 

considered for a VOF easement, it must also have significant public benefits, which may include 

protection of water quality, retaining productive farm and timber land, and protecting scenic 

views enjoyed by travelers along public roads, rivers, or from parks. The proposed 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-80 

Fredericksburg Bypass alignment bisects two VOF properties (CLN-VOF-3804, CLN-VOF-03850) 

totaling approximately 894 acres and comes within 1,000 feet of a third property (SPT-VOF-1597). 

All areas are privately owned, managed with conservation easements, and closed to the public. 

3.10.1.5 Priority Conservation Areas 

Priority Conservation Areas are lands identified by VDGIF as a priority for preservation, 

protection, or specific management action for conservation of Virginia’s wildlife, plants, and 

natural communities. 

VDGIF–Priority Wildlife Diversity Conservation Areas. VDGIF created the Priority Wildlife 

Diversity Conservation Areas (PWDCA) dataset to identify habitat for conservation that is important 

for nongame wildlife. These areas are based on recommendations from VDGIF biologists, Virginia’s 

Wildlife Action Plan, and other sources. Areas include mapped species’ habitats and recommended 

conservation actions to conserve riparian buffers, large blocks of habitat and forest, and wetland 

buffers. This mapping is part of an effort between VDGIF, VDCR–Division of Natural Heritage 

(DNH), and Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Environmental Studies. 

The South Anna River in the vicinity of the DC2RVA corridor is a PWDCA and has been designated 

a “Threatened and Endangered Water” for the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon). 

VDCR-DNH–Natural Heritage Plan Conservation Sites and Stream Conservation Units.

Conservation sites represent landscape worthy of protection and stewardship action because of 

natural heritage resources, such as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal 

species; unique or exemplary natural communities; and significant geologic formations. 

Terrestrial conservation sites are designed to include one or more rare plant, animal, or natural 

community and, where possible, its associated habitat and buffer or other adjacent land needed 

for the element's conservation. Stream Conservation Units (SCUs) include stream reaches and 

tributaries that contain aquatic natural heritage resources, including upstream and downstream 

buffer. Conservation sites and SCUs are given a biodiversity significance ranking based on the 

rarity, quality, and number of natural heritage resources they contain. The Natural Heritage Plan 

Conservation Sites and SCUs are listed in Table 3.10-2. 

Table 3.10-2: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas 

Conservation 

Site/SCU Alternative Area/Location 

VDCR 

Biodiversity 

Ranking* Description 

Pohick Seeps 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

East side of the tracks and south side 

of Pohick Creek 

B2 

Very high 

significance 

Northern Coastal Plain Terrace Gravel 

Bog−A saturated woodland known to 

occur in less than 10 places east of the fall 

line in Maryland and Northern Virginia 

Brent Marsh 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Outside the right-of-way on the east 

side of the tracks; north of and 

including part of Widewater State Park 

B3 

High 

significance 

Association with sensitive joint-vetch, a 

federally listed species 

Arkendale Flatwoods 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Including a portion of the existing 

tracks and to the east, much of the 

area includes a portion of Widewater 

State Park 

B5 

General 

significance 

Coastal Plain Depression Swamp−A 

seasonally flooded forest located in 

depressions of the Chesapeake Bay Region 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-81 

Table 3.10-2: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas 

Conservation 

Site/SCU Alternative Area/Location 

VDCR 

Biodiversity 

Ranking* Description 

Lower Aquia Creek 

Conservation Site 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Adjacent to the west side of the tracks, 

on the north side of Aquia Creek 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Associated with Parker’s pipewort 

(Eriocaulon parkeri), a rare plant to Virginia 

Claiborne Run SCU Area 2: Northern Virginia and 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Adjacent to and crossed by the 

DC2RVA corridor four times (once in 

the Northern Virginia area and three 

times in the Fredericksburg area) 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Hazel Run SCU Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Route 1 to Route 2, crossed by the 

tracks 

B3 

High 

significance 

Aquatic natural community 

Little Falls Run SCU Area 3: Fredericksburg 

East of the existing tracks; however, 

does not drain the existing track vicinity 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Aquatic natural community 

South Fredericksburg 

Conservation Site 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Including existing tracks along the east 

side of the conservation site, site 

located mostly within the 

Fredericksburg Battlefield 

B2 

Very high 

significance 

Non-Riverine Wet Hardwood Forest 

(Northern Coastal Plain Type)−Contains 

seasonally to nearly permanently saturated 

forest located in ancient floodplains on 

wide flat terraces 

White Oak Run SCU Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Crossed by the proposed bypass 

B3 

High 

significance 

Snow Creek Ravine 

Conservation Site 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Crossed by the proposed bypass, site 

includes Snow Creek just south of its 

confluence with Rappahannock River 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Summit Railroad 

Tracks Conservation 

Site 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

Just south of Summit Crossing Road, 

adjacent to the east side of and 

including the existing tracks 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Polecat Creek−

Penola SCU 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

Crossed by existing tracks, west of 

Penola Road 

B5 

General 

significance 

Association with the fine-lined emerald 

(Somatochlora filose), a state rare dragonfly 

South Anna River−

Falling Creek SCU 

Area 5: Ashland 

Crossed by existing tracks three times 

and the proposed bypass alignment 

two times 

B3 

High 

significance 

Aquatic natural community and association 

of the yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), a 

freshwater mussel 

Centralia 

Conservation Site 

Area 6: Richmond 

Adjacent to the west side of the tracks 

south of Old Lane at the southern 

terminus of the Project 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

* Rating of the significance of the conservation site based on presence and number of natural heritage resources 

Source: VDCR, 2014a and CEDAR. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-82 

VDCR-DNH–Ecological Cores. The Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment (VaNLA) is a 

landscape-scale GIS analysis tool developed to identify unfragmented natural habitats called 

Ecological Cores. Ecological Cores are prioritized according to their ecological value, notably 

their value as habitat for interior-dependent species. The habitat is ranked from Outstanding (C1) 

to General (C5). Most forested areas in Virginia are rated with this tool, including most of the 

areas along the DC2RVA corridor. This tool was used to locate core habitat and the corridors that 

connect them in the Project vicinity. 

Wildlife Corridors. Wildlife corridors are corridors of habitat connecting larger similar areas of 

core habitat (i.e., large areas of similar habitat not broken up by other habitat types or urbanization) 

that facilitate the movement of species and genetic material between habitats. Corridors have the 

potential to reduce the negative genetic effects of habitat fragmentation (i.e., the breaking up of core 

habitat into smaller patches), such as reduced population and genetic diversity. In Virginia, core 

habitat and wildlife corridors generally refer to intact forested areas, many times along riparian 

corridors, that tend to have had fewer human alterations. These areas facilitate the movement of 

less common wildlife species that do not do well in areas of human alteration and species that prefer 

interior forested habitat away from edge dwelling predators. Wildlife corridors were located using 

a combination of VDCR-DNH ecological core mapping and aerial photographs of the Project 

vicinity. Table 3.10-3 lists the wildlife corridors identified within the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 3.10-3: Wildlife Corridors 

Corridor 

Alternative 

Area Corridor Description 

Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (MCBQ) to 

Widewater State Park 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

The rail line in this location crosses a corridor approximately 8 miles long, 

generally over 1 mile wide and a minimum 0.5 mile wide, connecting C2 ecological 

core habitat on MCBQ to C3 to C4 habitat at Widewater State Park. 

I-95/Route 17 to C1 

Habitat east of Route 2 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

The corridor is a minimum of 2,000 feet wide and connects C5 ecological core 

habitat southeast of I-95/Route 17 to C3 habitat to a very large area of C1 

(outstanding) ecological core habitat east of Route 2. 

Fort A. P. Hill Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

The proposed Fredericksburg Bypass alignment and connection to main tracks 

crosses a large wildlife corridor consisting of a minimum of 1,000 feet connecting 

C1 habitat at Fort A. P. Hill to C2 and C3 habitat cores through C4 and C5 

habitat areas. 

I-95 to Milford Area 4: 

Central 

Virginia 

This wildlife corridor connects patches of C4-C2 habitat roughly following the 

Mattaponi River and one of its tributaries from I-95 northeast of Thornburg to 

north of Milford. The corridor width varies from 1,500 feet to over 1 mile in 

some places and remains on the west side of existing tracks. East of the tracks and 

Route 2 is a large patch of C1 (outstanding) ecological core habitat. 

South Anna River Area 5: 

Ashland 

The riparian corridor along the South Anna River could also serve as a wildlife 

corridor. The forested area narrows to 500 feet in many places; however, it does 

provide a lengthy corridor that connects several larger habitat areas. 

Source: VDCR-DNH, 2015. Google Maps, 2015. 

Notes: 1. C1: Outstanding, C2: Very High, C3: High, C4: Moderate, C5: General 

Forest Legacy Program. To protect environmentally important private forests that are 

threatened by conversion into non-forest uses, USDA Forest Service, in partnership with the 

states, created the Forest Legacy Program (FLP). FLP is a voluntary program that uses federal 

grant funds to purchase land, or conservation easements, to conserve lands that provide public 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-83 

benefits, including sustainable forest resources, clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and 

forested scenic views, as well as protecting sensitive sites and habitats used by threatened and 

endangered species. As of January 2012, 9,750 acres have been protected in Virginia through this 

program. No FLP land is located in the Project vicinity. 

3.10.2 Invasive Species 

EO 13112, Invasive Species, defines invasive species as non-native plant, animal, or microbial 

species that cause, or have the potential to cause, economic or ecological harm or harm to human 

health. State and local governments have also set up several laws and regulations to prevent the 

spread of noxious weeds and plants deemed to be detrimental to crops; surface waters, including 

lakes; or other desirable plants, livestock, land, or other property or to be injurious to public 

health or the economy. Furthermore, noxious weeds are plants designated by federal, state, or 

county government as detrimental to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, economy, or 

property. The Project corridor crosses suburban and urban areas where disturbed ground 

depends on colonization by invasive species. 

Table 3.10-4 lists the invasive species observed in the DC2RVA corridor while conducting field 

investigations. The table includes the VDCR ranking for invasiveness. VDCR ranks invasive 

species to reflect the level of threat to forests and other natural communities and native species. 

The ranks used are high, medium, and low, where species ranked high pose a substantial threat 

to native species, natural communities, or the economy. 

Table 3.10-4: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank 

Lonicera maackii Amur Honeysuckle High 

Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet High 

Dioscorea polystachya Cinnamon Vine High 

Phragmites australis ssp. australis Common Reed High 

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian Water-milfoil High 

Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard High 

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla High 

Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle High 

Reynoutria japonica Japanese knotweed High 

Microstegium vimineum Japanese Stiltgrass High 

Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass High 

Pueraria montana var. lobata Kudzu High 

Murdannia keisak Marsh dewflower High 

Persicaria perfoliata Mile-a-minute High 

 Continued – see end of table for notes. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-84 

Table 3.10-4: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank 

Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose High 

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental Bittersweet High 

Ampelopsis brevipedunculata Porcelain-berry High 

Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife High 

Lespedeza cuneate Sericea Lespedeza High 

Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Spotted Knapweed High 

Ailanthus altissima Tree-of-heaven High 

Iris pseudacorus Yellow Flag High 

Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Medium 

Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear Medium 

Agrostis capillaris Colonial bent-grass Medium 

Hedera helix English ivy Medium 

Akebia quinata Five-leaf Akebia Medium 

Glechoma hederacea Gill-over-the-ground Medium 

Persicaria longiseta Long-bristled Smartweed Medium 

Albizia julibrissin Mimosa Medium 

Paulownia tomentosa Royal Paulowina Medium 

Euonymus fortune Winter Creeper Medium 

Commelina communis Asiatic Dayflower Low 

Perilla frutescens Beefsteak Plant Low 

Securigera varia Crown-vetch Low 

Phleum pratense Timothy Low 

Morus alba White Mulberry Low 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

3.10.3 Wildlife 

Sensitive wildlife populations can be found throughout Virginia. These populations were taken 

into consideration in addition to important natural communities to ensure the least disruption 

practicable with the implementation of proposed improvements. Sensitive wildlife populations 

located in the Project vicinity are discussed below. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-85 

3.10.3.1 Colonial Waterbirds 

Colonial waterbirds are birds that nest in large groups during the nesting season. These groups are 

called rookeries or colonies. Coordination with VDGIF is required for waterbird colonies documented 

in the Project vicinity. Several great blue heron (Ardea herodias) colonies are located within 3 miles of 

the project corridor (Table 3.10-5); no other waterbird colonies are known to be present. 

Table 3.10-5: Colonial Waterbird Colonies 

Location 

Distance 

from 

Existing 

Tracks Closest Area Species 

Year 

Observed 

South of Mason Neck Park on Occoquan Bay ~ 3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

South of Mason Neck Park on Occoquan Bay < 3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

South of Mason Neck Park on Occoquan Bay < 3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

1984 

South side of Chopawamsic Creek upstream of 

tracks 

~2.5 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, north 

side of creek 

~1.25 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

1993 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, north 

side of creek 

~ 1.3 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, south 

side of creek 

~2.2 miles Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

1988 

East of James River on the north side between 

Cornelius Creek and Coles Run (Henrico 

County) 

~1.3 miles Area 6: 

Richmond 

Great Blue 

Heron 

2003 

Source: CEDAR-VDGIF, 2014. 

3.10.3.2 Migratory Birds 

Migratory birds are birds that fly long distances annually, often north-south, between breeding 

(summer) and wintering habitat, often driven by food. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

(MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, 

barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such 

a bird except under the terms of a valid permit. This includes disturbances to trees and structures 

used for nesting at the time they are occupied, or to cause a disturbance resulting in an adult 

abandoning its nest. The protection does not extend to preventing birds from building nests in 

structures. EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires federal 

agencies to take action to implement the MBTA. Such actions include evaluating and identifying 

the potential measureable negative effects a project may have on migratory bird populations. If 

any such effects could occur, the federal agency must consult with USFWS before the action and 

mitigate the effects. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-86 

Migratory species are generally funneled into specific routes by natural barriers, causing migration 

patterns called fly-ways. The Project is located along the landward edge of the Atlantic Flyway, 

which stretches from the northeastern side of Canada, Iceland, and the western side of Greenland, 

along the Atlantic Coast, and down to South America. Many migratory bird species pass through 

the study area; however, some reside in Virginia either seasonally or year round. Coastal Virginia 

is an important area for Neotropical birds that breed in North America and spend winter in the 

Caribbean, Mexico, and Central and South America (tanagers, warblers, hummingbirds, and 

vireos), as well as temperate migrants (American robin, kinglests, sparrows, finches), and the birds 

of prey or raptors that follow them (bald eagle, peregrine falcon, merlin, hawks, American kestrel). 

3.10.4 Aquatic and Marine Life 

3.10.4.1 Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) established a mandate for federal agencies to identify and protect 

important marine and anadromous fish habitat. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act as “those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 

feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C. 1802 [10]). EFH regulations apply largely to marine 

fisheries but are also applicable to freshwater spawning waters for anadromous species. Any 

action funded, permitted, or carried out by federal agencies that may adversely impact EFH are 

required to consult with NOAA–National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and respond in 

writing to NMFS or regional fishery management councils. 

Fisheries. EFH waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and 

biological properties; substrates (natural and unnatural bottoms, structures, and biological 

communities); and necessary habitat required to support a sustainable fishery. No EFH waters 

are mapped by NOAA within the DC2RVA corridor (NOAA, 2015). 

According to the Virginia Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System (GEMS) and the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), no fisheries management areas or aquaculture sites 

are located in the study area, and it is an area of low occurrence for clams, mussels, and crabs. No 

private oyster ground leases are located in the study area. 

Trout. Coordination with VDGIF is required any time a Stocked Trout Water is documented 

within a project area. According to VDGIF mapping of trout waters, only one stocked trout water 

is located in the study area: Cook Lake in Cameron Run Regional Park (VDGIF, 2015b). 

Anadromous Fish. Anadromous Fish Use Areas are migration pathways, spawning grounds, 

or nursery areas identified by VDGIF as having been used or have the potential to be used by 

anadromous fish. Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Areas are those waters known to provide 

migratory and spawning habitats for anadromous fish. Coordination with VDGIF is required for 

projects in the vicinity of these waters. Table 3.10-6 provides a list of confirmed and potential 

Anadromous Fish Use Areas within the study area, which include the following species: 

 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)⎯Alewives are on the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan under 

Tier IV, “Moderate Conservation Need.” Their main food sources are plankton, insects, 

and crustaceans. Many are now landlocked in the Great Lakes region, and several 

landlocked waters in Virginia contain alewives. They have a strong physical resemblance 

to the blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis).
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-87 

Table 3.10-6: Confirmed and Potential Anadromous Fish Use Waters 

Water Upstream Boundary Confirmed Species 

Alternative 

Area 

Four Mile Run Approximately 1,600 feet upstream 

of Arlington Ridge Road 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Cameron Run CSXT railroad crossing in 

Alexandria 

Potential anadromous fish use waters Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Accotink Creek Road crossing 2,600 feet above 

Field Lark Branch 

Alewife, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Pohick Creek At confluence with unnamed 

tributary in Pohick Stream Valley 

Park between Pohick Road and 

Kings Point Court, 300 feet above 

powerline 

Alewife, Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Occoquan River Lower Occoquan Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Neabsco Creek Approximately 2,300 feet below 

Route 1 

Striped Bass Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Powells Creek Approximately 5,600 feet below 

Route 1 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Potomac River Great Falls Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Quantico Creek No upstream boundary listed Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Chopawamsic 

Creek 

Approximately 9,000 feet below 

Route 1 

Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Aquia Creek Aquia Creek Dam, confluence with 

Beaverdam Run 

American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

Claiborne Run Raised culvert at Route 218 Potential anadromous fish use waters Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Rappahannock 

River 

Embrey Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Hazel Run Business U.S. Route 1/Route 208 Alewife, Blueback Herring Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

Mattaponi River Route 301 American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

North Anna 

River 

Approximately 2.5 miles above 

Route 1 at ‘fall hole’ 

American Shad, Blueback Herring, Hickory Shad, 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

Little River Route 685 crossing Yellow Perch Area 4: 

Central Virginia 

South Anna 

River 

Ashland Mill Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass 

Area 5: 

Ashland 

James River Boshers Passage American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Area 6: 

Richmond 

Falling Creek Falling Creek Reservoir Dam Potential anadromous fish use waters Area 6: 

Richmond 

Source: CEDAR-VDGIF, 2014. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-88 

 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima)⎯American shad are listed on Virginia’s Wildlife Action 

Plan under Tier IV with “Moderate Conservation Need.” They are considered a ‘sport fish’ 

and support sport and commercial fisheries. American shad spawn in tidal freshwater, near 

the mouths of creeks. When not spawning, they appear in schools on the continental shelf. 

Their diet consists of plankton, microcrustaceans, insects, worms, and small fish. 

 Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis)⎯Blueback herring are not endangered or threatened 

or a species of concern in Virginia. They are native to Virginia. Their diet consists of 

plankton, copepods, pelagic shrimp, small fish, and insects. Blueback herring very rarely 

spawn above the tidewater. They have a wide tolerance for different salinity levels. 

 Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris)⎯Hickory shad are sport and commercial fish not listed as 

a species of concern in Virginia. Their diet is made up mostly of small fish. They live in 

marine waters close to land and in tidal rivers and tributaries during spawning. 

 Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis)⎯The Chesapeake striped bass are sport and commercial 

fish not listed as a species of concern in Virginia; however, it is “beleaguered” or under 

stress. Their diet consists of fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. They depend heavily on 

water quality within their habitat. 

 Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)⎯Yellow perch are important sport and commercial fish 

that are not a species of concern in Virginia. Younger yellow perches eat insects and 

plankton, and the adults eat mainly fish and can even be cannibalistic. Other food sources 

include crustaceans, copepods, algae, amphipods, and chironomids. They usually live in 

still or slightly turbid lakes, reservoirs, and rivers that are large and cool. 

3.10.4.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) are widely regarded as keystone species and primary 

indicators of water quality conditions in the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. According to 

4 VAC 20‐337‐10 et seq. SAV Transplantation Guidelines, any removal of SAV from state bottom 

would require prior approval by VMRC (VMRC, 2000). 

SAV includes any of a diverse assemblage of underwater plants found in the shoal areas of 

Chesapeake Bay, Virginia coastal bays, and river tributaries, primarily eelgrass (Zostera marina)

and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima), and including, but not limited to, redhead grass 

(Potamogeton perfoliatus), wild celery (Vallisneria americana), common elodea (Elodea canadensis), 

water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), water‐weed (Egeria densa), 

muskgrass (Najas minor), pondweeds (Potamogeton sp.), and naiads (Najas sp.) (VMRC, 2000). 

VIMS has an online interactive mapper with downloadable GIS files that shows historic SAV beds 

in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries dating back to 1971. Vegetation can change from year 

to year due to environmental factors and annual fluctuations in nutrient levels and water clarity. 

For this Project, SAV documented within 500 feet of the existing rail in any year within the most 

recent 5 consecutive years (2011 to 2015) is considered an existing SAV habitat/bed. Existing SAV 

beds are shown in Figure 3.10-3. Areas that have not had populations mapped in the last 5 years, 

yet have had SAV mapped before 2011, were considered ‘historic beds.’ Historic beds are 

important because they are potential mitigation and restoration sites and have the potential of 

supporting SAV beds naturally in the future. According to SAV mapping provided by the VIMS 

SAV monitoring program, approximately 55.0 acres of existing (2011 to 2015) SAV beds and an 

additional 247.1 acres of historic (1971 to 2009) beds occur within the study area (Table 3.10-7). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-89 

Figure 3.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-90 

Table 3.10-7: Mapped Existing SAV Beds 

Water Body Boundaries 

Alternative 

Area Year(s) 

Acres Within 500 

Feet of Existing Rail 

Roaches Run Adjacent to the existing tracks Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 12.74 

Four Mile Run Downstream from existing 

tracks 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2015 —

Occoquan River From existing tracks continuing 

downstream 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 3.19 

Occoquan Bay Multiple locations along the 

western shore 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

7.52 

Neabsco Creek From 0.75 mile upstream of the 

existing track to Occoquan Bay 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

2.82 

Powells Creek From 1 mile upstream of the 

existing track to the Potomac 

River 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

12.73 

Potomac River Multiple locations along the 

western shore from Occoquan 

Bay continuing downstream 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

118.66 

Quantico Creek From 2.5 miles upstream of the 

existing track to the Potomac 

River 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

55.4 

Chopawamsic 

Creek 

From existing track to 2 miles 

upstream 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

10.58 

Aquia Creek Multiple locations from 3 miles 

upstream of existing track to 

the Potomac River 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

2015 

23.44 

Source: VIMS, 1979-2015. 

3.10.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

USFWS and NMFS are responsible for listing, protecting, and managing federally listed 

threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. 

VDCR and VDGIF are responsible for listing, protecting, and managing state-listed threatened 

and endangered species. An endangered species is defined as one that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or in a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Information regarding federally listed threatened and endangered species that may be impacted 

by the Project was obtained from USFWS via the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) 

system. The IPaC system is an online conservation planning tool used by USFWS to streamline 

the environmental review process associated with Section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 is the 

mechanism by which federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including those they fund or 

authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any federally listed threatened, endangered, or 

candidate species. IPaC provides lists of federally protected species in defined study areas, as 

well as links to information about identified species. 

Seven federally listed threatened or endangered species are reported to occur or potentially occur 

within the study area based on habitat requirements and information gathered from USFWS, 

VDGIF, Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS), and/or VDCR. An additional 

five state-listed threatened or endangered species are listed as occurring in the vicinity of the 

study area. Four additional state endangered species were initially indicated as potentially 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-91 

occurring in the Project vicinity, but based on additional review of habitat in the study area, DRPT 

determined they were not present: Appalachian springsnail (Fontigens bottimeri), brook floater 

(Alasmidonta varicose), tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and Virginia Piedmont water 

boatman (Sigara depressa). These species are further discussed in the Natural Resources Technical 

Report (Appendix M). Table 3.10-8 indicates which areas each of the 13 federally and state-listed 

species have the potential of occurring in based on this research and coordination with regulatory 

agencies. Brief, general descriptions of the species that may occur within the study area and their 

habitat requirements are provided following the table. No critical habitat is present within the 

study area. 

Table 3.10-8: Federally and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that May Occur 

within the Vicinity of the Study Area 

Species/Resource 

Name Status* 

Alternative Area 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) Aera 2: Northern Virginia Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) FE – – Y Y Y – 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) FE – – – – – – 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) FE – – Y Y – – 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) FT – Y Y Y Y Y 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) FT/ST – Y – – – Y 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) FT/SE – – Y – – – 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) FT/SE – – – Y – – 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) ST Y 

Green Floater

(Lasmigona subviridis) ST – – Y – – – 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis) ST – – Y Y – – 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) ST – Y – – – Y 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) ST – Y – – – – 

Source: USFWS, 2015 and 2016. 

* FE=Federal Endangered; PFE=Proposed Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened 

Note: “Y” in cells above indicates the presence of the species in the specified alternative area. Blank cells indicate that no species location data 

were identified from referenced sources. 

References: (CEDAR-VDGIF; 12-2014 CCB – VaEagle Nest Locator; 12-2014 USFWS Bald Eagle Concentration Areas- Virginia; 11-2014 VDCRNHD Subwatershed Search; 2016 USFWS – Official Species List). 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-92 

3.10.5.1 Federally Endangered Species 

Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is a small freshwater mussel, generally less than 2 

inches and yellowish brown in color. They require oxygen-rich, low silt, pollution-free rivers with 

slow to moderate flow. This species is sensitive to pollution. They prefer sand, firm muddy sand, 

and gravel bottoms found in shallow riffle and shoal areas. Channelization, removal of shoreline 

vegetation, development, and road and dam construction threaten some populations. 

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) is an annual herbaceous plant occurring in rocky/gravelly 

shoals or cracks in bedrock outcrops beneath the water surface in clear, swift-flowing streams; 

edges of intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows on the Coastal Plain; and 

granite outcrop seeps. It is always found on saturated substrates and tolerates moderate flooding. 

Broad clusters of small white flowers generally bloom in July and August (USFWS, 1991a). This 

species is listed as federally endangered in the United States, critically imperiled in Virginia, and 

globally imperiled. 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is a small bat with dark-brown to black fur and small mouse-like ears. 

In the winter, these bats hibernate in humid caves with cool, stable temperatures under 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F), but above freezing (USFWS, 2015). During summer, they prefer loose bark on 

dead or dying trees near streams in mature forests with 50 to 100 percent canopy cover. Shagbark 

hickory (Carya ovate) and large white oaks are known preferred tree species for roosting (VDGIF, 

2014b). The males roost alone in summer, while the females roost in groups of 100 bats or more. 

3.10.5.2 Federally Threatened Species 

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is a medium-sized (3 to 3.7 inches) bat generally 

associated with old-growth forests composed of trees 100 years old or older. It relies on intact 

interior forest habitat, with low edge-to-interior ratios (NatureServe, 2014); however, it has been 

found within city limits. They are frequently found between the shrub layer and the canopy. 

Males and nonreproductive females tend to prefer caves, while reproductive females roost under 

tree bark in spring and summer (VDGIF, 2014b). This species prefers to hibernate in very high 

humidity caves with little or no air flow (USFWS, 2014). Potential bat habitat was noted in Carter 

Park in the Ashland area while conducting wetland delineations. 

Sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica), an annual herbaceous plant in the pea family, 

generally grows 3 to 6 feet tall and produces yellow flowers streaked with red July through 

September and a fruit pod that turns dark brown when ripe (USFWS, 2014a). It is found in fresh 

to slightly brackish tidal river shores and estuarine-river marsh borders. It usually grows within 

2 meters of low water mark on raised banks, and in peaty, sandy, or gravelly substrates. Sensitive 

joint-vetch typically grows in the intertidal zone of coastal marshes where plants are flooded 

twice daily. The species seems to prefer the marsh edge at an elevation near the upper limit of 

tidal fluctuation. It is usually found in areas where plant diversity is high (50 species per acre) 

and annual species predominate. Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates appear to be a habitat 

feature of critical importance to this plant (USFWS, 2011). In Virginia, populations are found 

along the Potomac, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Rappahannock, Chickahominy, and James rivers and 

their tributaries. It is sensitive to pollution (USFWS, 2014a). This species is also listed as 

threatened in Virginia and imperiled globally. Potential habitat was noted in several locations in 

the Northern Virginia area while conducting wetland delineations, and the Brent Marsh 

Conservation Site north of and including part of Widewater State Park is noted for its association 

with sensitive joint-vetch.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-93 

Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a small (up to 12 inches tall) orchid, with five to six 

leaves in a whorl near the top of the stem, under greenish-yellow flowers that bloom from May, 

in the southern part of its range, to mid-June in the northern part of its range. It requires damp 

woods and is generally found on acidic, sloping, fragipan soils in ‘second growth’ or successional 

forest communities. This species can be found in deciduous and evergreen forests. Small whorled 

pogonia is listed as federally threatened, endangered in Virginia, and imperiled globally 

(NatureServe, 2014). The small whorled pogonia occurs on upland sites in mixed-deciduous or 

mixed deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third-growth successional 

stages. Characteristics common to small whorled pogonia sites include sparse to moderate 

groundcover in the species’ microhabitat, a relatively open understory canopy, and proximity to 

features that create long persisting breaks in the forest canopy. Soils at most sites are highly acidic 

and nutrient poor, with moderately high soil moisture values. Light availability could be a 

limiting factor for this species (USFWS, 1992). Potential habitat was noted in several locations in 

the Northern Virginia area and the Fredericksburg area while conducting wetland delineations.

Swamp-pink (Helonias bullata) is an obligate wetland species restricted to forested wetlands that 

are groundwater influenced and are perennially water-saturated with a low frequency of 

inundation. These habitats include emergent portions of hummocks in and along stream channels 

in Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) swamps, headwater seepage wetlands, red maple 

(Acer rubrum) swamps, mixed hardwood/evergreen swamps, and (rarely) black spruce-tamarack 

(Picea mariana-Larix laricina) bogs. The species appears to be somewhat shade tolerant and needs 

enough canopy to minimize competition with other more aggressive species and herbivory by 

deer. It is often found at stream sources. Swamp-pink is listed as federally threatened, endangered 

in Virginia, and vulnerable globally (NatureServe, 2014). The major threat to the species is loss 

and degradation of its wetland habitat due to encroaching development, sedimentation, 

pollution, succession, and wetland drainage. The species also exhibits extremely low seedling 

establishment, which appears to be a significant limitation to the colonization of new sites. Other 

threats include plant collection and trampling (USFWS, 1991b). 

3.10.5.3 State Threatened Species 

Barking treefrog (Hyla gratiosa) is the United States’ largest native tree frog, ranging from 2 to 2.8 

inches in length. They can vary in color, including bright or dull green, brown, yellowish, or gray 

with dark round markings on its back. As indicated by its name, it is distinguishable by its loud 

barking call. This species is associated with Oak−Hickory−Pine forests, preferring sandy areas in 

pine savannas and low wet woods and swamps. It is state-listed as threatened due to the 

conversion of native pine habitat to monocultures of loblolly pine. It does not hold a federal 

designation and is ranked globally as “secure.” 

Green floater (Lasmigona subviridis) is a species of freshwater mussel that is usually found in fastflowing, clean water in substrates that contain relatively firm rubble, gravel, and sand substrates 

swept free from siltation. The green floater is able to occupy very small creeks and streams, where 

other mussels are not generally found. This species is not federally listed; however, it is state 

threatened and globally ranked as “vulnerable.” 

New Jersey rush (Juncus caesariensis) is a perennial rush growing 2 to 3 feet tall in very acidic 

wetland habitats such as pine barrens and cedar swamps. The largest populations of New Jersey 

rush are found in the pine barrens of New Jersey; in Virginia, it can be found in sphagnous 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-94 

seepages along the coastal plain (NatureServe, 2014). New Jersey rush is not federally listed; 

however, it is state threatened and globally ranked as “imperiled.” 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is not federally listed and is ranked globally as “apparently 

secure;” however, they are listed on Tier I of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan for “Critical 

Conservation Need.” They generally nest on rocky cliffs near river gorges; however, they can also 

be found on manmade structures such as bridges/underpasses, bridge piers, utility poles, and 

skyscrapers. Reintroduction efforts have succeeded in establishing breeding at several coastal 

sites, and now efforts are focused on reintroducing breeding populations to mountains in 

Virginia. It is believed to breed between late May and early August (VDGIF, 2014b). Peregrine 

falcons generally mate for life and return to the same nest year after year. 

Peregrine falcons lay three to four eggs in March or April, and the eggs incubate for 33 days. They 

nest on rocky cliffs near river gorges and will occasionally nest in trees. Their usual prey is 

pigeons and small birds such as blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), flickers, and meadowlarks 

(Sturnella). Coastal and aquatic areas are their main habitats. They winter in coastal estuaries or 

intertidal mudflats along the Pacific coast, Gulf coast, and southern Florida. 

Wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) is a primarily terrestrial species during the warm part of the 

year, making it easily accessible and a collection concern. This species has been seriously 

impacted by illegal collection (NatureServe, 2014). It is generally found in woodland habitat near 

clean ponds, streams, and bogs; it is intolerant of water pollution. Although they are highly 

terrestrial, they must remain near a water source, as they can easily dry out (VDGIF, 2014b). Wood 

turtles are approximately 5.5 to 8 inches long and have a distinct ringed pyramidal pattern on its 

upper shell. This species is ranked globally as vulnerable (NatureServe, 2014). 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed under Tier II of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan for 

“Very High Conservation Need.” The Bald eagle is no longer listed as threatened, but this 

discussion was left in this section since it is still protected under some laws. The James, 

Rappahannock, and Potomac rivers are where they are most commonly found in Virginia. Bald 

eagles build their nests in tall hardwood trees with open canopies near water bodies where they 

forage. They prefer undeveloped areas with little human activity. In Virginia, eggs are laid from 

January to March and incubated for 34 to 38 days. Bald eagles prey primarily on fish, but they 

may also eat carrion, waterfowl, rabbits, and some turtles. Their eggs are preyed on by bobcats, 

owls, and raccoons. Twenty-five (25) known bald eagle nest locations are near the DC2RVA 

corridor. 

3.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES 

Data and information on demographics, community facilities, emergency services, community 

characteristics, employment, income, and the local economy provide a baseline for analysis of 

potential effects. These were compiled from aerial photos, local comprehensive and land use 

plans, the United States Census website (including the American Community Survey [ACS]), GIS 

databases, city/county tax parcel databases, conceptual drawings/engineering, and field 

inspections. 

3.11.1 Population Characteristics 

Data products from the United States Census Bureau were used for demographic information, 

primarily the 2009-2013 ACS. The study area traverses parts of 150 census tracts in Arlington 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-95 

County (2), the City of Alexandria (10), Fairfax County (13), Prince William County (11), Stafford 

County (10), the City of Fredericksburg (3), Spotsylvania County (4), Caroline County (6), Hanover 

County (12), Henrico County (17), the City of Richmond (51), and Chesterfield County (11). One 

tract contains no population data due to its location at Reagan National Airport. The demographic 

data of census tracts in the study area were examined to determine the presence of any potential 

Title VI populations, environmental justice populations, and any persons with Limited English 

Proficiency (LEP). The census data for each census tract were compared to the census data for the 

city/county of that particular tract. The population of minorities, persons with low income, or 

persons with LEP within a particular census tract is identified as having a potential environmental 

justice population if it is greater than the value in its city/county. If a particular census tract has a 

percentage of the population of any of these groups above 50 percent, this has also been identified. 

The total population in most of these jurisdictions has been increasing steadily for many years 

(Table 3.11-1). The City of Richmond is the only jurisdiction that has not experienced population 

growth in excess of 20 percent since 1990. Fairfax County is the most populous jurisdiction in the 

Commonwealth, and the jurisdictions in the study area, in total, represented more than 39 percent 

of the Commonwealth’s population in 2015. The jurisdictions’ populations are projected to 

experience a wide range of change, from a loss in Arlington County, to increases of more than 

100 percent in Spotsylvania and Stafford counties (Table 3.11-2). Overall, the jurisdictions are 

projected to grow in population by more than 36 percent. 

3.11.2 Employment and Income 

Economic data, including employment, income, the industrial base, and the location of existing 

rail station locations, provide a baseline for analysis of potential impacts; these were compiled 

from local, regional, and national economic studies and databases, the Virginia Employment 

Commission (VEC), and preliminary design drawings. In particular, station locations and the 

potential economic effects to localities in the study area have been assessed. 

3.11.2.1 Economic Base/Employment Patterns 

The jurisdictions in the study area are all part of either the Washington−Arlington−Alexandria 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or the Richmond MSA. Both MSAs are large regional 

employment centers. The Washington−Arlington−Alexandria MSA has an economy based 

primarily on the location of the nation’s capital. The top 10 employers in late 2014 included federal 

agencies, individual jurisdictions and their respective school systems, and health care systems 

(VEC, 2015). The Richmond MSA has an economy based on the location of the state capital. The 

top 10 employers in late 2014 included Virginia Commonwealth University, federal agencies, 

health care agencies/systems, and individual jurisdictions (VEC, 2015). 

Total employment, as reported by VEC, in Table 3.11-3, is the number of employees working within 

a particular local jurisdiction. This number varies widely within the study area. The Total Workers, 

as reported by the United States Census, is the number of people living in a particular local 

jurisdiction that are working. The workers do not necessarily work within their local jurisdiction of 

residence. The difference between the two numbers, employment, and workers is the workers incommuting and out-commuting. Localities with more employment than workers (e.g., Arlington 

and Henrico counties, the city of Richmond) have a net gain of employees traveling to work within 

their limits. The unemployment rate in the jurisdictions in the study corridor ranges from a low of 

2.7 percent in Arlington County to a high of 5.1 percent in the city of Fredericksburg. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-96 

Table 3.11-1: Total Population Over Time 

City/County 1990 2000 2010 2015 

Percent Change 

1990-2015 

Arlington County 170,936 189,453 207,627 234,678 37.29%

City of Alexandria 111,183 128,283 139,966 159,571 43.52%

Fairfax County 818,584 969,749 1,081,699 1,129,330 37.96%

Prince William County 215,686 280,813 402,002 443,463 105.61%

Stafford County 61,236 92,446 128,961 140,176 128.91%

City of Fredericksburg 19,027 19,279 24,286 26,969 41.74%

Spotsylvania County 57,403 90,395 122,397 128,998 124.72%

Caroline County 19,217 22,121 28,545 29,792 55.03%

Hanover County 63,306 86,320 99,863 104,013 64.30%

Henrico County 217,881 262,300 306,935 320,717 47.20%

City of Richmond 203,056 197,790 204,214 217,938 7.33%

Chesterfield County 209,274 259,903 316,236 333,450 59.34%

Study Area Total 2,166,789 2,598,852 3,062,731 3,269,095 50.87%

Sources: United States Census Bureau: 1990, STF1; 2000, SF3; 2010, SF1; 2015, Weldon Cooper, 2016. 

Table 3.11-2: Projected Population Over Time 

City/County 2015 2020 2030 2040 

Percent Change 

2015-2040 

Arlington County 234,678 206,896 201,699 197,065 -16.03% 

City of Alexandria 159,571 145,116 147,706 149,195 -6.50% 

Fairfax County 1,129,330 1,182,609 1,271,995 1,350,245 19.56% 

Prince William County 443,463 487,768 573,535 659,301 48.67% 

Stafford County 140,176 178,152 244,410 333,654 138.03% 

City of Fredericksburg 26,969 26,647 28,383 29,917 10.93% 

Spotsylvania County 128,998 166,236 223,917 299,632 132.28% 

Caroline County 29,792 31,400 33,447 35,259 18.35% 

Hanover County 104,013 118,135 139,000 162,475 56.21% 

Henrico County 320,717 352,577 400,396 450,630 40.51% 

City of Richmond 217,938 206,674 208,665 210,368 -3.47% 

Chesterfield County 333,450 388,894 473,842 572,693 71.75% 

Study Area Total 3,269,095 3,491,104 3,946,995 4,450,434 36.14% 

Sources: 2015, Weldon Cooper, 2016; 2020-2040, Weldon Cooper, 2012. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-97 

Table 3.11-3: Employment Patterns 

City/County Total Employment 2Q, 2015 Unemployment Rate January 2016 

Arlington County 169,387 2.7% 

City of Alexandria 96,300 3.2% 

Fairfax County 587,782 3.4% 

Prince William County 122,810 3.9% 

Stafford County 41,358 4.2% 

City of Fredericksburg 23,456 5.1% 

Spotsylvania County 34,221 4.5% 

Caroline County 5,585 4.9% 

Hanover County 50,265 3.7% 

Henrico County 184,823 4.0% 

City of Richmond 149,147 4.9% 

Chesterfield County 129,117 4.1% 

Sources: Community Profiles, VEC, March 2016. 

3.11.3 Land Use 

The existing and projected future land use and land cover data in the study area are based on 

available planning documents from local jurisdictions and regional entities, GIS mapping from 

the jurisdictions, aerial photography, and any additional information received from local and 

regional officials. 

3.11.3.1 Existing Land Use 

The land uses (built environment) and land covers (natural environment) surrounding the 

DC2RVA corridor are typical of a densely developed urban and suburban setting. The population 

and employment growth of the two metropolitan regions, greater Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, has directly influenced the land use/land cover and development of the local 

jurisdictions along the Project corridor. The counties and cities traversed by the DC2RVA corridor 

include a wide variety of land uses/land covers: residential, commercial, industrial, 

recreation/open space, and public uses (Table 3.11-4). The highest proportion of land use within 

500 feet of the DC2RVA rail line is agricultural; however, within and adjacent to the Project 

corridor, office, retail, and industrial development are more prevalent within the urban areas and 

at the interchanges with I-95. Even though some areas of each jurisdiction are densely developed, 

each has been able to maintain parks/open space, preservation/ environmental resources, 

and/or recreational areas. More detailed discussions of land use and the status of local planning 

for each jurisdiction are in the next section. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-98 

Table 3.11-4: Land Use Acreage (Percent) 

City/County Agricultural 

Commercial/ Office Industrial Institutional Transportation Preserved Open Space Residential Vacant 

Arlington County 

0 68.8 

24.6% 

3.36 

1.2% 

0 38.0 

13.6% 

95.4 

34.0 

29.6 

10.6% 

44.8 

16.0% 

City of Alexandria 

0 122.1 

19.4% 

105.8 

16.8% 

67.2 

10.6% 

101.2 

16.0% 

63.2 

10.0% 

95.8 

15.2% 

75.8 

12.0% 

Fairfax County 

0 159.9 

13.4% 

603.52 

50.5% 

13.7 

1.1% 

0 43.1 

3.6% 

134.6 

11.3% 

237.6 

19.9% 

Prince William County 

23.1 

1.52% 

319.6 

21.1% 

126.9 

8.4% 

220.1 

14.5% 

0 682.1 

45.1% 

131.1 

8.7% 

0 

Stafford County 

1,468.9 

45.7% 

240.2 

7.5% 

56.38 

1.8% 

170.3 

5.3% 

0 540.8 

16.8% 

735.8 

22.9% 

0 

City of Fredericksburg 

0 21.0 

11.8% 

89.0 

50.2% 

27.8 

15.7% 

0 0 39.6 

22.3% 

0 

Spotsylvania County 

695.3 

64.0% 

185.6 

17.1% 

0 9.4 

0.87% 

0 177.9 

16.4% 

18.3 

1.7% 

0 

Caroline County 

2,321.2 

74.4% 

128.2 

4.1% 

220.0 

7.1% 

42.0 

1.4% 

0 0.8 

0.03% 

407.2 

13.1% 

0 

Hanover County 

1,448.5 

65.9% 

17.9 

0.81% 

392.9 

17.9% 

42.6 

1.9% 

0 0 252.8 

11.5% 

0.2 

0.01% 

Henrico County 

0 180.8 

12.9% 

635.3 

45.3% 

6.35 

0.45% 

0 29.3 

2.1% 

256.0 

18.2% 

295.9 

21.1% 

City of Richmond 

0 231.6 

10.2% 

886.7 

39.1% 

45.2 

2.0% 

0 55.8 

2.5% 

499.6 

22.0% 

550.9 

24.3% 

Chesterfield County 

0 48.9 

3.6% 

645.8 

47.5% 

0 0 4.1 

0.30% 

659.3 

48.5% 

0.9 

0.06% 

Total 

5957.0 

32.3% 

1,724.6 

9.4% 

3,765.6 

20.4% 

644.5 

3.5% 

38.1 

0.21% 

1,692.5 

9.2% 

3,259.7 

17.7% 

1,205.9 

6.5% 

Source: City and County Land Use GIS databases. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-99 

3.11.3.2 Status of Local and Regional Planning/Development Trends 

The expected future land use and planned growth and development as presented by local 

jurisdictions and regional planning organizations are discussed below. This information has been 

compiled by a review of existing planning documents, comprehensive plans, and future land use 

maps. Transportation visions and policies, particularly as they relate to rail, are also detailed. 

Local Planning Jurisdictions 

Arlington County. Existing land use in Arlington County is primarily residential As stated in 

the most recent comprehensive plan review, one of the goals is to continue with the residential 

character of county (Arlington County, 2011). Arlington is intensely developed, and the primary 

land uses, other than residential, are commercial/office and institutional (e.g., Arlington National 

Cemetery, the Pentagon, Reagan National Airport). 

Arlington County expects that land use and transportation changes and policies will continue to 

mesh as the county focuses on “development around Metrorail stations and corridors with 

extensive transit service” and “expanding the availability of transportation options, serving more 

travelers as the region continues to grow and further improving transportation facilities to 

promote connectivity throughout the County and the region” (Arlington County, 2007). 

Although there is no mention of intercity passenger rail in the Arlington Master Transportation 

Plan or the Summary Report on Amendments to Arlington County’s Comprehensive Plan: A Five - Year 

Review July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2015 (with updates from July 1, 2015 - June 30, 2016), the County does 

wish to “integrate local transportation facilities and transit services with those of neighboring 

jurisdictions to enhance regional connections” (Arlington County, 2007). There is already a 

Virginia Railway Express (VRE) station in Arlington County in Crystal City. 

City of Alexandria. The city of Alexandria is similar to the other urban areas along the Project 

corridor; it is intensely developed, and the land use is primarily residential and commercial/ 

office. The city is divided into different areas for planning purposes, with Master Plans in place 

for the individual areas. 

Due to its urban nature, the City is focused more on priorities and needs for transit, bicycle, and 

pedestrian modes. The city has an existing VRE station co-located with the King Street Metro 

Station and Amtrak’s Alexandria Union Station. Intercity passenger rail is not specifically 

mentioned in the Alexandria City Council’s Strategic Plan or the City of Alexandria Comprehensive 

Transportation Master Plan; however, the City’s transportation vision is of a “system that 

encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation, reducing dependence on the private 

automobile” (City of Alexandria, 2008). The City also wishes to provide transit service levels that 

”connect with existing local and regional services including WMATA [Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority] Metrorail, commuter rail, other rail-based transit services, and major 

highway portals” (City of Alexandria, 2008). 

Fairfax County. The most predominant land use in Fairfax County is residential (Fairfax 

County, 2014). Existing land use in the Project corridor is residential, institutional (Ft. Belvoir), 

and commercial (office and retail). The Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan notes that the County 

“should have a land use pattern which increases transportation efficiency, encourages transit use, 

and decreases automobile dependency” (Fairfax County, 2014). The County also wishes to 

“concentrate most future development in mixed-use Centers and Transit Station Areas” and 

“concentrate the highest level of development intensity in areas of transportation advantage (i.e., 

the Tysons Corner Urban Center, cores of Suburban Centers, and Transit Station Areas)” (Fairfax 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-100 

County, 2014). One of these areas is the existing VRE and Amtrak Auto Station co-located in 

Lorton. The Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan also notes that due to rapid growth over the past 

decades, the amount of available vacant land is diminishing, and redevelopment in the identified 

areas (mixed-use centers, transit station areas, suburban centers) will be more prevalent in the 

future. Some of these areas are along the I-95 and CSXT corridors, and development could 

intensify in these areas in the future. 

In regard to transportation, the County supports “a multi-modal transportation system that 

provides transportation choices, reduces single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) use, and improves air 

quality” (Fairfax County, 2014). The plan also notes that “regional and local efforts to achieve a 

balanced transportation system through the development of rapid rail, commuter rail, expanded 

bus service, and the reduction of excessive reliance upon the automobile should be the keystone 

policy for future planning and facilities” (Fairfax County, 2014). The plan’s objectives also link 

transportation and land use to present and future economic development within the County. 

Prince William County. The county is broken up into two general land use areas: the 

“Development Area,” where development has already happened or is expected to occur at 

residential densities greater than the rest of the county; and the “Rural Area,” which contains 

agricultural, open space, forestry, large-lot residential uses, and federal and state parks. The 

current Prince William County Comprehensive Plan (2012) encourages infill development of the 

Development Area instead of more intense development occurring within the Rural Area. The 

land use along the Project corridor ranges from intensely developed residential, commercial, and 

industrial to open space/parks and recreation. 

The County acknowledges that growth will continue to occur, but it is positioning itself to include 

county-specific “Smart Growth” strategies to channel and shape growth into designated growth 

areas within the Development Area. The County will “direct new development to areas served 

by transit corridors; particularly designated centers of commerce, centers of community, and 

Mass Transit Nodes” (Prince William County, 2012). The County also proposes “centers of 

commerce at appropriate locations that promote high-density, mixed-use development near 

existing and planned multi-modal transit centers” (Prince William County, 2012). The County 

has focused specific plans on several sectors (i.e., geographic areas), including several along I-95 

and U.S. 1 and the Project corridor, including the Government Center, the Parkway Employment 

Center, and the Potomac Communities. 

The concept for the Government Center is to concentrate a town center, with more dense 

commerce and employment opportunities south of Prince William Parkway, west of I-95 (several 

miles west of the Project corridor) and north of Dale City, and a County Center north of Prince 

William Parkway, and to include access to mass transit options. The Parkway Employment Center 

is north of Potomac Mills Mall and west of I-95 and is currently wooded, but it is intended to 

provide a transition between the intensely developed Potomac Mill area and residential areas to 

the north and west, while providing significant employment opportunities in the area. The 

Potomac Communities surround the Project corridor, and the sector plan is a refocusing on the 

comprehensive planning surrounding U.S. 1 and its relationship to the surrounding communities. 

The sector plan discusses the existing VRE stations: Quantico (also an Amtrak station), Rippon, 

and Woodbridge (also an Amtrak station). The Potomac Shores Station is under construction in 

Cherry Hill, with a planned opening in 2017. The sector plan has several action strategies that 

encourage “expanding existing mass transit services in Potomac Communities” (Prince William 

County, 2012). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-101 

Stafford County. The most predominant land use in Stafford County is residential (including 

three different densities of use), followed by vacant land and then military uses (institutional) 

(Stafford County, 2014). Existing land use along the Project corridor includes parks and 

recreation, residential of various densities, vacant land, and agriculture and forestry. Future land 

uses in the Project corridor have been identified as suburban, agricultural/rural, and 

business/industry (Stafford County, 2014). 

The Project corridor passes through two areas that have been designated as Urban Development 

Areas⎯Leeland Town Station and Brook Station⎯both of which have existing VRE rail stations. 

The Stafford County Virginia Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030 includes a sustainability goal to “direct 

growth into the Urban Services Area,” like the Leeland Town Station and Brook Station areas and 

to “promote infill development” and to “discourage growth in the Rural areas outside the Urban 

Services Area” (Stafford County, 2014). The plan also states that “[t]he majority of future 

residential and commercial development is being recommended along the I-95 and U.S. Route 1 

corridors” and that the Urban Development Areas are “located in the vicinity of primary road 

networks, transportation hubs, and along the rail corridor to maximize the use of public 

transportation” (Stafford County, 2014). 

The comprehensive plan specifically discusses commuter rail due to its current existence in the 

county. The plan supports commuter rail and expansions to it “including: mid-day and reverse 

commuters, geographic extension of rail service, weekends, late evening connections to other transit 

programs, and additional rush hour trains” (Stafford County, 2014). The comprehensive plan also 

includes a transportation objective to “provide and maintain a multi-modal public transit system” 

including “where practical, transit systems should provide access from residential areas to 

commuter rail stations” (Stafford County, 2014). Even though intercity passenger rail is not 

specifically included in the transportation goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, it 

would be supported by the modal system currently in place in the county and planned for within 

the county. 

City of Fredericksburg. The predominant land use within the city of Fredericksburg is 

residential use. Within the Project corridor, land uses include industrial, residential, open space, 

commercial/business, and mixed-use. For planning purposes, Fredericksburg is divided into 

planning areas, with different goals and objectives to achieve an overall vision for the entire city. 

Even within the relatively limited area of the city limits, a wide variety of land uses exist, 

including residential, institutional (the city fairgrounds, water treatment plant, and City-owned 

riparian lands for water protection), as well as industrial use (Battlefield Industrial Park), 

agricultural use (Braehead Farm), and the intensely developed Downtown district of the city (City 

of Fredericksburg, 2014, 2007). 

Fredericksburg Station, which is served by VRE and Amtrak, served as VRE’s southern terminus 

until Spotsylvania Station opened in November 2015. The City plans to “work with VRE and 

FRED (Fredericksburg Regional Transit) to establish the railway station areas as a multi-modal 

center” (City of Fredericksburg, 2007). 

The transportation analysis for the Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan discusses “how to 

accommodate a high speed intercity rail service” and improvements that would be needed, such 

as “high-speed crossovers, improved signaling, and strategically located sections of a third track” 

(City of Fredericksburg, 2007). The intercity passenger rail corridor is mentioned in the 2014 draft 

comprehensive plan, which notes that “The DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Petersburg is very crowded and proposed improvements consist of a third track, within the 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-102 

existing rail corridor” (City of Fredericksburg, 2014). The plan also has an over-arching 

transportation goal to “encourage the use of alternative modes of travel, to enhance mobility and 

accessibility, and to minimize automobile congestion” (City of Fredericksburg, 2014). 

Spotsylvania County. Most of the land use in Spotsylvania County is rural residential and 

agricultural/forestal. Within the Project corridor, the existing/future land uses include rural 

residential, agricultural/forestal, employment center, mixed land use, and open space 

(Spotsylvania County, 2013). 

The County has identified a primary development area that can be adjusted, where public water 

and sewer will be provided and, therefore, where additional development is provided 

(Spotsylvania County, 2013). The land use objectives to meet the goal of providing for this 

development include to plan for the orderly development of the county; to accommodate projected 

residential growth in a manner that is fiscally responsible; and to ensure land use policies 

recognize and accommodate anticipated population increases (Spotsylvania County, 2013). 

There is no mention of the DC2RVA corridor within the Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan, 

but I-95 and the CSXT rail line are both identified as part of a Virginia Corridor of Statewide 

Significance. 

Caroline County. Most land use in Caroline County is classified as rural in the Caroline County 

Comprehensive Plan 2030 (Caroline County, 2010). This includes agricultural and rural 

preservation. Along the Project corridor, the land use is classified as planned development, 

agricultural preservation, and floodplains. More detailed land use has been identified within 

Carmel Church, including planned mixed use, heavy industrial, and office/industrial. The 

comprehensive plan also identifies a plan for an Amtrak station within Carmel Church. 

In regard to future land use and transportation, the County wishes to “promote alternatives to 

improve travel to and from the county” and “combine the advantages of rail, geographic location, 

land availability, and road access to create a transit oriented development” in Carmel Church. As 

a jurisdiction on the outer edges of the metropolitan DC region with significant open space/rural 

residential land uses, the County acknowledges that “The costs to the County of not managing 

growth will be extremely high, thus, future development should locate in those areas of the 

county in which public services and facilities are planned and can most efficiently and 

economically be provided” (Caroline County, 2010). Nevertheless, the comprehensive plan also 

identifies goals and strategies to “identify and preserve high quality sites for industrial and 

commercial use” and that “prime industrial sites should be preserved and encouraged to develop 

in planned industrial parks” (Caroline County, 2010). There is land use classified as industrial 

within the Project corridor. 

The comprehensive plan has several transportation goals regarding high speed rail and passenger 

rail. The County needs to “monitor and participate in the high speed rail study of the I-95 corridor 

between Washington, D.C., and Raleigh, NC, as well as the D.C. to Richmond Rail Study” and to 

“identify and preserve sites for future commuter/high speed rail stations within the County” 

(Caroline County, 2010). The comprehensive plan also notes that high speed passenger service 

would provide “options not presently available and should be monitored for potential impacts 

to the County” (Caroline County, 2010). 

Hanover County. Land use in Hanover County is primarily agricultural with more intense land 

uses such as industrial, commercial, business-industrial, and suburban residential on the border 

with Henrico County and along I-95. Land use within the Project corridor is predominantly 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-103 

industrial, business-industrial, commercial, and planned business. Comprehensive Plan Hanover 

County 2012-2032 states that the land use strategy is to exemplify “orderly growth and 

development of both residential and non-residential uses to accommodate existing and future 

residents while encouraging and promoting commerce” (Hanover County, 2012). The County 

also wishes to “maximize the use of existing infrastructure, facilities, and services, to ensure 

economically and financially responsible service delivery” (Hanover County, 2012). 

The comprehensive plan does not specifically mention intercity passenger rail service, but it does 

wish to “take into consideration the existing and planned development of its regional neighbors 

in formulating land use and transportation policies” (Hanover County, 2012). The County has a 

transportation goal to have “convenient and accessible multimodal networks that allow the 

movement of people and goods efficiently” (Hanover County, 2012). The current multi-modal 

network includes an Amtrak station at Ashland. 

Town of Ashland. The Town of Ashland is undergoing a comprehensive planning update. The 

existing Town of Ashland Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2011. The town plan is based around 

guiding principles that represent the basic beliefs of the town residents, encouraging the continued 

small town character and unique features, while acknowledging that change and/or growth will 

happen. The plan states that land use is “a balancing act: encouraging new development while 

diminishing impacts on existing areas” (Town of Ashland, 2011). The plan also acknowledges 

that an “efficient transportation system enhances the livability of the whole community” and that 

“promoting safe and efficient travel by all modes of transportation” is important. The town 

identity is based on many aspects, including “our transportation links to the wider region and 

the nation: the train, Interstate 95, and Route 1 all run right through town” (Town of Ashland, 

2011). One of the Town fundamentals is to “manage our transportation network to minimize 

congestion, and make every effort to ensure that our community continues to be walkable, 

bicycle-friendly, and accessible to passenger rail.” The presence of this rail service “contributes 

to the unique character of the Town, enhances the local economy, and provides a service to the 

citizens of the Town and Hanover County” and the tracks and station’s location in the center of 

town is one of the town’s “unique features” that must be safeguarded and supported (Town of 

Ashland, 2011). The plan specifically states that the Town “supports the Southeast High Speed 

Rail Corridor initiatives” and “shall work with federal, state, and regional partners to ensure the 

success and development of this initiative” (Town of Ashland, 2011). 

Randolph-Macon College, a private undergraduate institution, is located within the town of 

Ashland and is currently bisected by the existing railroad tracks. The college’s master plan, 

identified within the Town’s 2011 Plan, has identified areas on both sides of and adjacent to the 

existing rail line for new/realigned baseball and football fields, dormitories, and other facilities. 

Other areas slated for improvement are on Henry Street, approximately 600 feet east of the 

existing tracks. The College’s website encourages visitors to use the Ashland Amtrak station 

across Railroad Avenue from the College’s quad. 

Henrico County. Henrico County has a wide range of land uses within its boundaries. 

Development intensifies closer to the city of Richmond. The greatest amount of land use acreage in 

the county is vacant, followed by residential uses. In the Project corridor, the most acres of land 

are dedicated to industrial uses, followed by residential and vacant land. The future land use is 

projected to stay the same, with vacant lands replaced with residential uses at various densities 

(Henrico County, 2009). One of the overall land use goals for the County is to respect “the unique 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-104 

environment, landscape, and character in the currently rural portions of the county” while 

balancing a “mixture of residential and non-residential uses” (Henrico County, 2009). 

Staples Mill Rail Station is an existing Amtrak station located in Henrico County. The Henrico 

County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan does has a transportation objective to “participate in 

regional efforts to monitor and evaluate the potential demand for passenger train service” 

(Henrico County, 2009). 

City of Richmond. The city of Richmond is densely developed and, as stated in the 

comprehensive plan, “is essentially built-out with very limited vacant and developable land” 

(City of Richmond, 2000). Along the Project corridor, the land uses in the city are primarily 

industrial and commercial, with some residential uses occurring in limited locations. Land use 

goals as identified in Master Plan Richmond include accommodating “the continuation of most 

land uses and patterns in Richmond as they currently exist.” The only expected future changes 

in land use are “redevelopment and infill−as appropriate” (City of Richmond, 2000). 

One of four main transportation goals identified in the comprehensive plan is “[t]he City will 

have access to national and international markets and metropolitan areas through a 

comprehensive system of efficient and modern transportation.” The plan also states that “[b]oth 

passenger and freight rail operate in the City and they are predicted to play a more significant 

role in the movement of people both regionally and nationally” (City of Richmond, 2000). The 

existing Amtrak rail line, with a stop at Main Street Station, is recognized as the high speed rail 

route in the City’s comprehensive plan. One of the specific transportation policies/strategies 

identified in the plan is to “promote the development of high-speed passenger rail service 

connecting Richmond to other areas in Virginia and along the East Coast.” 

Chesterfield County. Chesterfield County lies between two urban areas, Richmond and 

Petersburg. The areas of the county near these cities are therefore more intensely developed. The 

land use in the county is primarily residential, with dense commercial development along major 

roadways; however, according to Moving Forward: The Comprehensive Plan for Chesterfield County, 

44 percent of the acreage in the county is vacant (Chesterfield County, 2012). Existing land use 

along the Project corridor is predominantly residential, commercial, and industrial. 

The County has planned for rail improvements, and the comprehensive plan specifically 

mentions the high speed rail corridor under study in several sections of its comprehensive plan, 

most particularly as it relates to the existing Amtrak station at Ettrick. More specifically, the plan 

has, as a goal, to “[p]romote the economic development advantages of conventional and high 

speed rail through the county and develop specific strategies to take advantage of rail services 

for economic development promotion” (Chesterfield County, 2012). The plan also recognizes the 

link between the County’s economy and transportation options in the goal to “[e]ncourage a 

range of multimodal transportation options that link businesses to their labor force, customers, 

and adjacent communities” (Chesterfield County, 2012). 

Regional Planning Agencies 

Comprehensive planning and strategy is also carried out at the regional level. The Project corridor 

includes three planning regions⎯the Washington, D.C. Metro area, the Fredericksburg area, and 

the Richmond region. These carry out planning at the regional level and, in some cases, aid the 

individual jurisdictions with comprehensive planning. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-105 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. The Metropolitan Washington Council 

of Governments (MWCOG) is a regional planning entity that encompasses local jurisdictions in 

Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. As part of the transportation planning process 

for the region, MWCOG identifies Regional Activity Centers. These centers range across the entire 

region. Along or adjacent to the Project corridor are 13 such areas: the Pentagon, Pentagon City, 

Crystal City, Potomac Yard, Braddock Road Metro Area, King Street/Old Town, 

Carlyle/Eisenhower East, Huntington/Penn Daw, Landmark/Van Dorn, Springfield, Fort 

Belvoir North Area, North Woodbridge, and Potomac Shores. The region wishes to pursue 

“transportation projects that aim to better connect Regional Activity Centers” (MWCOG, 2014). 

In addition, one of the regional goals is to “support inter-regional and international travel and 

commerce” (MWCOG, 2014). 

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Fredericksburg Area 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) is the regional transportation planning entity for 

Fredericksburg and the urbanized areas of Spotsylvania and Stafford counties. The 2040 Long 

Range Transportation Plan specifically mentions high speed rail from Washington to Richmond and 

from Richmond to Raleigh and discusses the Project process, including the current environmental 

studies (FAMPO, 2013). The plan also notes that it “is logical that the Fredericksburg station could 

be a stop along this proposed high speed corridor” (FAMPO, 2013). The FAMPO Policy 

Committee voted in July 2016 to oppose an eastern rail bypass of the city of Fredericksburg. 

Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Richmond Area Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (RAMPO) is the regional transportation planning entity for the Richmond 

metropolitan region. Plan2035, the most recent long-range transportation plan for the RAMPO, 

specifically mentions high speed rail from Washington to Richmond and from Richmond to 

Raleigh as currently under development (RAMPO, 2012). The plan discusses in detail the national 

and state rail plans and the role of this Project in those plans. 

3.11.4 Neighborhoods and Communities 

Communities vary from those in older, well-established cities and towns to high-growth 

suburban areas in the counties surrounding the Washington, D.C. and Richmond metropolitan 

areas. The existing CSXT rail line has been part of the counties, cities, and individual communities 

since the early 1800s, and it has been a stimulus to community growth and development. The 

RF&P Railroad Company was chartered in 1834 and included most of the existing CSXT corridor 

between Richmond and Washington, D.C. The communities have grown and developed around 

these rail lines. 

3.11.4.1 Communities along the DC2RVA Corridor 

Crystal City is the primary community adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor in Arlington County. It 

is a retail and residential community based partially on its excellent access to the transportation 

network, including the rail modes in the vicinity (Metro and VRE) and to the roadway network. 

In the city of Alexandria, several communities line the DC2RVA corridor, including Braddock, 

Rosemont, and Old Town Alexandria. The DC2RVA corridor turns to the west and travels 

through more commercial and industrial development before crossing into Fairfax County. 

In Fairfax County, the area surrounding the DC2RVA corridor is primarily residential 

communities, including Mount Hebron Park, Monticello Woods, Maple Grove Estates, Franconia, 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-106 

Springfield Forest, Windsor Estates, Beverly Forest, Pohick Estates, Lorton, Harbor View, and 

Colchester. For most of these communities, the study area is either along an outer edge of 

residential development or part of commercial development within the community. In the case 

of Harbor View and Colchester, primary access is via Furnace Road. Furnace Road crosses under 

the DC2RVA corridor using a one-lane tunnel. 

In Prince William County, the DC2RVA corridor is along the edge of residential neighborhoods, 

as well as within Marine Corps Base Quantico (MCBQ). Communities along the DC2RVA 

corridor include Belmont Bay, Marumsco Acres, Potomac View, Marumsco Woods, Featherstone 

Shores, Dawson Landing, Riverside Station, and Potomac Shores. Within MCBQ, the DC2RVA 

corridor is in forested areas, and the central base itself is at the mouth of Chopawamsic Creek. 

This creek is also the county line between Prince William and Stafford counties. 

In Stafford County, primarily forested areas are along the DC2RVA corridor in the northern part 

of the county. Once south of Aquia Creek, communities that have extended toward the DC2RVA 

corridor include Aquia Beach, Aquia Bay Estates, Brittany Estates, and Potomac Run Farm. 

Between the existing VRE stations at Brooke and Leeland Road, the DC2RVA corridor continues 

to travel along the edges of residential development on local roads. South of the Leeland Road 

Station, development intensifies, and communities along the DC2RVA corridor include 

Northridge, Leeland Station, Mount Pleasant Estates, Heather Hills, Woodland, Bel Air, 

Lynwood, Clearview Heights, Dahlgren Junction, Debruyn, East Chatham Heights, Cedar Bluff, 

Ferry Farm, Argyle Heights, Tylerton, Little Falls, and Grandview. 

In the city of Fredericksburg, the DC2RVA corridor passes through downtown and Hazel Hill at 

the existing Fredericksburg VRE station. South of Virginia Route 3, the DC2RVA corridor is along 

the western edge of Mayfield. The neighborhood abuts the CSXT main line track and 

Fredericksburg rail yard. The community is primarily single-family residential units. The DC2RVA 

corridor then passes through light industrial areas until it crosses into Spotsylvania County. 

In Spotsylvania County, the communities that are along the DC2RVA corridor are characterized 

by sparse rural residential development within rural communities and forested areas. The 

communities include Hamilton Crossing at the intersection of Mine Road and Benchmark Road 

and Summit, where the existing CSXT rail line crosses Summit Crossing Road. 

In Caroline County, the communities are very similar to those in Spotsylvania County⎯sparse 

rural residential development within rural communities and forested areas. These communities 

include Guinea, Woodford, Milford, Penola, and the southern end of Carmel Church along 

Jefferson Davis Highway. 

In Hanover County, Doswell is along the DC2RVA corridor in the northern part of the county. 

Through the remainder of Hanover County, the communities include Ashland, where the rail 

corridor currently divides both the Town and Randolph-Macon College, Gwathmey, Kenwood, 

and Elmont. 

In Henrico County, along the Elmont to Greendale and Greendale to South Acca Yard 

(SAY)/West Acca Yard (WAY) sections, the communities are typically major residential 

developments and include Hunton, Glen Allen, Laurel Park, Boudar, Lakeside, and Dumbarton. 

Along the Rivanna Junction to Beulah-Peninsula subsection, the north side of the community of 

Oakland is separated from the section by Almond Creek and Bickerstaff Road. East of Oakland, 

the area along the section is either forested or industrial. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-107 

Within the city of Richmond, there are four separate Project sections. The communities along these 

sections are established urban residential areas. Along the WAY to Centralia⎯A-Line section, 

communities include Sauer’s Gardens, Scott’s Addition, Malvern Gardens, the Museum District, Colonial 

Place, Windsor Farms, Carillon, Westover Hills, Cedarhurst, Forest View, Westover, Woodhaven, 

Southwood, McGuire, Hickory Hill, Deerbourne, Cherry Gardens, Broad Rock, and Walmsley. Along the 

SAY/WAY to AM Junction (Hermitage Lead) section, communities include Scott’s Addition, Newtowne 

West, Virginia Union University, Carver, Southern Barton Heights, and Gilpin. Along the AM Junction to 

Centralia⎯S-Line section, communities include Mosby, Union Hill, Downtown, Tobacco Row, 

Manchester, Blackwell, Oak Grove, Bellemeade, Windsor, Cullenwood, Davee Gardens, and Broad Rock. 

Along the Rivanna Junction to Beulah-Peninsula subseection, communities include Union Hill, 

Downtown, Tobacco Row, Shockoe Bottom, Chimborazo, Fulton, and Fulton Hill. 

In Chesterfield County, the WAY to Centralia⎯A-Line section is along Ampthill Heights, the 

western side of the community of Ampt Hill, Drewrys Bluff, Beulah Village, and Centralia. Along 

the AM Junction to Centralia⎯S-Line section, the community of Ampt Hill is separated from the 

section by forested areas. The section is then along the eastern side of the communities of Bensley 

Village and Bellwood before turning and is on the western side of the community of Chimney 

Corner. The section then travels along the edge of Bellwood Manor until crossing VA Route 288 

and terminates at the community of Centralia. 

3.11.5 Community Facilities and Services 

There is a wide range of community facilities located along the DC2RVA corridor, including 

schools, religious facilities, community centers, cemeteries, police and fire stations, libraries, post 

offices, and medical facilities, as shown in Appendix Q. A tabulation of community facilities within 

500 feet of the DC2RVA rail line is provided in Table 3.11-5. 

Table 3.11-5: Community Facilities 

City/ County 

Cemetery Fire Station Medical Facility LibraryPolice Station Post Office Religious Facility School/ University Community Center/ Museum 

Arlington County 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

City of Alexandria 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 4 1 

Fairfax County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Prince William County 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 

Stafford County 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 

City of Fredericksburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 

Spotsylvania County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Caroline County 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

Hanover County 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 

Henrico County 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

City of Richmond 3 1 3 1 2 0 13 10 5 

Chesterfield County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Totals 8 7 4 3 3 5 32 21 8 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-108 

3.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits 

of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial 

assistance.” Title VI bars intentional discrimination, as well as disparate impact discrimination 

(i.e., a neutral policy or practice that has an unequal impact on protected groups). Data collection 

to determine the presence of any Title VI groups has occurred as part of this Project. 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires that each federal agency “shall make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 

low-income populations.” Minority persons include citizens or lawful permanent residents of the 

United States who are African-American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian-American, American Indian, or 

Native Alaskan. Low-income persons are defined as those whose median household income is below 

the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines. 

EO 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, mandates that 

federal agencies “examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with 

limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services 

so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them” and “to ensure that the programs and 

activities that they [federal agencies] normally provide in English are accessible to LEP persons 

and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its implementing regulations” (EO 13166). As part of EO 

13166, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for all federal agencies and 

departments on implementing the LEP regulations because of the connection between Title VI 

barring of discrimination based on national origin and EO 13166. The CEQ has compliance 

oversight regarding LEP regulations as part of NEPA compliance. 

3.12.1 Methodology 

Demographic data for the jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor were compiled to identify 

Title VI and low-income populations. As defined by Title VI and in the guidance for 

implementing EO 12898, minority populations include citizens or lawful permanent residents of 

the United States who, as defined by U.S. DOT Order 5610.2a, are: 

 Black: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; 

 Hispanic or Latino: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central, or South 

American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race; 

 Asian American: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 

Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; 

 American Indian and Alaskan Native: A person having origins in any of the original 

people of North America or South America (including Central America) and who 

maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition; or 

 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins in any of the original 

peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-109 

The U.S. DOT defines low-income as “a person whose median household income is at or below 

the [United States] Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines” (U.S. 

DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of a low-income population is “any readily identifiable group of lowincome persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, 

geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) 

who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]).

The U.S. DOT definition of a minority population is “any readily identifiable groups of 

minority persons who live in geographic proximity, and, if circumstances warrant, 

geographically dispersed/transient persons (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) 

who will be similarly affected by a proposed DOT program, policy, or activity” (U.S. DOT, 

5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of Adverse Effects is “the totality of significant individual or 

cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and 

economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to bodily impairment, infirmity, 

illness, or death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or 

disruption of man-made or natural resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; 

destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; 

destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; 

vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or 

nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion, or separation of 

minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader 

community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of 

DOT programs, policies, or activities” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

The U.S. DOT definition of disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations is an Adverse Effect that: 

 “(1) is predominately borne by a minority population and/or a low-income population, or 

 (2) will be suffered by the minority population and/or low-income population and is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered 

by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population” (U.S. DOT, 5610.2[a]). 

3.12.2 Title VI and Environmental Justice Populations 

The jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor have a wide range of demographic data (Table 3.12-

1). Two jurisdictions⎯Prince William County and the City of Richmond⎯contain minority 

populations that are more than 50 percent of the population. Low-income populations within the 

jurisdictions range from 5 to 25 percent. Persons with LEP range from a low of 1 percent in 

Caroline and Hanover counties to a high of more than 14 percent in Fairfax County. Persons with 

a disability range from 5 to 15 percent of the population. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-110 

Table 3.12-1: City/County Demographic Data in 2013 

City/County Minorities (%) Low-Income (%) Total LEP (%)* Disabled (%)** 

Arlington County 78,231 (36.41%) 16,899 (7.97%) 17,092 (8.44%) 10,939 (5.20%) 

City of Alexandria 67,406 (46.91%) 11,980 (8.42%) 15,747 (11.82%) 9,013 (6.41%) 

Fairfax County 507,651 (46.11%) 64,274 (5.89%) 150,041 (14.61%) 69,834 (6.42%) 

Prince William County 217,574 (52.22%) 26,045 (6.34%) 45,533 (11.90%) 27,867 (6.84%) 

Stafford County 43,431 (32.93%) 6,549 (5.12%) 5,051 (4.10%) 9,619 (7.67%) 

City of Fredericksburg 10,331 (39.84%) 4,342 (18.57%) 1,145 (4.75%) 2,388 (9.30%) 

Spotsylvania County 35,153 (28.28%) 9,383 (7.59%) 3,868 (3.33%) 12,901 (10.46%) 

Caroline County 10,482 (36.45%) 3,444 (12.66%) 391 (1.45%) 3,831 (14.01%) 

Hanover County 15,064 (15.01%) 5,019 (5.12%) 1,209 (1.27%) 10,187 (10.26%) 

Henrico County 135,489 (43.52%) 32,877 (10.69%) 16,709 (5.74%) 30,749 (9.96%) 

City of Richmond 125,893 (60.56%) 50,681 (25.61%) 8,834 (4.54%) 31,613 (15.40%) 

Chesterfield County 112,981 (35.26%) 21,240 (6.74%) 12,601 (4.19%) 30,605 (9.64%) 

Totals 1,359,686 (43.48%) 252,733 (8.21%) 278,221 (9.54%) 249,546 (8.11%) 

Source: United States Census Bureau: 2009-2013 American Community Survey. 

Note: *LEP is based on the population aged 5 years and over. **Census disability is based on the civilian noninstitutionalized population with a 

self-identified disability. 

Individual census tracts (Table 3.12-2) were compared to the jurisdiction in which they are 

situated. Those census tracts with any groups greater than 50 percent of the population are 

highlighted in orange. Those tracts with groups greater than their respective city/county are 

highlighted in yellow. Any group with less than 50 persons is not displayed in accordance with 

United States Census Bureau guidance on privacy. The predominant language spoken by those 

persons who speak English less than very well is identified in Table 3.12-2. There is a wide 

spectrum of each demographic group. Minorities predominate in census tracts in Fairfax County, 

Prince William County, Henrico County, the city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Lowincome persons predominate in Prince William County, Caroline County, Hanover County, the 

city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Persons with LEP predominate in Fairfax County, 

Prince William County, and Chesterfield County. Persons with a disability predominate in 

Henrico County, the city of Richmond, and Chesterfield County. Figure 3.12-1 also identifies the 

census tracts that are highlighted in Table 3.12-2. 

Census tracts can have data that vary widely from other tracts based on their unique geographies. 

High populations in group quarters such as college dormitories, retirement communities, and 

correctional facilities, can affect data. For example, Census Tract 102.01 in Stafford County is 

MCBQ. Census Tract 2007.01 in Alexandria is predominantly a rail yard and commercial 

properties. Some of the census tract boundaries are also along existing roadways (i.e., sides of the 

same street are in separate census tracts); therefore, they may not give the most accurate picture 

of a community. In several jurisdictions, the CSXT rail line is the boundary between census tracts. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-111 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 1034.02, 

Arlington County 4,981 34.07% 4.60% 3.97% 5.11% 

Census Tract 2004.03, 

Alexandria 1,401 46.18% – 8.40% 7.56% 

Census Tract 2006, 

Alexandria 5,092 63.06% 8.70% 

18.93% 

Spanish (625) 

Chinese (138) 

11.40% 

Census Tract 2007.01, 

Alexandria 708 24.72% – – – 

Census Tract 2007.02, 

Alexandria 4,258 28.96% 4.65% 5.30% 3.99% 

Census Tract 2008.02, 

Alexandria 3,015 40.73% 12.44% 5.78% 7.56% 

Census Tract 2013, 

Alexandria 3,360 29.05% 8.66% 7.55% 7.79% 

Census Tract 2015, 

Alexandria 3,744 13.46% 1.75% 1.57% 3.54% 

Census Tract 2016, 

Alexandria 4,774 44.57% 22.46% – 5.75% 

Census Tract 2018.01, 

Alexandria 5,351 27.02% 4.26% 3.17% 4.06% 

Census Tract 2019, 

Alexandria 1,576 15.80% 4.44% – 6.84% 

Census Tract 4201, 

Fairfax County 4,206 69.78% 18.35% 

32.22% 

Spanish (513) 

Vietnamese 

(220) 

7.50% 

Census Tract 4202.01, 

Fairfax County 3,682 49.35% 2.81% 12.01% 6.43% 

Census Tract 4202.02, 

Fairfax County 2,115 50.26% 5.11% 7.56% 4.65% 

Census Tract 4202.03, 

Fairfax County 2,615 41.76% 7.00% 7.48% 7.43% 

Census Tract 4203, 

Fairfax County 5,593 42.00% 2.13% 13.31% 6.87% 

Census Tract 4210.01, 

Fairfax County 3,097 58.35% 4.75% 23.92% Spanish 6.61% 

Census Tract 4210.02, 

Fairfax County 5,210 60.83% 7.74% 

23.60% 

Spanish (409) 

Vietnamese 

(104) 

6.86% 

Census Tract 4211.01, 

Fairfax County 5,950 57.23% 1.22% 13.21% 3.24% 

Census Tract 4211.03, 

Fairfax County 5,004 34.49% – 9.30% 3.72% 

Census Tract 4220, 

Fairfax County 3,881 57.43% 5.15% 17.83% Spanish 9.72% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-112 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 4221.01, 

Fairfax County 6,516 67.03% 3.63% 

17.20% 

Spanish(360) 

Vietnamese (175) 

4.72% 

Census Tract 4221.02, 

Fairfax County 6,676 81.97% 2.47% 

24.07% 

Spanish (518) 

Tagalog (202) 

6.52% 

Census Tract 4526, 

Fairfax County 5,849 60.39% 6.90% 23.83% 

Spanish 6.50% 

Census Tract 9001, 

Prince William County 3,449 41.58% 5.16% 5.58% 7.51% 

Census Tract 9002.01, 

Prince William County 1,922 69.15% 14.76% 28.40% 

Spanish 9.65% 

Census Tract 9002.02, 

Prince William County 4,493 71.47% 12.82% 32.16% Spanish 9.48% 

Census Tract 9002.03, 

Prince William County 4,431 82.40% 15.08% 21.06% Spanish 7.86% 

Census Tract 9006, 

Prince William County 7,511 76.63% 26.11% 35.04% Spanish 4.93% 

Census Tract 9007.01, 

Prince William County 5,553 72.86% 5.92% 9.57% 9.75% 

Census Tract 9007.02, 

Prince William County 8,022 55.92% 6.67% 

22.23% 

Spanish (1,226) 

Korean (118) 

3.80% 

Census Tract 9008.01, 

Prince William County 5,484 59.96% 2.90% 2.87% 5.63% 

Census Tract 9008.02, 

Prince William County 6,773 84.60% 10.62% 10.22% 8.09% 

Census Tract 9009.04, 

Prince William County 5,328 72.60% 7.87% 9.98% 5.37% 

Census Tract 9011, 

Prince William County 6,994 35.69% 5.12% 4.94% 4.24% 

Census Tract 101.05, 

Stafford County 7,507 37.82% 5.87% 9.22% Spanish 7.02% 

Census Tract 101.06, 

Stafford County 3,178 7.55% 2.56% – 9.77% 

Census Tract 101.07, 

Stafford County 3,017 17.40% 3.31% – 9.26% 

Census Tract 102.01, 

Stafford County 2,315 38.14% – – – 

Census Tract 104.03, 

Stafford County 2,899 24.39% 4.02% 3.96% 9.11% 

Census Tract 104.04, 

Stafford County 6,289 28.72% 5.57% 1.55% 8.75% 

Census Tract 104.05, 

Stafford County 6,350 27.12% 1.59% 1.08% 7.65% 

Census Tract 104.06, 

Stafford County 3,086 33.38% 12.42% 1.89% 9.62% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-113 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 105.02, 

Stafford County 4,381 14.29% 2.93% 1.38% 8.21% 

Census Tract 105.04, 

Stafford County 1,584 8.96% 9.83% – 15.78% 

Census Tract 1, 

Fredericksburg City 2,948 21.78% 11.70% – 10.53% 

Census Tract 3.02, 

Fredericksburg City 4,849 33.37% 17.34% 3.48% 7.75% 

Census Tract 4, 

Fredericksburg City 2,935 62.62% 17.43% – 16.70% 

Census Tract 202.01, 

Spotsylvania County 5,640 37.75% 9.22% 6.11% 

Spanish 5.99% 

Census Tract 202.02, 

Spotsylvania County 5,045 33.89% 4.33% 

5.07% 

Spanish (112) 

Chinese (94) 

10.42% 

Census Tract 202.03, 

Spotsylvania County 4,882 34.97% 7.56% 

3.58% 

Laotian (46) 

Korean(28) 

12.45% 

Census Tract 202.05, 

Spotsylvania County 4,297 35.86% 8.73% 3.15% 14.22% 

Census Tract 301, 

Caroline County 4,617 36.45% 13.97% 

3.36% 

Polish (62) 

Korean (55) 

16.34% 

Census Tract 302.01, 

Caroline County 2,447 33.67% 5.96% – 13.23% 

Census Tract 303, 

Caroline County 2,952 41.23% 13.87% – 12.38% 

Census Tract 304, 

Caroline County 1,654 20.50% 19.35% – 20.80% 

Census Tract 305, 

Caroline County 12,182 34.53% 12.70% 1.24% 11.98% 

Census Tract 306, 

Caroline County 3,097 54.89% 11.26% 2.34% Persian 15.57% 

Census Tract 3201, 

Hanover County 5,677 12.45% 11.04% – 10.94% 

Census Tract 3204, 

Hanover County 4,507 16.86% 10.12% 1.46% Spanish 11.54% 

Census Tract 3205, 

Hanover County 3,200 6.50% 2.36% – 10.95% 

Census Tract 3206.01, 

Hanover County 4,258 38.00% 9.81% 4.31% 

Korean 17.73% 

Census Tract 3206.02, 

Hanover County 3,024 13.16% 7.47% – 11.30% 

Census Tract 3207.01, 

Hanover County 2,828 11.88% 2.77% – 9.60% 

Census Tract 3208.01, 

Hanover County 2,503 17.86% 9.46% – 7.03% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-114 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 3208.03, 

Hanover County 5,342 13.44% 3.31% – 3.10% 

Census Tract 3208.04, 

Hanover County 5,340 12.00% – – 6.49% 

Census Tract 3208.05, 

Hanover County 2,912 9.17% 4.61% – 9.06% 

Census Tract 3209, 

Hanover County 7,863 13.98% 3.45% 2.14% Spanish 9.61% 

Census Tract 3211, 

Hanover County 5,660 11.82% 4.77% 3.55% Spanish 10.28% 

Census Tract 2004.06, 

Henrico County 9,236 28.80% 6.59% 4.09% 8.43% 

Census Tract 2005.02, 

Henrico County 2,062 23.96% 10.09% 3.96% 11.87% 

Census Tract 2005.03, 

Henrico County 3,919 19.80% 10.49% 1.77% 10.14% 

Census Tract 2006, 

Henrico County 4,792 33.41% 16.96% 9.48% Spanish 9.91% 

Census Tract 2007, 

Henrico County 3,911 33.80% 23.97% – 24.39% 

Census Tract 2008.01, 

Henrico County 2,983 43.51% 13.81% 5.48% 18.30% 

Census Tract 2008.02, 

Henrico County 2,127 46.83% 9.40% 5.20% 11.38% 

Census Tract 2008.04, 

Henrico County 5,828 87.54% 17.71% 6.52% 

Spanish 11.41% 

Census Tract 2008.05, 

Henrico County 4,640 97.41% 48.66% 

8.21% 

African (140) 

Native North 

American (134) 

14.14% 

Census Tract 2009.03, 

Henrico County 7,195 41.72% 5.23% 3.58% 8.36% 

Census Tract 2009.04, 

Henrico County 6,820 69.09% 5.43% 4.40% 10.27% 

Census Tract 2009.05, 

Henrico County 4,912 62.48% 15.77% 3.69% 15.85% 

Census Tract 2009.06, 

Henrico County 4,422 24.81% 6.31% 3.52% 10.65% 

Census Tract 2010.01, 

Henrico County 6,151 89.06% 10.17% 1.70% 7.62% 

Census Tract 2010.02, 

Henrico County 2,986 86.47% 14.07% – 8.71% 

Census Tract 2015.01, 

Henrico County 10,616 81.56% 17.16% 1.26% 8.89% 

Census Tract 2016.02, 

Henrico County 4,727 43.11% 5.36% – 13.48% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-115 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 102, 

Richmond 4,283 26.69% 11.20% 1.51% 20.40% 

Census Tract 103, 

Richmond 1,771 97.52% 24.90% – 11.07% 

Census Tract 104.01, 

Richmond 3,207 35.52% 15.96% – 17.42% 

Census Tract 104.02, 

Richmond 2,917 38.60% 15.37% 4.06% 12.93% 

Census Tract 105, 

Richmond 1,309 79.37% 12.76% – 10.16% 

Census Tract 106, 

Richmond 2,098 84.80% 9.76% – 16.37% 

Census Tract 107, 

Richmond 2,708 97.78% 22.45% – 19.98% 

Census Tract 108, 

Richmond 3,979 93.77% 23.97% – 19.34% 

Census Tract 109, 

Richmond 2,545 88.49% 21.34% – 25.34% 

Census Tract 110, 

Richmond 2,198 93.63% 24.45% – 30.42% 

Census Tract 111, 

Richmond 3,047 79.72% 34.19% – 14.76% 

Census Tract 201, 

Richmond 1,627 97.11% 68.22% – 22.15% 

Census Tract 204, 

Richmond 4,679 98.01% 49.52% – 18.64% 

Census Tract 205, 

Richmond 3,695 44.28% 30.18% – 8.67% 

Census Tract 208, 

Richmond 1,368 44.81% 10.38% – 12.57% 

Census Tract 211, 

Richmond 1,382 86.54% 22.10% – 20.69% 

Census Tract 212, 

Richmond 1,767 88.00% 12.85% – 13.87% 

Census Tract 301, 

Richmond 2,898 98.41% 71.77% – 25.28% 

Census Tract 302, 

Richmond 2,512 48.53% 37.80% – 12.66% 

Census Tract 305, 

Richmond 3,295 53.90% 43.32% 6.68% Chinese 5.60% 

Census Tract 402, 

Richmond 3,296 50.39% 45.70% 2.55% 9.13% 

Census Tract 403, 

Richmond 3,509 46.34% 62.97% 1.99% 3.13% 

Census Tract 404, 

Richmond 3,717 28.11% 56.77% – 11.14% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-116 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 405, 

Richmond 3,367 15.09% 16.48% – 10.92% 

Census Tract 406, 

Richmond 1,756 14.75% 25.00% – 13.27% 

Census Tract 407, 

Richmond 2,687 24.64% 11.44% 5.33% 5.78% 

Census Tract 408, 

Richmond 1,679 18.46% 17.03% 10.51% Spanish 10.48% 

Census Tract 409, 

Richmond 2,708 17.80% 17.35% 1.95% 14.93% 

Census Tract 410, 

Richmond 2,776 8.47% 9.55% – 7.12% 

Census Tract 411, 

Richmond 4,339 24.98% 34.48% 2.00% 7.26% 

Census Tract 412, 

Richmond 1,309 19.17% 39.04% – 6.57% 

Census Tract 413, 

Richmond 2,952 78.66% 35.37% 3.80% 22.02% 

Census Tract 414, 

Richmond 2,062 60.09% 20.24% – 16.41% 

Census Tract 416, 

Richmond 1,482 48.79% 12.19% – 8.97% 

Census Tract 501, 

Richmond 2,806 13.33% 10.36% – 12.05% 

Census Tract 502, 

Richmond 2,844 6.58% 4.54% – 2.43% 

Census Tract 503, 

Richmond 1,247 12.91% 6.90% – 8.87% 

Census Tract 506, 

Richmond 2,474 4.77% 2.55% – 6.83% 

Census Tract 602, 

Richmond 2,194 91.34% 28.58% – 29.67% 

Census Tract 604, 

Richmond 5,292 84.79% 37.85% 2.18% 25.25% 

Census Tract 605, 

Richmond 6,328 54.58% 15.58% 1.85% 22.40% 

Census Tract 606, 

Richmond 2,374 14.57% 3.50% 2.68% 6.02% 

Census Tract 607, 

Richmond 5,110 93.11% 49.99% – 20.16% 

Census Tract 608, 

Richmond 3,266 88.73% 30.36% 24.38% Spanish 16.39% 

Census Tract 609, 

Richmond 1,633 78.93% 36.13% 23.27% 

Spanish 12.05% 

Census Tract 610, 

Richmond 3,360 71.28% 34.40% – 9.47% 

 Continued – Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. (see end of table for detailed notes.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-117 

Table 3.12-2: Census Tract Demographic Data in 2013 

Location 

Total 

Population Minorities Low-Income 

Total LEP * 

Language(s) 

Spoken Disabled ** 

Census Tract 706.01, 

Richmond 6,367 93.01% 37.64% 43.32% 

Spanish 15.65% 

Census Tract 706.02, 

Richmond 2,432 83.63% 14.22% 5.65% 

Spanish 20.39% 

Census Tract 709, 

Richmond 6,834 81.64% 30.65% 4.70% 

Spanish 21.08% 

Census Tract 710.02, 

Richmond 3,390 82.74% 20.50% 

13.33% 

Spanish (206) 

Korean (114) 

18.41% 

Census Tract 711, 

Richmond 4,866 51.95% 7.41% 2.73% 16.12% 

Census Tract 1003, 

Chesterfield County 1,844 53.74% 16.38% 5.69% 

Spanish 18.28% 

Census Tract 1004.04, 

Chesterfield County 2,500 69.04% 23.28% 38.66% 

Spanish 12.60% 

Census Tract 1004.05, 

Chesterfield County 2,373 68.44% 30.97% 32.74% Spanish 10.85% 

Census Tract 1004.06, 

Chesterfield County 1,301 77.09% 31.59% – 11.22% 

Census Tract 1004.07, 

Chesterfield County 2,731 40.31% 12.23% 4.09% 21.38% 

Census Tract 1004.09, 

Chesterfield County 6,174 22.40% 9.59% 2.88% 7.76% 

Census Tract 1008.04, 

Chesterfield County 4,413 64.58% 9.73% 

7.92% 

Gujarati (119) 

Vietnamese (116) 

11.21% 

Census Tract 1008.06, 

Chesterfield County 3,525 72.85% 15.95% 9.81% 

Spanish 14.21% 

Census Tract 1008.07, 

Chesterfield County 1,818 58.97% 4.31% 5.96% Spanish 12.32% 

Census Tract 1008.15, 

Chesterfield County 4,098 36.21% 6.50% 3.46% 7.63% 

Census Tract 1008.16, 

Chesterfield County 4,919 35.41% 4.56% 7.92% 

Spanish 12.50% 

Sources: United States Census Bureau: 2009-2013 American Community Survey. 

Notes: Data for each demographic group are not mutually exclusive and do not total 100 percent. *Based on the population aged 5 years and

over. In most census tracts, more than one LEP language is spoken. Where applicable, the most common LEP language(s) is listed. For census 

tracts where two LEP languages are common, both languages are listed with their respective number of speakers. **Census disability is based 

on the civilian noninstitutionalized population with a self-identified disability. –Totals less than 50 persons not shown. Above 50%; 

 Greater than respective jurisdiction. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-118 

Figure 3.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tracts
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-119 

Figure 3.12-1: Environmental Justice Census Tracts 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-120 

3.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVEGROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

The DC2RVA project depends on the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 306108), and implementing regulations 

(see 36 CFR Part 800), which require federal agencies to consider the effects of federally funded, 

licensed, or permitted actions on properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 also gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such actions. The cultural resource surveys were also 

done pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which provides 

additional protection for listed or eligible historic resources (see Chapter 5). 

The following section identifies archaeological and aboveground resources located within the 

DC2RVA corridor and describes the methods used to identify them. See Appendix R for technical 

reports and mapping related to cultural resource studies and historic properties. 

The NRHP is a list of the nation’s cultural resources that are considered worthy of preservation. 

Listed and eligible resources must meet at least one of the four NRHP key criteria: 

 Criterion A−Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; or 

 Criterion B−Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

 Criterion C−Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, 

or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 

 Criterion D−Have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory 

or history. 

They must also retain their integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and association. 

Section 106 coordination for the Project was conducted with the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (DHR) and Section 106 consulting parties (Table 5.7-1 in Chapter 5). The National Park 

Service (NPS) was also consulted regarding Civil War battlefields. 

Figure 3.13-1 identifies the location of the historic properties identified in the DC2RVA corridor. 

3.13.1 Archaeological Resources 

Per 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), a phased approach was developed to determine the eligibility of 

archaeological sites within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project. The APE is the 

geographic area within which the seven aspects of integrity of a resource (i.e., location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) and/or its use may be diminished as a 

result of the Project. The current APE extends 50 feet on either side of the proposed railroad 

centerline in areas where the proposed rail alignment is within the existing rail right-of-way, 100 

feet for areas where construction is outside of the rail right-of-way, 50 feet beyond the limits of 

disturbance for new overpasses, and equal to the limits of disturbance for road modification 

areas. The limits of disturbance cover the extent of construction activities and associated 

earthwork. The DHR concurred with this APE in February 2015 (see Appendix R for DHR 

coordination documents and cultural resource reports). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-121 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-122 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-123 

Figure 3.13-1: Cultural Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-124 

The DC2RVA corridor has been the subject of previous archaeological investigations. In 2010, 

McCormick Taylor conducted Phase I cultural resource investigations within a portion of the 

Northern Virginia area between Powells Creek and Arkendale (McCormick Taylor 2010a, 2010b). 

During this work, no intact archaeological sites were recorded within the APE, and the DHR 

concurred that no additional archaeological field work was warranted. One abandoned cemetery, 

a small family interment area that was not eligible for the NRHP, was noted and was avoided 

during construction. The architectural APE included five above-ground properties listed in or 

eligible for the NRHP: the Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac (RF&P) Railroad (076-0301, later 

renumbered 500-0001 for the current survey), Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (297-

0010), Richland (089-0019), Town of Quantico (287-5147), and Cockpit Point (076-0302). DHR 

concurred that the undertaking would have No Effect on Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic 

District (297-0010), Richland (089-0019), Town of Quantico (287-5147), and Cockpit Point (076-0302). 

It was further determined that the project would have No Adverse Effect on the RF&P Railroad. 

In addition, the eastern and southern sections of the Richmond area (AM Junction to 

Centralia−S-Line) section of the DC2RVA corridor overlaps the Richmond to Raleigh section of 

the SEHSR. The DC2RVA corridor between Richmond and Raleigh has been the subject of several 

cultural resource investigations over the past decade. This includes the APE surrounding the rail 

corridor itself as well as the APE of all road modification areas associated with the rail line. Work 

was conducted between 2004 and 2012 by Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc.; Legacy 

Research Associates, Inc.; Louis Berger Group, Inc.; and Dovetail Cultural Resource Group 

(Dovetail). Per DHR guidance presented in November 2014 and March 2016, these sections were 

not the subject of additional archaeological field study, though the results are included in this 

analysis. Any sites determined to be eligible for or listed in the NRHP as part of this work, or any 

other previous surveys, are included in the current evaluation. 

The archaeological field studies used one methodology along the main line corridor and associated 

alternatives and a separate methodology for the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypass alignments. The 

different methodologies were used for several reasons. The main line and the majority of the 

alternatives were the subject of a full Phase IB survey due to their relative limited geographic coverage 

and the ensuing scope of work required to complete the studies. In these instances, extant rail and 

road segments facilitated the survey. Moreover, the presence of these areas along extant lines 

suggested a higher potential for cultural resource impacts that required immediate evaluation, as 

avoidance would be challenging since options to shift off alignment from the existing rail are limited. 

Along the bypass alignments, the corridor traverses primarily open land with a much smaller degree 

of development. Exact placement of the rail components would be more fluid here due to the 

geographic setting. As such, historic properties had a much higher potential to be avoided during 

alternative design in these areas, rendering full knowledge of resources, especially below-ground 

sites, less of a fatal flaw during design. Due to these conditions and an evaluation on other preliminary 

environmental data on these two alternatives, the standard multi-alignment survey protocol was 

followed as established by the DRPT and VDOT wherein only preliminary data was gathered to 

avoid unneeded disturbances to subsurface resources and undue project delays. DHR concurred with 

both methodologies. The DHR concurred with this methodology in February 2016. 

The archaeological studies along the main line of the Project included two phases of work: a Phase IA 

predictive model/reconnaissance study and a Phase IB identification survey. In 2015, DRPT 

examined the entire DC2RVA corridor through an archaeological background review and predictive 

model (Klein et al., 2015), the purpose of which was to guide the Phase IB archaeological study. 

Previous studies throughout the region provided a basis for projection of relative probability of 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-125 

discovering terrestrial archaeological sites using standard Phase I survey techniques in the DC2RVA 

project corridor. Information gathered from a variety of sources allowed the characterization of the 

settings by a high, moderate, or low probability of discovering archaeological sites, as well as 

identifying areas where previous disturbance, development, previous archaeological survey, or soil 

attributes indicate that archaeological sites would not be discovered. 

DRPT submitted the report to DHR for review on July 17, 2015, with a recommendation that all 

high and moderate probability areas and a 10 percent sample of the low probability areas should 

be the subject of systematic and judgmental shovel test pit and metal detector survey, where 

appropriate. In a letter dated August 28, 2015, DHR concurred with this approach. Feedback on 

the model was also received from several Project consulting parties, notably the City of 

Alexandria, Arlington County, Prince William County, and the City of Fredericksburg. Their 

comments were also incorporated into the ensuing Phase IB Project methodology. 

The 2016 Phase IB survey of the main line corridor included a pedestrian survey of the entire APE 

and systematic shovel testing in 100 percent of the areas determined to have a high or moderate 

potential for archaeological sites and 10 percent of the areas determined to have a low potential 

for sites. (See Klein et al., 2015 in Appendix R for a full discussion of model development and 

probability criteria). All previously recorded sites were revisited to determine eligibility and, as 

appropriate, assure that the characteristics that rendered them eligible for the NRHP remain. The 

results were coordinated with DHR, and they concurred with the mapping and proposed Phase 

IB approach in a letter dated August 28, 2015. 

For the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, the survey work included a Phase IA reconnaissance 

study. The work involved a pedestrian and vehicular study of the DC2RVA corridor to document 

current conditions and note areas that would require future survey. No subsurface investigations 

were completed during this work. Archaeological sites listed in this Draft EIS include previously 

recorded resources and those noted during the pedestrian study only. 

Based on the archaeological studies completed on the Project to date, 15 archaeological sites in 

the Project APE are recorded as eligible for or listed on the NRHP. All of these sites are located in 

Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Area 6 (Richmond) along the existing main line. Two sites (089-

0016/44ST0084, Ferry Farm, and 111-0147, Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military 

Park, are also within the APE of the Fredericksburg Bypass, both located near the intersection of 

the existing main line and the potential bypass alignment. There are no previously recorded sites 

only within the APE of the Fredericksburg Bypass or the Ashland Bypass alignments. Given the 

paucity of recorded sites within the bypass areas, all sites are described together in this section. 

Table 3.13-1 summarizes the archaeological sites by location. Table 3.13-2 provides site 

descriptions and eligibility criteria. The information has been organized by area and then by site 

number within each area. 

The Project corridor winds through several urban areas with dense development. Since development 

of the DC2RVA corridor in the early 1830s, the use of the parcels surrounding the tracks has been 

modified over the years. During the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, these lots were the sites 

of warehouses, industrial buildings, and rail-related structures. In the age of the automobile, 

especially in the mid-twentieth century, many of these buildings were destroyed to make way for 

parking lots and roads. The archaeological remains of these once-extant buildings exist under several 

of these paved surfaces. The APE for archaeological resources only includes the limits of disturbance. 

In urban areas, proposed improvements are limited to extending existing rail platforms, installation 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-126 

of new pier supports for superstructures, creation of stations where existing buildings or other extant 

development is located, or other minor modifications. As such, the archaeological APE along the 

entire corridor is narrow, resulting in relatively few archaeological resources that are listed as historic 

properties falling within the APE. This accounts for the general absence of archaeological historic 

properties in the APE in places such as Alexandria, Fredericksburg, and Ashland. 

Table 3.13-1: Summary of Eligible Archaeological Sites

Alternative Area NRHP Listed Sites NRHP Eligible Sites Total Sites 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3 2 5 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

2 8 10 

In Richmond, several sites have been recorded in the general vicinity of Main Street Station—

what was the downtown core of the city for centuries. Four archaeological sites are located within 

the APE in this area: 44HE1092, 44HE1094, 44HE1097, and 44HE1098. All four sites were recorded 

based on the mapped projections of historic warehouses. Two significant sites in the general 

area—Lumpkins Jail (44HE1053) and Burial Ground for Negroes (44HE1089)—are located 

outside of the APE, well to the west of the Project footprint (Figure 3.13-2). The Project would not 

impact these two sites or any associated resources. As such, these two resources, and similarly 

placed sites in other urban areas, are not on the list of historic properties. Should the limits of 

disturbance be expanded, the list will be revisited. 

Archaeological and Aboveground Resources 
AFFECTE

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line and bypass) 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm Stafford County 1738 This site is the location of George 

Washington's boyhood home. Archaeologicexcavations have uncovered the foundation the dwelling, as well as numerous other features related to the Washington occupatlater family tenancy, and the Civil War. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line only) 

44SP0187 Bridge Spotsylvania 

County 

19th Century Includes cut stone piers that are now locate

under the waters of the Rappahannock RiveThey may be associated with earlier railroad structures or nearby mills that are no longeextant. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line only) 

111-0145 Fredericksburg Gun 

Manufactory 

City of Fredericksburg 

ca. 1775 The Fredericksburg Gun Manufactory is an 

archaeological site that is at least 75 percenintact. The remains of the manufacturing facare located beneath a paved asphalt parking for a public school. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line and bypass) 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive 

City of Fredericksburg 

1862 The resource is a Civil War battlefield park 

composed of earthworks, cannons, and informational markers in addition to 429 nonarchaeological cultural resources, 350 owhich are considered contributing to its significance. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (main line only) 

44SP0468-extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

Spotsylvania County 

1861 This resource includes a set of earthworks 

within a larger archaeological site. The area almost totally enclosed by lines of military shelter trenches constructed before or following the First Battle of Fredericksburg. 

Area 6: Richmond 020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, 

Auburn Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Chesterfield County 

1804 This resource is significant as a representati

of an early-nineteenth century antebellum plantation that has evolved into a modern, twentieth century farm and dairying operatiThe main house is an excellent example of vernacular interpretation of the Early ClassiRevival style in the piedmont area constructin an I-form. Numerous archaeological resources are located on the parcel. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-128 

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond 020-0063 Falling Creek Ironworks 

Archaeological Site 

Chesterfield County 

1619 The Falling Creek Ironworks archaeological sit

was originally recorded as the location of the Virginia Company Ironworks. Subsequent investigation suggests that it could also be CaIronworks, destroyed in 1781 during the AmerRevolution. 

Area 6: Richmond 020-5336 The Bellwood-Richmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, United States Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District 

Chesterfield County 

post-1942 The district is a group of residential, industr

and military buildings dating from the construction Sheffield/Bellwood Manor (0200007), circa 1804, to development of the Korean Conflict-era buildings in 1952. 

Area 6: Richmond 127-6245/ 

44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory, 700 East 4th

Street 

City of Richmond 

1919 Built in 1919 to assist with World War I wa

efforts; also used by the United States government during World War II; eligible boundary contains main factory and apartmstructures used to house workers during boworld wars. 

Area 6: Richmond 44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

Chesterfield County 

1861-1865 The battlefield includes the area of fighting, 

well as associated landscape features. The mnotable feature is a series of earthworks, portions of which are still visible on the surface. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1092 Warehouse Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1094 Warehouse Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

 Continued.
AFFECTE

Table 3.13-2: Description of Eligible Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1095 Storage facility Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1097 Railroad, Warehouse Henrico County 19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 

Area 6: Richmond 44HE1098 Main Street Station 

Parking Lot/ Railroad 

City of Richmond 

19th Century Archaeological site of unknown date. 

Recorded based on map projections. Potentfor intact remains below pavement is high. Railroad elevation structure is located in the parking lot. If the proposed rail is located othe structure, there will be no subsurface disturbances. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-130 

Figure 3.13-2: Archaeological Sites in the General Vicinity of Main Street Station
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-131 

3.13.2 Aboveground Resources 

As with the archaeological studies, a phased approach was used to identify and evaluate 

aboveground resources within the Project APE. The APE for potential historical resources in the 

study area extends 500 feet on either side of the DC2RVA corridor centerline in those areas where 

the proposed corridor would remain within existing rail right-of-way; however, in town or urban 

settings, the APE was reduced to one city block because dense modern development would often 

limit the effect of the proposed railroad on any historic resources. The APE was expanded to 1,000 

feet in areas where any overpasses were recommended by DRPT and also expanded as needed 

in areas of new roadways to capture viewshed and any potential visual impacts (areas where 

alterations to a resource’s setting and feeling could occur). This APE was approved by DHR in 

March 2015. 

Architectural studies for the Project corridor incorporated the previous studies by McCormick 

Taylor in the Northern Virginia Area/Powells Creek to Arkendale section of Area 2 and by the 

Richmond to Raleigh High Speed Rail Project (R2R) team in the Richmond Area/AM Junction to 

Centralia−S-Line section of Area 6. Similar to archaeology, different methodologies were used on 

the main line corridor and the bypasses due to the limited footprint and flexibility of the main 

line alternatives versus the bypass areas. For the main line corridor and associated alternatives, a 

background literature and records review was completed by DRPT to identify all properties 

within the APE that were previously determined by DHR to be listed on or eligible for the NRHP. 

Investigators for DRPT then performed an identification-level field study on all previously 

recorded resources that had not received an eligibility determination and on any unrecorded 

resources in the Project APE greater than 48 years in age (the age limit was developed to 

correspond to the anticipated 2017 architectural study completion date). All properties that had 

been previously determined to be eligible for or are listed on the NRHP were also briefly revisited 

as part of this effort to assure that the resources retained the characteristics that rendered them 

eligible for the NRHP. The APE was visually inspected through a vehicular and pedestrian 

reconnaissance to identify buildings, objects, and districts. Once identified, each resource was 

preliminarily evaluated for architectural significance and historic and physical integrity and 

documented through photographs, written notes, and maps. 

Any resource determined to be potentially eligible for the NRHP and/or require additional data 

to render an NRHP determination was then the subject of an intensive-level evaluation. This 

included archival research, in-depth fieldwork, and development of a statement of significance. 

For the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, a different methodology was used. The survey 

work included a Phase IA reconnaissance study per approval by DHR in March 2016. The work 

involved a background review to note resources that were previously recorded with DHR, a 

pedestrian and vehicular study of the DC2RVA corridor to visit the previously recorded 

resources to assure they were extant, and creation of a list of properties to be recorded at the 

identification level should this alternative be selected. No formal identification or evaluation 

studies were completed during this work. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-132 

3.13.2.1 Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects 

Based on the architectural studies completed on the Project to date, 138 buildings, districts, 

structures, and objects eligible for or listed on the NRHP are in the APE as recorded (see 

Appendix R for DHR coordination documents and cultural resource reports). This number 

includes Civil War-related resources such as individually eligible earthworks and 

buildings/structures that are eligible for their Civil War association, but it does not include 

battlefields (see Section 13.3.2.2 for details on battlefields). Table 3.13-3 summarizes the 138 

buildings, districts, structures, and objects by location. Table 3.13-4 provides resource 

descriptions and eligibility criteria. The information has been organized by area and then by 

resource number within each area. 

Table 3.13-3: Summary of Buildings, Districts, Structures and Objects 

Alternative Area NRHP Listed Resources NRHP Eligible Resources Total Resources 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

2 0 2 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 6 8 14 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

4 11 15 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

0 18 18 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

2 17 19 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

30 39 69 

Located in all areas 0 1 1 

Total 44 94 138 

Note: One resource listed in the Central Virginia area also extends into the Ashland area. 

Historic Structures in Doswell Historic District 
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

000-0045 Washington National 

Airport (Reagan National Airport) 

Arlington County 1941 The primary/historic building is a four-story

bay, airline passenger terminal constructed Moderne style. Property also includes six c airplane hangars and associated runways and landscape elements. 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

029-0218 Mount Vernon 

Memorial Highway (portion of George Washington Memorial Parkway) 

Fairfax, Arlington ca. 1929 Mount Vernon Memorial Highway is an 8.5-

section of George Washington Memorial Pafrom Fairfax County to the southern boundAlexandria. The four-lane-wide highway was constructed with concrete slab construction much of the concrete remains intact. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0124 Alexandria Depot, 

110 Callahan Drive 

City of Alexandria 1905 The train depot, known as Alexandria Unio

Station at 110 Callahan Drive, is a one-and-story, multi-bay, passenger depot constructColonial Revival style. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0128 George Washington 

National Masonic Memorial 

City of Alexandria ca. 1922 The resource at 101 Callahan Drive is a nin

multi-bay, memorial and museum sitting on designed knoll constructed in the Classical Rstyle. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0133 Parker-Gray Historic 

District/Uptown 

City of Alexandria ca. 1810 The district covers more than 45 blocks in 

northwestern quadrant of Old Town Alexaand abuts the Alexandria Historic District. Iconsists mainly of small row houses and townhomes built in the mid-to-late nineteencentury. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0137 Rosemont Historic 

District 

City of Alexandria ca. 1900 The district is a planned, residential subdivis

is located northwest of Old Town Alexandrconsists mainly of small, middle-class houses between 1908 and 1940. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0160 George Washington 

Junior High School, 1005 Mt. Vernon Avenue 

City of Alexandria 1935 The resource is a three-story, multi-bay sch

building constructed in the Art Deco style oin a rectangular form. The building is constrlarge, cut, grey sandstone and brick laid in airregular bond. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-134 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over 

Holmes Run in Cameron Run Park 

City of Alexandria 1946 The resource is a single-span railroad bridge 

with concrete abutments, wing walls, and cuAlthough it is made of concrete, it is an arcwith a brick intrados, which is unique to the 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

029-0043 Colchester Arms, 

Fairfax Arms, 10712 Old Colchester Road 

Fairfax County ca. 1756 The building is a one-and-a-half story, four-b

tavern constructed with an irregular four-roplan. The timber-framed structural system ra continuous, raised-basement, stone found

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

029-0953 Old Colchester 

Road, Potomac Path, King's Highway 

Fairfax County ca. 1664 This two-lane asphalt road runs northeast f

Occoquan River for approximately 4 miles tintersection with Route 1 in Lorton. Old Colchester Road played an important role icounty’s early transportation history. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

029-5741 Hannah P. Clark 

House/Enyedi House, 10605 Furnace Road 

Fairfax County ca. 1876 This resource is a two-story, three-bay dwe

built in a vernacular style. Additionally, in 19artist Janos Enyedi purchased the property aand worked there until his death in 2011. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

089-0019 Richland/Richlands; 

945 Widwater Road 

Stafford County ca. 1790 Richlands is a two-and-a-half-story frame dw

with a side gable roof and a widows walk. It association with the Brent and Fitzhugh famRF&P section house is located on the prope

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

100-0277 Phoenix Mill, 

3642 Wheeler Avenue 

City of Alexandria ca. 1776 The building is a two-story, three-bay, indus

building. It is purportedly the “sole remaininexample of a mill structure in Alexandria.” 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

287-0010 Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (Current), Quantico Marine Corps Base Historic District (NRHP Listing) 

Prince William County post-1918 The district includes more than 100 building

landscape features associated with this early base, including many air-related structures. twentieth century resources also include archaeological sites and cemeteries. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

287-5147 Town of Quantico 

(Historic/Current), Town of Quantico Historic District (Current) 

Prince William County post-1918 Located west of the military base, the distri

includes numerous commercial and other sostructures related to the development of thand increase in area population. Many buildiclustered around the railroad. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

TBD RF&P Bridge over 

Occoquan River 

Prince William County 1915 The resource is a through-truss, camelback 

bridge constructed close to the middle of thof this type of structure, 1870-1930. Althoucommon, few have survived. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

029-5876 Fredericksburg & 

Gordonsville Railroad Bed District (Virginia Central Railroad) 

multiple 1853 The district is a 38-mile-long railroad corrid

extends west from the CSXT railroad (formRF&P) in Fredericksburg to the town of Orencompassing rail-related structures, sites, alandscape features. The 3.5-mile-long eastersection is eligible. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

088-0039 La Vue, 3232 LaVue 

Lane (Prospect View) 

Spotsylvania County ca. 1848 La Vue, also known as Prospect View, is a tw

story, three-bay, single-family dwelling constin the Greek Revival style with an L-plan. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0014 Sherwood Forest 

(Historic) 

Stafford County 1810 This resource includes a two-story, five-bay 

plantation home and surrounding outbuildinincluding an intact duplex slave quarter. Thiquarter is one of only a handful of extant quin the county. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0016/ 44ST0084 

Ferry Farm Stafford County 1738 This site is the location of George Washing

boyhood home. Archaeological excavations uncovered the foundation of the dwelling, anumerous other features related to the Waoccupation, later family tenancy, and the Civ

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0045 RF&P Bridge over 

Potomac Creek at Leland Road 

Stafford County 1872 The resource is comprised of two abutmen

remnants situated approximately 100 feet frsouthern bank of Potomac Creek. The remnotable for their distinct connection to Civiactivities in the area and their association wGeneral Herman Haupt. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

089-0080 RF&P Bridge over 

Naomi Road 

Stafford County 1931 The bridge is a double-vault arched structur

rumored to be the oldest documented and identified reinforced concrete bridge in the Commonwealth. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-136 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0009 Fredericksburg 

Historic District Extension 

City of Fredericksburg post 1775 The district extension is a large area that in

wide variety of resources immediately surrothe city’s downtown core, including residencommercial buildings, and churches dating tnineteenth and twentieth centuries. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0009-0795 

Pulliam's Service Station, 411 Lafayette Boulevard 

City of Fredericksburg ca. 1935 This resource is a one-story filling station 

constructed in the Spanish Revival style. It sretains its original materials and configuratio

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132 Fredericksburg 

Historic District 

City of Fredericksburg post 1727 The district is a 200-acre area that compris

city’s downtown commercial area, adjacent industrial area, and some of the surrounding residential blocks. This part of Fredericksbuboasts a wide variety of infrastructure that date from the early eighteenth century throlate twentieth century. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0020 

 Purina Tower City of Fredericksburg 1916 The resource is a one-and-one-half story 

commercial building with a tall grain elevatonorthwest corner. The tower has become aimportant landscape landmark within the community. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0025 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge 

City of Fredericksburg 1927 This multiple-span, open-spandrel, concrete

bridge is an excellent and rare surviving exaa reinforced-concrete arch railroad bridge wthis region of Virginia. It was erected when station and tracks were elevated for automotraffic pass through in downtown Frederick

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0522 

House, 314

–316 

Frederick Street 

City of Fredericksburg 1851 This is a two-story, four-bay vernacular bric

duplex. Oral history states that the building used as a slave jail in the antebellum period. 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0132-0704 

Fredericksburg Train Station, 200 Lafayette Boulevard 

City of Fredericksburg 1910 The depot is a two-story, five-bay building 

constructed in the Neoclassical style designnotable local architect Peck Heflin. The adjatracks were raised in 1927. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-0147 Fredericksburg & 

Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive 

City of Fredericksburg 1862 The resource is a Civil War battlefield park 

composed of earthworks, cannons, and informational markers in addition to 429 nonarchaeological cultural resources, 350 oare considered contributing to its significanc

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

44SP0468-extension 

Earthwork/ Jackson's Earthwork 

Spotsylvania County 1861 This resource includes a set of earthworks within 

archaeological site. The area is almost totally enclines of military shelter trenches constructed befofollowing the First Battle of Fredericksburg. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0092 Fairfield Plantation 

Office, Jackson Shrine, 12019 Stonewall Jackson Road 

Caroline County ca. 1820 The resource is a one-and-a-half-story fram

building; it once served as the office for the acre Fairfield Plantation and is the only survbuilding. On May 2, 1863, Confederate GenThomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson died site after being wounded at the Battle of Chancellorsville. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0208 House, 

12096 Guinea Drive 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The resource is a one-and-a-half-story vern

dwelling with Queen Anne and Craftsman eThe house was built from a kit purchased frSears & Roebuck Company. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0220 Carolina Mansion, 

11146 Woodford Road 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The ornate, two-and-a-half-story, wood-frame

dwelling was designed in the Queen Anne stylClassical detailing. The building represents houconstructed in the area in the early-twentieth when the RF&P and new manufacturing enterpbrought economic prosperity to the local regi

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0222 Woodford Freight & 

Passenger Depot, Woodford Road 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The resource is a long, rectangular, one-sto

framed building constructed circa 1900. The building served a combined function as a fredepot and a passenger depot and was one ooriginal stops along the RF&P in Caroline C

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0223 Woodford Excelsior 

Company Office, Lake Farm Road 

Caroline County ca. 1896 This small frame office building is located 

immediately adjacent to the railroad and is associated with the Woodford Excelsior CoCaroline County’s first excelsior manufactuwas the focal point of the operation. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-138 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0224 Glenwood House, 

11102 Woodford Road 

Caroline County ca. 1925 The resource is a two-story, Colonial Reviv

dwelling. The multi-colored brick building is embellished with brick quoining, fluted colua patio with molded concrete balustrade. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0270 Milford State Bank, 

15461 Antioch Road 

Caroline County ca. 1910 The bank is a two-story brick building const

in the Classical Revival style. The building’s divided into five distinct bays via brick pilastthe only Classical Revival building, as well as only bank, in the village of Milford. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-0286 Coleman's Store, 

22275 Penola Road; Penola, 16095 Polecat Lane 

Caroline County ca. 1900 The resource is a two-story, wood-framed 

commercial building. It is the only surviving cobuilding in the largely abandoned village of Penis representative of the small country stores ofound in crossroads communities and railroad throughout the area. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-5129 Woodford Historic 

District 

Caroline County ca. 1890

–1969 The district is a partially abandoned commu

rural Caroline County. The village is centerthe RF&P and was one of five original statioCaroline County. Resources span the heydarail use. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-5136 Milford Historic 

District 

Caroline County ca. 1880

–1960 The district was originally established in the 

eighteenth century as a tobacco trading cen1836, the RF&P Railroad was constructed ththe area, and Milford soon became the largest of the small communities in the counsituated along the railroad. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

016-5165 Excelsior Industry of 

Caroline County MPD 

Caroline County ca. 1896

–

ca. 1950 

This is a thematic collection of resources constructed between circa 1896 and circa 1are associated with the manufacture of exceCaroline County’s largest industry in the eatwentieth century. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0093 Doswell Depot and 

Tower, 10577 Doswell Road 

Hanover County ca. 1928 The current depot is a well-balanced design 

classical-styled architectural features. The ncontemporaneous “HN tower” housed elecsystems managing an interlocking device persafe crossing of trains over both railroads. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0469 Tri-County Bank, 

Doswell branch (part of Squashapenny Antiques), 10561 Doswell Road 

Hanover County ca. 1920 This building is the only example of an early

twentieth-century, brick commercial buildincommunity of Doswell and is said to have wthree-wythes thick. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0470 House/Squashapenny 

Store, 10570 Doswell Road 

Hanover County ca. 1898 The Squashapenny Junction Store is a two-a

half-story, three-bay, vernacular commerciabuilding. Located adjacent to the tracks, the was a commercial hub for the Doswell com

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0836 Earthworks, Little 

River 

Hanover County 1862 The earthworks were constructed by Confe

troops to help protect the RF&P corridor dthe Civil War. The features are in good conas they are located in a wooded area. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-5448 Doswell Historic 

District 

Hanover County ca. 1840–1950 Doswell Historic District encompasses a rural 

community that was once a center of major acalong road and rail networks. Nearly a dozen properties are located within the district’s bou

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

TBD RF&P Bridge over 

Little River 

Hanover County 1923 The resource is a four-span railroad bridge 

three concrete piers with concrete abutmeunique for the area due to the extensive lenthe superstructure for a bridge of that era. 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-5307 Taylorsville Road 

Historic District 

Hanover County ca. 1900–1935 The community was settled in the early–nin

century and has remained active to present Most built features are residential and agricnature within the district and reflect architestyles and construction methods from the lanineteenth to mid-twentieth century. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

042-0392 Montevideo Hanover County 1790 The resource is a two-story Federal-style dw

with notable flemish bond brickwork. It is noits architectural merit and its association with local development of area agricultural econo

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

042-0557 Dry Bridge, 

10411 Old Bridge Road 

Hanover County ca. 1850 Said to have been used as a residence and s

members of the Baker family, the home is a story, three-bay, I-house with excellent histintegrity. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-140 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

042-5048 Elmont Historic 

District 

Hanover County ca. 1870

–1950 The district contains a mix of residential, 

commercial, agricultural, and religious propedating from the late-nineteenth century to ttwentieth century. Architectural styles incluVictorian, Free Classic, Colonial Revival, and commercial vernacular buildings. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

043-0693 Mill Road Historic 

District 

Henrico County ca. 1870

–1950 This historic district spans a portion of Mill 

between Old Washington Highway in the eaMeadow Drive to the west. This area of Miis lined with 28 vernacular buildings construduring the late-nineteenth to the early-twencentury. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

043-0694 Hunton Treasures, 

11701 Greenwood Road 

Henrico County ca. 1930 This resource is a two-story, three-bay com

building constructed with attributes from thSpanish Revival/Eclectic style. It is an outstaexample of the style. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

043-5646 House, 11501 Old 

Washington Highway 

Henrico County ca. 1937 This home is a one-and-one-half-story, Craf

style, single-family dwelling. It was built for tGeneral Station Master for Hunton Station notable architectural characteristics. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001 Ashland Historic 

District 

Hanover County 1850-1950 The Ashland Historic District, with its large co

of late-Victorian and Edwardian frame dwellingbrick commercial core, all set among hundredtrees, survives as a fine example of a railroad astreetcar suburb, preserving much of its turn-ocentury character. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0008 

Ashland Station Depot, 112 N. Railroad Avenue 

Hanover County 1910 The one-story, five-bay, brick depot is said t

been designed by W. P. Lee to replace a precirca-1890 station that had burned. The buiappears little altered and is a good example Colonial Revival-styled depot. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0015 

Business Office, Randolph-Macon, 310 N. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1895 Historically known as the Blackwell House, 

elaborate and outstanding example of Queestyled architecture with Eastlake elements ihistoric community. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0055 

House, 702 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1850 Historically known as the Emily Gray House

one-and-a-half-story, three-bay resource is outstanding example of Second Empire-stylearchitecture. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0060 

House, 708 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1894 Historically known as the Fleming Fox Hous

two-and-a-half-story, four-bay dwelling is an outstanding example of a Colonial Revival-sdwelling with Free Classic elements. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0001-0077 

House, 1005 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1890 This two-and-a-half-story, four-bay, Folk Vic

dwelling possesses characteristics of Queen while its form and orientation suggest an eaconstruction date. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0002 Randolph-Macon 

College Historic District 

Hanover County 1872–1950 The district includes the 85-acre college cam

and all associated buildings, structures, and landscape features. This is the oldest Methorelated college in the United States still in operation. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0036 MacMurdo House, 

713 S. Center Street 

Hanover County ca. 1858 This two-story, three-bay, Greek Revival, si

family dwelling is one of the few buildings of in Ashland, and it has excellent historic inte

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-0037 Hugo House, 

11208 Gwathmey Church Road 

Hanover County ca. 1886 This two-story, three-bay, Queen-Anne, fra

dwelling is an elaborate and outstanding exaQueen Anne-styled architecture in the com

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5041 Priddy House, 

107 Stebbins Street 

Hanover County ca. 1926 This one-and-a-half-story, four-bay, single-fa

dwelling is an outstanding example of Craftsstyled domestic architecture in this commu

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5072 Randolph-Macon 

College Historic District Expansion 

Hanover County ca. 1900–1960 The Randolph-Macon College Historic Dist

Expansion highlights a significant part of camdeveloped between the early-twentieth cento the mid-1960s when a substantial buildinoccurred. 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5073 Berkleytown 

Historic District 

Hanover County ca. 1900–1965 The district is typical of many small-town, 

twentieth-century, African-American neighborhoods in that it was relatively isolatthe formal downtown core and is dotted by vernacular dwellings. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-142 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

166-5073-0010 

House, Dabney Funeral Home, 600 B Street 

Hanover County 1955 The funeral home is a one-story, masonry 

structure. Its design builds upon that of a vesingle-family dwelling and has grown over tiserve the various needs of a small, AfricanAmerican, family-owned, funeral home. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0007 Bellwood, Sheffields, 

Auburn Chase, Building 42, Defense Supply Center Richmond, 8000 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Chesterfield County 1804 This resource is significant as a representati

early-nineteenth century antebellum plantathas evolved into a modern, twentieth-centuand dairying operation. The main house is aexcellent example of vernacular interpretatthe Early Classical Revival style in the piedmarea constructed in an I-form. Numerous archaeological resources are located on the 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0013 House, 

3619 Thurston Road 

Chesterfield County 1913 This resource is a one-and-a-half-story Colon

Revival dwelling with a gambrel roof and flareIt retains a high degree of architectural integr

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0022/ 44CF0680 

Centralia Earthworks Chesterfield County 1861 The earthworks were developed by Confed

troops as part of the Outer Line of defenseDrewry’s Bluff. Although some sections of tearthworks have been destroyed, the extanremain in excellent condition, and the remaelements of the artillery battery, trenches, aemplacements are representative of earthwdeveloped in this area during the Civil War. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0140 Circle Oaks, 

4510 Centralia Road 

Chesterfield County 1840 This resource is a two-story, wood-frame s

family dwelling featuring a two-story, wrap-veranda. Property includes a small tenant ho(perhaps servant’s quarters) and a kitchen. COaks is the oldest and largest building in the community. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0552 Centralia Post Office Chesterfield County 1905 The one-story building was the center of th

community of Centralia. It was constructed east onto the rail tracks to accommodate ratravelers through this area during the econoboom of the pre-World War I days. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5336 The BellwoodRichmond 

Quartermaster Depot Historic District, United States Department of Defense Supply Center Historic District 

Chesterfield County post-1942 The district is a group of residential, industr

military buildings dating from construction oSheffield/Bellwood Manor (020-0007), circa to the development of the Korean Conflict-buildings in 1952. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5351 Richmond & 

Petersburg Electric Railway 

Chesterfield County 1902 This resource contains the alignment of the 

trolley system. Creation of this line was the impetus for large-scale modifications to settpatterns in central Virginia. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5378 VEPCo Power 

Transmission Line 

Chesterfield County ca. 1910 The VEPCo Line was built sometime betwe

and 1930, likely between 1925 and 1927, prhigh-voltage electric power service to the pthe area. It is approximately 1 mile long, and the only remaining portion of the line that oextended from Richmond to Petersburg. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5474 DuPont Spruance Chesterfield County 1929 The first of several buildings on the DuPont 

Spruance Plant was constructed under the ownership of DuPont Rayon Co. This large has played a significant role in the developmtextiles and plastics in the United States. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0292 Laurel Industrial 

School Historic District, Hungary Road 

Henrico County 1892 The district consists of a complex of buildin

were part of a school founded under the paof the Prison Association of Virginia, a grouprivate citizens who sought to reform the spenal system, by establishing a self-supportinmodel industrial reformatory for boys. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0292-0001 

Main Building/Robert Stiles Building/Bluford Office Building, 2900 Hungary Road 

Henrico County 1895 This resource is a two-story, seven-bay, ma

school building constructed in the RomanesRevival style. The resource, now used as an building, acted as the main dormitory, chapeschool, and dining hall for the incarcerated during the school’s tenure. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-144 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0439 Aviation General 

Supply Depot, 508 Bickerstaff Road 

Henrico County 1917 The large U-shaped warehouse at the equip

depot, the focal point of the complex, was constructed as an aviation general supply dethe Aviation Section of the United States ASignal Corps. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0690 Lewis-McLeod 

House, 2945 Mountain Road 

Henrico County ca. 1921 The dwelling is a two-story, three-bay, Colo

Revival-style single-family home. The buildinoutstanding example of the Colonial Revivaand retains integrity of materials and design

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5313 James River Steam 

Brewery Cellars, 4920 Old Main Street 

Henrico County 1866 Resource includes vaulted tunnels with a gr

block façade pierced by round-arched openThey were constructed as the below-grade and fermentation space for the five-story brJames River Steam Brewery building above longer extant). 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5636 Integrated Power 

Sources of VA, 2260 Dabney Road 

Henrico County ca. 1940 This resource is a two-story, two-bay, com

building moved to its current location durin1930s when Fort A.P. Hill was established. Ipurportedly the only surviving building movthis time. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5657 Darling Smokestack, 

Old Washington Highway 

Henrico County ca. 1910 The resource is formed of brick, features a 

corbeled cap, and ‘Darling’ is marked in painwhite bricks, most likely referring to a businname. It is one of only three smokestacks to individually recorded in Virginia. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0119 John Woodward 

House, 3017 Williamsburg Avenue 

City of Richmond pre-1782 This resource is a two-and-a-half-story, sing

dwelling with an older one-story core. It is the city's oldest surviving buildings. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0171 James River and 

Kanawha Canal Historic District 

City of Richmond 1795 Circa 1785, the canal improved navigation o

James River from Richmond to Botetourt Cdistance of approximately 200 miles; Districcomprises the canal and canal towpath. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0172 Main Street Station 

and Trainshed, New Union Station, Seaboard Airline & Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad Depot 

City of Richmond 1901 This multi-story, multi-bay monumental stru

symbolizes the importance of the rail termientrance gateway to Richmond; example of influence of the French Ecole des Beaux ArtAmerican building. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0192 St. John's Church 

Historic District 

City of Richmond 18th Century to 

1940 

Located northeast of the city core, the distrimade up of mostly residences and is said to cthe some of the oldest extant buildings in Ric

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0192-0322 

Libby Hill Park and Park House, 2801 East Franklin Street 

City of Richmond ca. 1873 The park is made up of grassy areas, monum

fountains, walkways, and benches and includone-story, Queen Anne building originally constructed as the Libby Hill Park keeper's 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0197 Philip Morris Leaf 

Storage Warehouse, 1717-1721 East Cary Street 

City of Richmond 1914 Built as a warehouse in the early-twentieth 

this building stands as an excellent example sparingly ornamented yet functionally designcommercial structure of the turn-of-the-centhat served as the forerunner and inspiratiothe International style. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0219 Shockoe Slip Historic 

District and Expansions 

City of Richmond 1780 Circa late-nineteenth and early-twentieth ce

erected as wholesale food or tobacco warewith some serving light industry; buildings gare modified Italianate in style. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0226 Science Museum of 

Virginia, 2500 Broad Street West 

City of Richmond 1919 This building is a 3-story, 11-bay, monumental 

Neoclassical style train station that now houses Science Museum of Virginia. This resource was by architect John Russell Pope and is constructedressed ashlar with a large, central, copper dom

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0257 Bridge #8067 City of Richmond 1938 This is a three-span, concrete, vehicular brid

is unique as a pre-1950 continuous beam stand for the classical style balustrade. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-146 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0282 Henrico County 

Courthouse, 2127 Main Street East 

City of Richmond 1896 The courthouse is a three-story, three-bay, 

Romanesque Revival-style civic building. It is example of Romanesque Revival civic architin the city and is an important site in the hisHenrico County. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0343 Chestnut Hill/ 

Plateau Historic District 

City of Richmond 1889

–1950 This district is one of Richmond’s early stre

suburbs that features 659 contributing resocomposed mainly of single-family, frame dwconstructed in the Queen Anne, CraftsmanColonial Revival, and Gothic Revival styles. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0344 Shockoe Valley & 

Tobacco Row Historic District 

City of Richmond post 1737 This district encompasses the area of Richm

earliest residential, commercial, and manufaactivity; architectural styles ranging from Fethrough twentieth-century industrial vernac

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0344-0123 

Railroad Y.M.C.A., 1552 East Main Street 

City of Richmond 1907 The resource is a three-story, three-bay, 

rectangular, French Renaissance Revival-stylcommercial building. It is in good condition originally designed by Wilson, Harris, and Rto provide recreational space for railroad wand their families in the area. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0353 Richmond Nursing 

Home, 210 Hospital Street 

City of Richmond 1860 This resource is a three-story, multi-bay, instit

building in the Italianate style. It was built by thRichmond as an almshouse for the poor and represents the social reform movements that prevalent throughout Antebellum America. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0354 Virginia Union 

University Historic District, 1500 North Lombardy Street 

City of Richmond 1899 The district consists of 11 acres of the Virgi

Union University campus that contain the ocollegiate buildings built in a simplified Richardsonian Romanesque style. The univewas originally established to educate newly emancipated freedman following the Civil W

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0414 Governor's School, 

1000 North Lombardy Street 

City of Richmond 1938 The building is a three-story, multi-bay, scho

in the Art Deco style. The school was desigprominent Richmond architects Carneal, JoWright as the first vocational high school in Richmond for African-Americans. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0428 George W. Carver 

Elementary School, 1110 West Leigh Street 

City of Richmond 1887 The resource is a two-and-a-half-story, five-

school built in the Italianate style. The schoopurpose-built as a public school for AfricanAmerican students and saw a notable increause in the early-twentieth century. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0457 Manchester 

Warehouse Historic District 

City of Richmond 1880–1960 The district comprises 42 blocks of industri

development associated with the growth andevelopment of the community of Manchestarea south of the James River that was once separate town but later incorporated within of Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0742 West of Boulevard 

Historic District 

City of Richmond ca. 1895 This district is composed of residences, chu

schools, and commercial buildings that rangfrom around 1895 to 1943. It is an excellenexample of a streetcar suburb. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0822 Carver Residential 

Historic District 

City of Richmond pre-1958 This district is a working class neighborhoo

adjacent to Jackson Ward (127-0237), featucontributing resources composed of mainly family, frame dwellings constructed during tnineteenth and early-twentieth centuries in vernacular form with Greek Revival, ItalianaQueen Anne elements. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-0854 Bridge #1850, E. 

Main Street, spanning Southern Railway 

City of Richmond ca. 1913 This is a two-span, concrete, vehicular struc

and is an early Virginia example of the use oreinforced concrete technology for bridges. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5679 Barton Heights 

Cemetery, 1600 Lamb Avenue 

City of Richmond 1814 This area is a 12-acre parcel that contains six 

contiguous, but originally separate, cemeterieout in a grid pattern with hundreds of markediffering materials, sizes, and styles. The cemeare significant because they represent early ethe African-American population in Richmonestablish their own cemeteries. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-148 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5808 Bridge #1857, 

South 14th Street; Mayo Bridge South 

City of Richmond 1911 The Mayo Bridge is a closed spandrel reinfo

concrete arch bridge consisting of two sect(127-5808, south sections, and 127-5809, nosection) extending between the north and sbanks of the James River and separated in thmiddle by Mayo Island. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5809 Bridge #1857, 

North 14th Street; 

Mayo Bridge North 

City of Richmond 1911 The Mayo Bridge is a closed spandrel reinfo

concrete arch bridge consisting of two sect(127-5808, south section, and 127-5809, nosection) extending between the north and sbanks of the James River and separated in thmiddle by Mayo Island. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-5978 Todd Lofts, 

1128 Hermitage Road 

City of Richmond 1892 The structure is a five-story, multi-bay com

building. Originally built as the Richmond Brthe E.M. Todd Company bought the building 1919 and expanded it into a meat productiofacility. Until 1998, this resource housed the county’s oldest meat processor in continuobusiness. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6129 Winfree Cottage, 

East Main Street 

City of Richmond ca. 1866 This dwelling is a one-story cottage constru

no discernible style. The cottage was constrfor Emily Winfree by her former owner and to its current location in 2002. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6136 Scott's Addition 

Historic District 

City of Richmond post-1900 This area is a 152-acre industrial and comm

district in Richmond featuring 287 contributresources built primarily between 1900 and the Colonial Revival, Classical Revival, MissiModerne, International, and Art Deco style

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6145 Southern Stove 

Works, 1215 Hermitage Road 

City of Richmond 1905 This resource is an industrial complex of fo

buildings and a water tower built during the rapid industrialization in Richmond. SoutherWorks was one of the two largest and mosimportant stove-making plants in Richmond South. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6165 Cookie Factory 

Lofts, 900 Terminal Place 

City of Richmond 1927 The building, previously known as Southern 

Company, Interbake Foods, and Famous FoVirginia, is a six-story, multi-bay industrial bwith a water tower on the roof that was constructed with Colonial Revival attributes

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6166 Hebrew Cemetery, 

320 Hospital Street 

City of Richmond 1816 Previously known as the Hebrew Burying G

this resource is an 8.4-acre cemetery with approximately 2,600 interments that is still use today. The Hebrew Cemetery is the oldactive Jewish cemetery in continuous use on South, as well as being the oldest cemetery continuous use in Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6171 Richmond and 

Chesapeake Bay Railway Barn), Richmond-Ashland Railway Company Car Barn 

City of Richmond 1907 The resource is a utilitarian industrial buildi

a T-plan building, structural steel frame, and Truss roof. It is one of the few surviving buiassociated with the independent electric raithat provided service between the city of Rand the town of Ashland from 1907 to 1938

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6188 Movieland Bowtie 

Cinema, 1331 North Boulevard 

City of Richmond 1887 The building, previously known as the Richm

Locomotive & Machine Works, the AmericaLocomotive Company, and Richmond Worindustrial complex with two buildings, the bfoundry and the iron foundry, that are both framed resources with masonry walls. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6193 J.P. Taylor Leaf 

Tobacco, Southern Stove Works, 516 Dinwiddie Avenue 

City of Richmond 1920 This resource mirrors other early-twentieth 

century factories in the area: all brick constwith regularly spaced and relatively large wiand sections of light monitor on the pitched apex for allowing natural light for the workewas used as a stove factory and then for tobprocessing. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6213 Davee Gardens 

Historic District 

City of Richmond 1947 This district is a planned, symmetrical subur

Richmond, established in 1947. Homes in thneighborhood retain a high degree of historintegrity, and the street plan is emblematic oWorld War II design. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-150 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6245/ 44CF0724 

Williams Bridge Company, Emergency Fleet Corporation Factory, 700 East 4th Street 

City of Richmond 1919 Built in 1919 to assist with World War I wa

efforts; also used by the United States goveduring World War II; eligible boundary conmain factory and apartment structures used house workers during both world wars. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6248 Pure Oil Company, 

1314 Commerce Street, Transmontaigne 

City of Richmond 1936 This property has been used to refine, store

and process oil extracts for almost 80 yearsfounded in 1928 as Gulf Refinery Company; associated with the history of oil production transport in Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6251 Atlantic Coast Line 

Railroad Corridor, Richmond and Petersburg Railroad 

City of Richmond post 1833 Historic railroad corridor that represents t

origins and growth of the railroad industry Richmond to Petersburg corridor; reflects tCivil War trend of merging smaller operatioprovide better service while being more economical. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6255 Fulton Gas Works, 

Williamsburg Avenue 

City of Richmond ca. 1925 A notable complex of industrial buildings that 

utilities to Richmond citizens during the first htwentieth century that, despite years of vacancappears to retain its historic integrity. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6271 Seaboard Air Line 

Railroad Corridor 

City of Richmond 1900 Historic railroad corridor that represents th

origins and growth of the railroad industry Richmond to Petersburg corridor; reflects tCivil War trend of merging smaller operatioprovide better service while being more economical. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6514 Kent Road Village, 

905 Kent Road 

City of Richmond 1942 Kent Road Village is a group of 11 two-stor

garden apartment buildings on a flat, wedge3.4-acre property. The buildings represent tdominance of the Colonial Revival style in Richmond and were designed by Richmond architect E. Tucker Carlton. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6569 Central National 

Bank, 3501 W Broad Street 

City of Richmond 1956 The building is a two-story, seven-bay comm

bank and office building. It is rectangular in fgood condition, and reflects the Internationmodern movements in styling. 

 Continued.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6570 West Broad Street 

Industrial and Commercial Historic District 

City of Richmond 1890–1960 The district comprises an area of approxima

acres; it reflects the development of the indcapabilities of Richmond, and the allied development of commercial resources, culmin the embrace of large-scale consumer ecothe middle of the twentieth century. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6629 Cedarhurst 

Neighborhood Historic District 

City of Richmond post-1941 The neighborhood is a planned residential 

neighborhood that is significant for its desigcharacteristics, including its Colonial RevivaMinimal Traditional, Ranch, and Tudor Revivarchitectural styles. Many of the homes in thdevelopment maintain a high level of architeintegrity. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6693 Armitage 

Manufacturing Company, 3200 Williamsburg Avenue 

City of Richmond 1900 The original 2-story, 14-bay section of the b

front (south) wing was designed by the archfirm of Noland & Baskerville. A third story wadded in the 1920s. The warehouse has a noimportance to late-nineteenth and early twecentury local industry. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6730 Hermitage Road 

Warehouse Historic District 

City of Richmond 1930–1958 This industrial district is characterized by ro

dozen medium- to large-scale one-story wabuildings set on a gridded block pattern. Mothe buildings have large footprints that occuof the block on which they sit. The buildings typically one-story, clad in brick, and covereflat roofs. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6756 Carillon 

Neighborhood Historic District 

City of Richmond 1859 The neighborhood encompasses approxima

acres and contains approximately 475 resoumost of which are residential buildings. It represents 2 centuries of suburban growth urban planning. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6757 Woodstock Historic 

District 

City of Richmond ca. 1950–1960 Woodstock is a post-World War II-era, sub

neighborhood containing approximately 91 7 of which were inventoried as part of this The dwellings were constructed in the MiniTraditional style. 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-152 

Table 3.13-4: Description of Eligible Buildings, Districts, Structures, and Objects

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6792 Southern Railway City of Richmond ca. 1850 A railroad corridor that dates to the midnineteenth century and was key in Richmon

development for more than a century. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6793 C&O Railroad City of Richmond Pre-1851 The C&O Railroad that is primarily made up 

parallel steel tracks that is notable for its roRichmond's transportation history. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

127-6840 Warehouse, 

2728 Hermitage Road 

City of Richmond ca. 1955 Unknown; No access granted during Phase 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

TBD Broad Run House, 

2011 S. Kinsley Avenue 

City of Richmond ca. 1770 This two-story, Federal-style, frame dwellin

constructed with a central-passage plan. It is and exceptional, surviving example of a lateeighteenth century dwelling in this area of Richmond. 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

Temp 402 House, 

351 W. 49th Street 

City of Richmond ca. 1958 Unknown; No access granted during Phase 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

TBD Rolando Historic 

District 

City of Richmond ca. 1946

–1950 The district is a post-World War II-era, sub

neighborhood containing approximately 142 parcels. The dwellings were constructed in Minimal Traditional style. The neighborhood contributing dwellings have been generally unchanged since its subdivision in 1946. 

All 076-0301 RF&P Railroad Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria, Fairfax County, Prince William County, Stafford County, City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, Caroline County, Hanover County, Henrico County, City of Richmond 

1836 The RF&P opened in 1836 and eventually sp

from the Potomac River to Richmond. The DC2RVA corridor includes the main rail linand associated elements, such as station hobridges, and other structures. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-153 

3.13.2.2 Battlefields 

Spanning the area between the Union capital in Washington, D.C. and the Confederate capital in 

Richmond, the Project area was the site of numerous Civil War battles, skirmishes, and 

occupations as the two armies fought for control of this important land. Although development 

has consumed many historic landscapes once associated with the war, DHR and the American 

Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) have identified 11 battlefields in the architectural APE. 

Each comprises a unique set of features and represents different aspects of the war between 1861 

and 1865. 

In Virginia, battlefields are recorded as aboveground historic districts. Each encompasses 

hundreds, if not thousands, of acres, and many of these battlefields are now located in areas of 

urban and suburban development. As such, many of the elements and conditions extant at the 

time of the battle are no longer in existence. This is especially notable for archaeological sites, 

where disturbances from development, transportation improvements, and other forms of largescale earth movement have greatly diminished the potential for intact archaeological sites related 

to their period of significance. Because of this, and due to the nature of these vast resources, in 

Virginia, they are evaluated primarily as landscapes for their aboveground integrity and 

significance. Individual buildings, structures, objects, and sites within each battlefield are 

evaluated as both individual resources and for their contribution to the larger landcape. 

However, because of their size, complexity, and quantity, battlefields are regularly separated 

from other aboveground and belowground resources during environmental evaluations to aid 

the discussion. (Note: Archaeological resources recorded as individual sites within the APE have 

been listed in the Archaeological results section above.) 

In light of the above concepts and per DHR guidelines, each battlefield was surveyed in a manner 

similar to other aboveground resources. Because they have already been determined to be eligible 

by DHR prior to the current study (Table 3.13-6), they were briefly revisited through a vehicular 

identification-level survey to photo document their general condition and confirm the previous 

eligibility determinations. 

Battlefields, as recorded in the APE, are enumerated in Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6 and a description 

is provided. The ABPP boundaries for all resources have been used per DHR guidance. 

Table 3.13-5: Summary of Battlefields 

Alternative Area 

NRHP Listed 

Resources 

NRHP Eligible 

Resources Total Resources 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

0 3 3 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

0 1 1 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 0 7 7 

Note: One resource listed in the Richmond area also extends into the Ashland area. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-154 

Historic Battlefields 

3.13.2.3 Tribal Land 

The Pamunkey are the sole federally recognized tribe in Virginia. In addition, 11 state-recognized 

tribes are in the Commonwealth: Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Chickahominy, Eastern Chickahominy, 

Rappahannock, Upper Mattaponi, Nansemond, Monacan Indian Nation, Cheroenhaka 

(Nottoway), Nottoway of Virginia, and Patawomeck. None of these tribes has established tribal 

lands within or adjacent to the Project area. In addition, no prehistoric sites have been recorded 

in the APE. As such, no recorded tribe-associated properties are within the APE or surrounding 

area. The Pamunkey tribe was invited to be a consulting party to the Section 106 process. 

Outside of the Commonwealth, the Catawba Indian Tribe was also invited to be a consulting 

party as they have a stated interest in projects along the I-95 corridor (see Appendix U for Tribal 

invitation letters). 

Neither invited tribe has elected to participate in the process; however, DRPT is assuming 

consulting party status for the Pamunkey Tribe. Comments have not been submitted by any of 

the tribes on any Project documents to date. Chapter 5 provides full details on the tribal 

coordination efforts completed for this Project.
 AFFECTE

Table 3.13-6: Description of Battlefields

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

088-5181 Salem Church Battlefield 

(Banks Ford Battlefield) 

Spotsylvania County, City of Fredericksburg 

1863 The battlefield includes the land where 

Hay's and Hoke's brigades attacked the Union Sixth Corps in 1863. It includes Confederate earthworks, Salem Church, and the path of the Plank Road. 

Eligi(Fedeligiduriiniti

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-5295 Battle of Fredericksburg I City of Fredericksburg 1862 The battlefield is the location of a Civil War 

battle that occurred between December 11 and December 15, 1862. Union Major General Ambrose Burnside and his troops battled General Robert E. Lee’s Confederate men, resulting in a Confederate victory. The battlefield continues to retain a high level of integrity. 

EligiCritdeteNPS batt

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

111-5296 Battle of Fredericksburg II City of Fredericksburg 1863 The Battlefield is a 12,694.2-acre battlefield 

associated with a Civil War battle of the same name, which took place on May 3, 1863. Despite expansive residential, commercial, and industrial development around the battlefield and Fredericksburg, it continues to retain a high level of integrity. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

042-0123 North Anna Battlefield Hanover County 1864 The North Anna Battlefield was the 

location of one of the most important Civil War campaigns in the state. It was the culminating point of the 1864 Overland Campaign. The battlefield is composed of defensive earthworks and trenches, as well as other elements predating and contemporaneous with the battle. 

Eligi(Fedeligiduriiniti

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5108 Yellow Tavern Battlefield Henrico County 1864 The battlefield is the location of a Civil War 

battle that took place in May 1864 (Dollins, 2014). Major General J.E.B. Stuart was wounded and died, and the battle ended in a Union victory. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

3-156 

Table 3.13-6: Description of Battlefields

Alternative 

Area DHR ID Name City/County Date Description 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-0147 Drewry's Bluff Battlefield 

(Fort Darling, Fort Drewry), Fort Darling Road 

Chesterfield County, Henrico County 

1862 Drewry’s Bluff encompasses 42.4 acres of 

land. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp based at Fort Harrison rehabilitated the site in 1935, clearing brush and trees and stabilizing the earthworks. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

020-5320 Proctor's Creek 

Battlefield 

Chesterfield County, Colonial Heights 

1864 Currently, the battlefield consists of 

monuments, interpretive markers (state and freeman markers/park service interpretation at Fort Darling unit/county interpretation at Fort Stephens), a cemetery, historic roadbeds, period structures (Wooldridge, Willis, Halfway houses), and trenches/field fortifications. 

EligiCritdeteABPbattdeteSEH

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-0307 Battle of Chaffin's Farm 

(New Market Heights Battlefield), New Market Road 

Chesterfield County, Henrico County, Richmond City 

1862 The Battle of New Market Heights is 

nationally significant because of the allimportant role played by Black soldiers in this fight and the recognition of their gallantry by the United States government through the award of 14 Medals of Honor to participants. 

EligiCritof eduriinitia201

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

043-5071 Darbytown & New 

Market Roads Battlefield, Route 5 

Henrico County 1864 The battlefield is the location of this notable 

1864 engagement. Most of the area has been subsumed by development. 

EligiCritof eduriinitia

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

123-5025 Assault on Petersburg 

(Petersburg Battlefield II), Bermuda Hundred Road (Alt Route 697) 

Charles City County, Chesterfield County, Colonial Heights City, Hopewell City, Petersburg City, Prince George County 

1865 This resource includes a Civil War battlefield 

that represents part of the Richmond Petersburg campaign in and around Petersburg. Today, the battlefield consists of earthworks, roadways, and other features, as well as interpretive materials. 

EligiCritdeteABPbatt

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

44CF0680 Fort Darling/Battlefield, 

Earthworks, Fort 

Chesterfield County 1861

−1865 The battlefield includes the area of fighting, 

as well as associated landscape features. The most notable feature is a series of earthworks, portions of which are still visible on the surface. 

Eligiand eligiSEH
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-157 

3.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND REFUGES 

This section describes the parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges within the study 

area. Those parklands with special protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 or Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act are also 

identified. The study area for Section 4(f) resources, Section 6(f) resources, and other parks and 

recreational areas is 500 feet to each side of the existing rail line, comprising a 1,000-foot-wide 

study area. Within the Fredericksburg and Ashland Bypass areas, the study area is a 1,000 feet 

wide surrounding the proposed rail line. Tables 3.14-1 through 3.14-4 describe federally owned 

parkland, state parkland, local county or city parkland, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. For 

each parkland resource, the name, size, ownership and general features are described. Because 

they may span across city and county boundaries and have different levels of ownership, linear 

facilities such as trails are discussed in a separate section, Section 3.14.5. Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

DOT Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138) affords additional protection to public parks, recreation areas, 

and wildlife or waterfowl refuges. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act affords 

additional protection to property acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation 

Funds (LWCF). Sections 3.14.6 and 3.14.7 describe regulations relating to Sections 4(f) and 6(f) in 

more detail and describe those parkland resources that meet those criteria for additional 

protection. Figure 3.14-1 identifies the locations of all parklands, recreational areas and wildlife 

refuges discussed in this section. 

3.14.1 Federal Parklands 

Table 3.14-1 describes the federal parklands within the study area including size, ownership, and 

park features. 

Table 3.14-1: Federal Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

George Washington 

Memorial Parkway 

Northern 

Virginia 

1105 NPS  Transportation and recreational 

driving 

 Walking trails 

Quantico Recreation 

Area (Unnamed) 

Northern 

Virginia 

9 MCBQ  Access is limitied to those with 

military identification 

 Basketball courts 

 Soccer fields 

 Playgrounds 

Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National 

Military Park 

Fredericksburg 

and Central 

Virginia 

8374 NPS  Comprised of several differenct 

sections 

 Encompasses four major Civil 

War battlefields and preserves 

four historic buildings 

 Contains Stonewall Jackson 

Shrine 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-158 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-159 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-160 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-161 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-162 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-163 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-164 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-165 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-166 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-167 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-168 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-169 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-170 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-171 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-172 

Figure 3.14-1: Park Resources 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-173 

3.14.2 State and Regional Parklands and Recreation Areas 

Table 3.14-2 describes the state and regional parklands and recreation areas including size, 

ownership, and park features. 

Table 3.14-2: State and Regional Parklands and Recreation Areas 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Leesylvania State Park Northern 

Virginia 

553 VDCR  Playgrounds 

 Boat launch and boat storage area 

 Snack bar, store, and visitor center 

 Fitness trail 

 Universally accessible fishing pier 

Widewater State Park Northern 

Virginia 

1042 VDCR  Park is in development 

 Land purchased in 2006 

 Features will be similar to 

Leesylvania State Park 

Cameron Run Regional 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

30 Operated by Northern 

Virginia Regional Park 

Authority (NVRPA) 

Owned by City of Alexandria 

 Waterpark 

 Café 

 Playgrounds 

 Batting cage 

 Mini-golf 

State and Regional Parklands−Cameron Run Regional Park 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-174 

3.14.3 County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Table 3.14-3 describes the County/City and other local parklands including size, ownership, and 

park features. 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Arlington County

Long Bridge Park Arlington 29 Arlington County  Multi-sport, lighted, athletic fields, 

 Walkways 

 Greenspace 

 Playgrounds 

Crystal Park North Northern 

Virginia 

2 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Small urban park 

 Part of Crystal City development 

Crystal City Water 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

2.5 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Urban park 

 Landscaped gardens 

 Large water fountains 

 Seating areas 

 Part of Crystal City development 

Crystal City Courtyard 

Green 

Northern 

Virginia 

4.3 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Urban greenspace 

 Flower gardens 

 Trails and park benches 

 Part of Crystal City development 

Crystal City Children’s 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

4.4 Private ownership – no fee 

for access during nonbusiness hours 

 Facility was built primarily for use 

by the resident day-care facility 

but it is open to use by area 

families during non-business 

hours 

 Playrgrounds 

 Part of Crystal City development 

City of Alexandria

Daingerfield Island Park Northern 

Virginia 

162 City of Alexandria  Located adjacent to the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway 

 Sailing and fishing are available at 

the park 

 Popular destination for fireworks 

viewing on the 4th of July 

Potomac Greens Park Northern 

Virginia 

18 City of Alexandria  Playgrounds 

 Seating areas 

 Wooded trails 

Potomac Yard Park Northern 

Virginia 

13 Private ownership – open to 

the public, no fee for access 

 Playground equipment 

 Interactive fountain for water play 

 Walking/biking trails 

Old Town Greens 

Recreational Area 

Northern 

Virginia 

1.7 Private ownership – for Old 

Town Greens residents use 

only 

 Tennis courts 

 Greenspace 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-175 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Eugene Simpson 

Stadium Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

18 City of Alexandria  Includes Eugene Simpson Stadium 

 Soccer fields 

Braddock Park Northern 

Virginia 

7.1 City of Alexandria  Baseball/softball fields 

 Football fields 

Metro Linear Park Northern 

Virginia 

3.8 City of Alexandria  Linear pathway that connects the 

Buchanan Street neighborhood 

with the metro stations at 

Braddock Road and King Street 

King Street Gardens Northern 

Virginia 

0.4 City of Alexandria  Consists primarily of gardens for 

the public’s enjoyment 

Traffic Circle Park Northern 

Virginia 

0.1 City of Alexandria  Small greenspace with minimal 

landscaping 

Hooff’s Run Park and 

Greenway 

Northern 

Virginia 

4.5 City of Alexandria  Portion of the park closest to the 

railroad consists of only walking 

trails 

Buchanan Park Northern 

Virginia 

2.8 City of Alexandria  Adjacent to Jefferson Houston 

Elementary School 

 Includes the Olde Town Pool 

 Playground facilities 

Sunset Mini Park Northern 

Virginia 

1.4 City of Alexandria  Playground 

Dog Run Park at 

Carlyle 

Northern 

Virginia 

3.0 City of Alexandria  Fenced dog exercise area 

 Tennis courts 

Witter Fields Northern 

Virginia 

13 City of Alexandria  Obtained by the City as a result 

of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge 

Settlement Agreement Record of 

Decision between the City of 

Alexandria and the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) 

 Includes lighted diamond field, 

two lighted synthetic turf 

rectangular fields, restrooms, 

park pavilions, and pedestrian trail 

Clermon Natural Area Northern 

Virginia 

6.0 City of Alexandria  Consists solely of a wooded area 

Joseph Hensley Park Northern 

Virginia 

22 City of Alexandria  Soccer and softball fields 

 Picnic shelters 

Fairfax County 

Backlick Stream Valley 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

75 Fairfax County Park 

Authority (FCPA) 

 Passive recreation such as hiking 

Franconia Forest Northern 

Virginia 

6.7 FCPA  Hiking/biking trails 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-176 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Loisdale Park Northern 

Virginia 

8.6 FCPA  Playgrounds 

 Tennis courts 

 Multi-use courts 

 Soccer fields 

Accotink Stream Valley 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

475 FCPA  Passive recreation such as hiking 

Pohick Stream Valley 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

323 FCPA  Passive recreation such as hiking 

Mason Neck West Northern 

Virginia 

76 FCPA  In development 

 44 acres are planned for sporting 

facilities 

 32 acres have been acquired but 

future use remains unplanned, 

currently unimproved 

Old Colchester 

Preserve and Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

141 FCPA  Natural preserve with rare 

communities and animal species 

 Includes a variety of 

archaeological resources 

Prince William County 

Jefferson Park Site Northern 

Virginia 

6.9 Prince William County  Identified as a future 

neighborhood park 

 Currently open space 

Veterans Memorial 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

110 Prince William County  Outdoor athletic fields 

 Walking trails and picnic pavilions 

 Skate park 

Marumsco Acre Lake 

Park 

Northern 

Virginia 

20 Prince William County  Basketball court 

 Picnic pavilion 

 Playground area 

Cockpit Point Northern 

Virginia 

96 Prince William County  In development 

 Not open yet; will be open to 

visitors on a limited basis at first 

 Part of a rezoning agreement with 

the Potomac Shores community 

Stafford County

Embry Farm Fredericksburg 11 Private ownership by the 

George Washington 

Foundation - not open to 

the public 

 Historic preservation 

 Not open to the public 

George Washiongton’s 

Ferry Farm 

Fredericksburg 75 Private ownership by the 

George Washington 

Foundation - open to the 

public for a fee 

 George Washington’s boyhood 

home 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-177 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

City of Fredericksburg

Cobblestone Park Fredericksburg 10 City of Fredericksburg  Wooded area with pedestrian 

trails 

 Adjacent to Hazel Run Creek 

Pierson/Slaughter Pen 

Farm 

Fredericksburg 200 Private ownership by the 

Civil War Preservation 

Trust – open to the public 

without a fee 

 Acquired in 2006 

 Key historic part of the nearby 

Fredericksburg Battlefield 

Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties 

Mary Lee Carter Park Fredericksburg 4.5 Spotsylvanic County  Multi-use athletic fields 

 Walking trails 

 Playground 

 Picnic areas 

Alexander Berger 

Memorial Sanctuary 

Fredericksburg 865 Private ownership by the 

Nature Conservancy – open 

to the public without a fee 

 Includes recreational trails near 

the Rappahannock River 

 Includes remnants of a Civil War 

encampment 

Hanover County

North Ashland Park Ashland 0.2 Town of Ashland  Open greenspace 

 Picnic shelter 

 Under development and is likely 

to expand in size 

 Part of a much larger 29-acre parcel 

owned by the Town that includes a 

sewage treatment facility and 

maintenance/ storage areas 

Railside Park Ashland 1.0 Town of Ashland  Connects to Vaughan Road by a 

1/3-mile-long path along the rail 

tracks 

 Remains largely open space 

 Picnic table and park benches for 

viewing passing trains 

Blincoe Field Ashland 116 Private ownership by 

Randolph Macon College – 

not regularly open to the 

public 

 Athletic stadium at Randolph 

Macon College 

 Open to the public for a fee 

during special events 

 Primarily for use by faculty and 

students 

Carter Park Ashland 13.5 Town of Ashland  Junior Olympic-size swimming 

pool 

 One-half basketball court 

 Picnic shelter 

 Playground 

 Gravel walking trails through the 

wooded areas 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-178 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Ashland Trolley Line Ashland 6.7 Hanover County and Town 

of Ashland 

 0.5 miles in length 

 Walkway and park 

 Part of the historic AshlandRichmond Trolley Line 

 Northern portion includes 

Walder Lane 

Henrico County

Hunton Community 

Center 

Ashland 4.9 Henrico County  Playground 

 Ball fields 

 Pavilion 

RF&P Park Richmond 60 Henrico County  Includes four restored RF&P train 

cars 

 Picnic shelters 

 Athletic fields including The Glen 

Allen Stadium at RF&P Park 

Laurel Recreation Area Richmond 10 Henrico County  Skate park 

 Athletic fields 

 Picnic shelter 

City of Richmond

Joseph Bryan Park Richmond 250 City of Richmond  Extensive open space 

 Walking trails 

 Disc golf course 

 Home to many festivals and 

events 

Maggie Walker 

Governor’s School 

Athletic Fields 

Richmond 4.9 Maggie L Walker Governor’s 

School Regional School 

Board 

 Outdoor athletic fields 

Calhoun Community 

Center 

Richmond 6.6 Richmond Redevelopment 

and Housing Authority 

(RRHA) 

 Basketball courts 

 Football field 

 Baseball field 

 Playground 

Canal Walk Plaza and 

Entrance 

Richmond 3.8 City of Richmond  Recreational trails and walking 

areas near the James River 

Walker’s Creek 

Retention Basin Park 

Richmond 6.4 City of Richmond, Public 

Works 

 Provides access to the walk along 

the floodwall south of the James 

River 

Monument Avenue 

Linear Park 

Richmond 13 City of Richmond  In the median along Monument 

Avenue 

 Well-known Richmond landmark 

punctuated by statues 

memorializing Virginian 

Confederate generals and the 

Richmond native and tennis star 

Arthur Ashe 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-179 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Albert Hill Athletic 

Facility 

Richmond 3.2 City of Richmond  Adjacent to the Humphrey 

Calder Community Center and 

Garden 

 Includes athletic fields 

Humphrey Calder 

Community Center and 

Garden 

Richmond 5.4 City of Richmond  Includes some outdoor 

recreational areas and a 

community garden 

James River Park Richmond 550 City of Richmond  Richmond's largest park 

 System of parks along both sides 

of the James River as it passes 

through the city 

Covington Road 

Properties 

Richmond 6.6 City of Richmond  Currently consists of 

undeveloped land with a mix of 

open space and trees 

 No recreational facilities are 

provided at this location 

Hickory Hill 

Community Center and 

Elementary School 

Richmond 7,2 City of Richmond  Basketball court 

 Playground 

 Ball field 

 Walking trail 

Libby Hill Park Richmond 11 City of Richmond  One of the three original parks in 

Richmond's park system 

 Includes an ornamental fountain 

and small park house 

 Includes a monument erected in 

1894 for Confederate soldiers 

and sailors 

Cannonball Triangle 

Park 

Richmond 0.2 City of Richmond  Central element of the park is a 

stone monument to the 

Confederate Naval Yard in the 

James River just to the south of 

the monument 

Great Shiplock Park Richmond 18 City of Richmond  Located along the northern bank 

of the James River 

 Includes the lowest of the historic 

Kanawha Canal locks as well as an 

interpretive display 

Chesterfield County

Falling Creek Linear 

Park 

Richmond 93 Chesterfield County  In development 

 Ironworks are open for free 

tours by reservation only 

 Remainder of the park is adjacent 

to Falling Creek and is primarily 

wooded 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-180 

Table 3.14-3: County/City and Other Local Parklands 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Size 

(acres) Ownership Features 

Bensley Elementary 

School 

Richmond 3.8 Chesterfield County  Athletic fields 

 Playgrounds 

 Separated from railroad by sliver 

of land belonging to Bellwood 

Supply Depot, which is part of an 

active military installation 

 School playground is fenced with 

no access to Bellwood Supply 

Depot land or the railroad tracks 

Gates Mill Park Richmond 11 Chesterfield County  Hiking trails 

3.14.4 Wildlife Refuges 

Wildlife refuges are lands set aside for conservation, restoration, or management of wildlife or 

waterfowl species and habitats. Refuges may be part of the National Wildlife Refuge System or 

state- or locally owned. Wildlife refuges may or may not allow public access. Wildlife 

management areas are similar but some may allow hunting. Table 3.14-4 describes the wildlife 

refuges and management areas located in the DC2RVA study area. 

Table 3.14-4: Wildlife Refuges 

Resource Name Alternative Area Size (acres) Ownership Features 

Roaches Run Waterfowl 

Sanctuary 

Arlington 59 NPS  Waterfowl protection area 

 Adjacent to the George 

Washington Memorial Parkway 

Featherstone National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Northern Virginia 332 USFWS  National Wildlife Refuge 

Mattaponi State Wildlife 

Management Area 

Central Virginia 2652 VDGIF  State wildlife management area 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-181 

3.14.5 Trails 

Recreational trail facilities are described in Table 3.14-5. Trails that use existing roadway facilities 

or bikeways along existing roads that are used primarily for transportation are not discussed here 

as recreational trails. Trails within the parklands previously discussed are not included in Table 

3.14-5 as they are afforded protection through the parklands within which they are located.. 

fOwnership of trails is typically varied due to their length. Portions may be on public lands or 

roadway rights-of-way and portions may be on private lands. 

Trails−Virginia Central Railway Trail 

Table 3.14-5: Trails 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Length 

(miles) Ownership Features 

Mount Vernon Trail Northern 

Virginia 

18 Various  Connects Theodore Roosevelt Island Park with 

George Washington’s Estate at Mount Vernon 

 Heavy use by bikers and pedestrians 

 Connects with several other local and regional 

trails, including the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Trail, 

the Four Mile Run Trail, and the Custis Trail. 

Four Mile Run Trail Northern 

Virginia 

7 Various  Traverses the Four Mile Run stream valley 

 Connects with the Mount Vernon Trail near 

Ronald Reagan Washington Airport at eastern 

end 

 Connects with the Bluemont Junction Trail at 

western end 

Potomac Yard Trail Northern 

Virginia 

1.4 Various  Multi-use trail that begins in Potomac Yard Park 

and connects to the Braddock Road Metro Station 

Holmes Run Trail Northern 

Virginia 

5 Various  Begins near Cameron Run Regional Park, 

parallels Holmes Run stream, and continues 

northwest to end at State Route 244 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-182 

Table 3.14-5: Trails 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Length 

(miles) Ownership Features 

Eisenhower Avenue 

Trail 

Northern 

Virginia 

2 Various  Follows along Eisenhower Avenue and is 

adjacent to Cameron Run for much of its 

length. 

 West end is in Hensley Park 

 East end is near the Eisenhower Metro Station 

Fairfax County Parkway 

Trail 

Northern 

Virginia 

28 Various  Adjacent to Fairfax County Parkway 

 Paved trail connects to other trails, including 

the Washington and Old Dominion Trail and 

the Cross County Trail 

Long Branch Stream 

Valley Trail 

Northern 

Virginia 

0.5 WMATA  Unpaved natural surface trail 

 Connects the Springfield Forest neighborhood 

to the Fairfax County Parkway Trail and the 

Franconia-Springfield Metro Station 

Cross County Trail Northern 

Virginia 

40 Various  Extends from Great Falls National Park on the 

north end south to the Occoquan River 

 Some sections are wheelchair/mobility scooter 

accessible and some are suitable for horseback 

riding 

 Pedestrians and bikers may use the entire 

length 

Potomac Heritage Trail Northern 

Virginia 

Network of 

Trails 

Various  Network of locally managed trails between the 

mouth of the Potomac River and the Allegheny 

Highlands 

Veterans Memorial 

Park Pedestrian 

Overpass 

Northern 

Virginia 

0,03 Within rightof-way  Pedestrian overpass crossing over the railroad 

 Connects the Marumsco Acre Lake Park and 

the Marumsco Acres neighborhood on the 

west side of the railroad to the Veterans 

Memorial Park on the east side 

Bushy Point Trail Northern 

Virginia 

0.1 Within rightof-way  Primarily located within Leesylvania State Park 

 Small section crosses the CSXT right-of-way on 

the south side of Daniel K. Ludwig Drive 

 Crosses under existing bridge 

Belmont-Ferry Farm 

Trail 

Fredericksburg 2 Various  Existing meandering paved trail is approximately 

2 miles in length and connects Belmont and the 

Historic Park of Falmouth to John Lee Pratt 

Park 

 Proposed future phase would extend from the 

eastern terminus to follow along River Road 

and Kings Highway to connect to George 

Washington’s Ferry Farm Park 

Virginia Central Railway 

Trail 

Fredericksburg 5 Private 

ownership – 

open to the 

public without 

a fee 

 Existing section within the study area begins 

west of the tracks near Lafayette Boulevard and 

extends west through the neighborhood of 

Idlewild 

 Continued. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-183 

Table 3.14-5: Trails 

Resource Name 

Alternative 

Area 

Length 

(miles) Ownership Features 

Virginia Capital Trail Richmond 53 Various  Follows along the James River and State Route 

5 from downtown Richmond to Jamestown and 

Williamsburg to the Southeast 

 The Richmond Riverfront section, which 

parallels Dock Street through Shockoe Bottom, 

begins at the Canal Walk 

Proposed James River 

Heritage Trail 

Richmond Network of 

Trails 

Various  Proposed braided trail system will encompass 

the James River and its banks from the 

headwaters in the Allegheny Mountains to the 

mouth of the river at the Chesapeake Bay 

 Will consist of land and water trails passing 

through rural areas, numerous small towns, and 

urban areas 

 Within the study area, the James River Park 

system, the Canal Walk, and the Virginia Capital 

Trail all contribute to the James River Heritage 

Trail 

James River Water 

Trail Lower Section 

Richmond 20 Water  Mapped water trail that extends west from 

downtown Richmond through Presquille 

Wildlife Refuge 

Captain John Smith 

Historic Trail 

Richmond Network of 

Trails 

Water  Water trail on the James River throughout the 

study area 

East Coast Greenway Richmond Network of 

Trails 

Various  Runs along the Atlantic Coast of the United 

States connecting Maine with Key West, FL 

 In Virginia, the trail goes south from 

Washington, D.C. through Fredericksburg to 

Richmond and then south to Raleigh, NC 

 Currently a loose network of existing trails, 

roadway links, and future trails 

Retention Basin Park 

Walkway 

Richmond 0.9 Various  Retention Basin Park allows access to the 

walkway along the flood wall on the south side 

of the James River 

 Walkway continues west of the park under the 

tracks. 

3.14.6 Section 6(f) Resources 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act prohibits the conversion of property 

acquired or developed with Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) to a nonrecreational 

purpose without approval of the Department of the Interior's NPS. State and local governments 

often obtain grants to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas through this 

Act. Section 6(f) directs the United States Department of Interior (DOI) to assure that replacement 

lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are provided as conditions to such conversions. 

Consequently, where conversions of Section 6(f) lands are proposed for transportation projects, 

replacement lands will be necessary. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-184 

Table 3.14-6 lists the parks and wildlife refuges within the study area that have been identified as 

receiving LWCF and are therefore afforded special protection under Section 6(f). 

Table 3.14-6: Section 6(f) Resources 

City/County Alternative Area Resource 

Arlington County, City of 

Alexandria 

Northern Virginia George Washington Memorial Parkway 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Leesylvania State Park 

Stafford County Northern Virginia Widewater State Park 

City of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Pierson Farm/Slaughter Pen Farm 

Spotsylvania County, City of 

Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg and 

Central Virginia 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Calhoun Community Center 

City of Richmond Richmond James River Park 

3.14.7 Section 4(f) Resources 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138) prohibits use of land from a public park, 

recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless it can be 

demonstrated that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid the property and the 

Project included all possible planning to minimize impacts. 

 Section 4(f) applies only to publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges. Similar resources that are privately owned yet open to the public are 

not considered Section 4(f) resources. 

 Section 4(f) also applies to historic sites listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

regardless of whether the site is in public or private ownership. 

 Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites listed on or eligible for inclusion on the 

NRHP, including those discovered during construction. The exception to this is when 

FRA, in consultation with DHR, determines that the archaeological resource is important 

chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value to 

preservation in place. 

 Section 4(f) applies to protected resources when a “use” occurs. This “use” can be 

permanent, such as the permanent acquisition of a property, or temporary, such as the 

use of the property for construction staging purposes. Section 4(f) also applies when a 

“constructive use” occurs, such as when the noise, vibration, air quality, or visual effects 

of a project are so great that the use of the property is substantially impaired, even though 

it is not physically affected by the Project. 

Table 3.14-7 lists the parkland, recreational, and wildlife refuge facilities that are likely to meet 

the criteria for protection under Section 4(f). Architectural and archaeological resources that may 

fall under Section 4(f) protection are discussed in Section 3.13. Additional information on Section 

4(f) resources can be found in Chapter 5. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-185 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources 

City/County 

Alternative 

Area Resource 

Arlington County Arlington Long Bridge Park 

Arlington County Arlington Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary 

Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria 

Northern Virginia George Washington Memorial Parkway 

Arlington County, City 

of Alexandria 

Northern Virginia Mount Vernon Trail 

Arlington County Northern Virginia Four Mile Run Trail 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Daingerfield Island Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Potomac Greens Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Holmes Run Trail 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Eisenhower Avenue Trail 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Braddock Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Metro Linear Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia King Street Gardens 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Traffic Circle Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Hooff’s Run Park and Greenway 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Cameron Run Regional Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Buchanan Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Sunset Mini Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Dog Run Park at Carlyle 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Witter Fields 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Clermont National Park 

City of Alexandria Northern Virginia Joseph Hensley Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Fairfax County Parkway Trail 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Unnamed WMATA Metro Trail near Springfield Forest 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Cross County Trail 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Backlick Stream Valley Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Franconia Forest Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Loisdale Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Accotink Stream Valley Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Pohick Stream Valley Park 

 Continued.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-186 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources 

City/County 

Alternative 

Area Resource 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Mason Neck Park 

Fairfax County Northern Virginia Old Colchester Preserve and Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Leesylvania State Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Jefferson Park Site 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Veteran Memorial Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Marumsco Acre Lake Park 

Prince William County Northern Virginia Cockpit Point Battlefield Heritage Park 

Stafford County Northern Virginia Widewater State Park 

City of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Cobblestone Park 

City of Fredericksburg Fredericksburg Virginia Central Railway Trail 

Spotsylvania County, 

City of Fredericksburg 

Fredericksburg and 

Central Virginia 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park 

Spotsylvania County Fredericksburg Mary Lee Carter Park 

Caroline County Central Virginia Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area 

Hanover County Ashland North Ashland Park 

Hanover County Ashland Railside Park 

Hanover County Ashland Carter Park 

Hanover County and 

Town of Ashland 

Ashland Ashland Trolley Line 

Henrico County Ashland Hunton Community Center and Park 

Henrico County Richmond RF&P Park 

Henrico County Richmond Laurel Recreation Area 

City of Richmond Richmond Joseph Bryan Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 

City of Richmond Richmond Calhoun Community Center 

City of Richmond Richmond Canal Walk Plaza and Entrance 

City of Richmond Richmond Monument Avenue Linear Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Libby Hill Park 

 Continued.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-187 

Table 3.14-7: Section 4(f) Resources 

City/County 

Alternative 

Area Resource 

City of Richmond Richmond Cannonball Triangle Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Great Shiplock Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Albert Hill Athletic Facility 

City of Richmond Richmond Humphrey Calder Community Center and Garden 

City of Richmond Richmond James River Park 

City of Richmond Richmond Hickory Hill Community Center and Elementary School 

City of Richmond Richmond Covington Road Properties 

City of Richmond Richmond Virginia Capital Trail 

City of Richmond Richmond Retention Basin Park Walkway 

Chesterfield County Richmond Falling Creek Linear Park and Iron Works 

Chesterfield County Richmond Bensley Elementary School 

Chesterfield County Richmond Gates Mill Park 

3.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

The existing transportation facilities in the DC2RVA corridor were evaluated at two geographic 

scales, as shown in Figure 3.15-1. The first scale is regional, focusing on the broader transportation 

network and transportation modes that provide the overall context for the existing railroad service, 

as well as the proposed DC2RVA service. It includes portions of every county and city that the 

proposed service will traverse, and its extents include I-95 and U.S. Route 1, which run roughly 

parallel to the corridor, as well as their interchanges with other interstates and U.S. routes and 

primary roadways in the region. The second scale is focused on a 1-mile-wide study area centered on 

the rail line (0.5 mile on either side of the track). The purpose of the two geographic scales is to enable 

the evaluation of potential effects of the DC2RVA project at the appropriate level. For example, the 

regional scale data reflect larger trends due to regional growth or shifts in travel modes. The DC2RVA 

corridor scale data, however, reflect more localized influences on individual roadways; analysis at 

the DC2RVA corridor scale reflects the importance of connections in the transportation network 

across and on both sides of the DC2RVA corridor. The existing transportation environment is 

described in the following pages in the context of these two geographic scales. 

The terms “grade crossing” and “at-grade crossing” are often used interchangeably, both 

colloquially and within federal documentation, to refer to the intersection of a roadway and 

railroad at ground level (i.e., vehicles on the roadway travel across the railroad tracks; trains on 

the railroad tracks travel across the roadway travel lanes). This Draft EIS documentation uses the 

term “at-grade crossing” to ensure a distinct and readily understandable difference from the term 

“grade-separated crossing.” 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-188 

Figure 3.15-1: Transportation Analysis Scales
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-189 

3.15.1 Regional Scale 

3.15.1.1 Regional Roadway Network 

The DC2RVA corridor passes through nine counties and three cities from Arlington County, VA, 

at the D.C. jurisdictional line to Chesterfield County, VA. Running roughly parallel to the railroad 

tracks over nearly the entire 123-mile stretch are I-95 and/or U.S. Route 1. Through Fairfax 

County, I-95 has eight general purpose lanes, four northbound and four southbound, and three 

express high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. From Prince William County to Aquia Harbour in 

Stafford County, I-95 has six general purpose lanes, three northbound and three southbound, and 

two express (HOV) lanes. From Aquia Harbour through Chesterfield County, I-95 typically has 

six general purpose lanes, three northbound and three southbound. 

In Arlington County, U.S. Route 1 is mainly a six-lane road, three northbound and three 

southbound. As it moves down into Alexandria County, it remains mostly six lanes, and it splits 

to two one-way roads, Henry Street (southbound) and Patrick Street (northbound), and merges 

together again at the Capital Beltway. At Buckman Road in Fairfax County, U.S. Route 1 becomes 

a four-lane road, two northbound and two southbound. It continues as a four-lane road until the 

city of Richmond. In Richmond, when U.S. Route 1 passes over I-64, it becomes a six-lane road, 

three northbound and three southbound. It remains at six lanes until it passes over Chippenham 

Parkway in Chesterfield County, where it becomes a four-lane road. 

Other interstate highways and major U.S. and state routes in each county are summarized below: 

 Arlington County: I-395, George Washington Memorial Parkway 

 City of Alexandria: I-395, I-495, George Washington Memorial Parkway 

 Fairfax County: I-395, I-495, Franconia−Springfield Parkway, Telegraph Road 

 Prince William County: Dumfries Road, Joplin Road 

 Stafford County: U.S. 17, Route 3 

 City of Fredericksburg: U.S. 17, Route 3 

 Spotsylvania County: U.S. 17, Courthouse Road 

 Caroline County: U.S. 301, Route 2, Route 30 

 Hanover County: I-295, U.S. 33, U.S. 360, Route 2 

 Henrico County: I-64, I-195, I-295, U.S. 33, U.S. 60, U.S. 250, U.S. 360 

 City of Richmond: I-64, I-195, U.S. 33, U.S. 60, U.S. 250, U.S. 360 

 Chesterfield County: I-295, U.S. 60, U.S. 360 

Within the regional area, as shown in Figure 3.15-1, approximately 2,000 miles of roadway carry 79 million 

vehicle-miles1 each day in existing conditions. Table 3.15-1 summarizes the roadway system on a countyby-county basis at the regional scale, presenting total length of roadway miles by type of roadway and 

average daily traffic (ADT) on those facilities. The I-95 facility is approximately 280 miles in length 

(including I-395) between Washington, D.C. and Richmond within the DC2RVA corridor regional 

roadway network; I-95 carries approximately 38 million vehicle-miles each day in existing conditions. 

 

1 These estimates of roadway (centerline) miles and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) comprise all Interstate and U.S. 

highways, as well as major state routes. Secondary and urban roads that serve primarily as access to individual 

properties were not included. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-190 

Table 3.15-1: Regional Roadway Network—Existing Conditions Daily Traffic 

City/County 

Directional 

Measure1

Interstate and 

U.S. Routes 

State Primary 

Route 

State 

Secondary 

Route 

Urban 

Routes Total 

Arlington ADT 3,484,932 1,471,860 137,323 – 5,094,115 

Length 17.9 29.9 5.5 – 53.3 

VMT 2,612,262 1,546,065 50,117 – 4,208,444 

City of 

Alexandria 

ADT 4,429,146 2,184,942 3,264 116,484 6,733,836 

Length 31.8 35.8 0.6 9.6 77.8 

VMT 3,948,393 1,079,649 2,017 92,377 5,122,436 

Fairfax ADT 8,925,306 1,220,430 2,287,758 6,732 12,440,226 

Length 79.9 63.8 51.1 0.3 195.1 

VMT 11,739,358 1,927,020 1,127,223 1,833 14,795,434 

Prince William ADT 4,202,502 1,032,138 998,519 734 6,233,893 

Length 66.8 16.2 39.8 1.5 124.3 

VMT 7,066,087 586,450 602,247 1,131 8,255,915 

Stafford ADT 2,707,488 409,836 262,201 – 3,379,525 

Length 63.7 25.1 70.6 – 159.4 

VMT 5,359,030 447,369 295,487 – 6,101,886 

City of 

Fredericksburg 

ADT 804,576 913,104 – 24,072 1,741,752 

Length 19.3 10.0 – 1.6 30.9 

VMT 911,434 351,615 – 9,644 1,272,693 

Spotsylvania ADT 1,916,682 240,006 100,001 − 2,256,689 

Length 58 11 26 – 95.0 

VMT 3,360,737 486,396 107,256 – 3,954,389 

Caroline ADT 753,372 186,762 51,407 – 991,541 

Length 77.1 45.6 80.5 – 203.2 

VMT 3,172,676 348,945 84,603 – 3,606,224 

Hanover ADT 3,368,917 220,912 151,735 21,349 3,762,913 

Length 100.4 26.5 58.9 5.7 191.5 

VMT 5,746,204 174,503 102,633 12,602 6,035,942 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-191 

Table 3.15-1: Regional Roadway Network—Existing Conditions Daily Traffic 

City/County 

Directional 

Measure1

Interstate and 

U.S. Routes 

State Primary 

Route 

State 

Secondary 

Route 

Urban 

Routes Total 

Henrico ADT 8,698,325 1,297,369 1,542,852 – 11,538,546 

Length 222.5 78.5 74.1 – 375.1 

VMT 9,360,405 1,010,272 1,180,790 – 11,551,467 

City of Richmond ADT 6,857,644 2,734,008 – 860,472 10,452,124 

Length 101 82 – 52 235.0 

VMT 4,504,821 1,939,012 – 501,262 6,945,095 

Chesterfield ADT 1,707,990 2,833,631 213,649 – 4,755,270 

Length 55.9 106.1 14.8 – 176.8 

VMT 3,034,399 4,005,856 106,099 – 7,146,354 

Total ADT 47,856,880 14,744,998 5,748,709 1,029,843 69,380,430 

Length 894.3 530.5 421.9 70.7 1,917.4 

VMT 60,815,806 13,903,152 3,658,472 618,849 78,996,279 

Source of ADT and Length Data: VDOT, GIS online database for Annual Average Daily Traffic with Vehicle Classification for 2014. Accessed 

January 2016. 

1. ADT = Average Daily Traffic; VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; calculated for individual roadway sections. VMT is calculated for individual 

roadway sections, which is required due to the range of section ADT and differing section lengths. The VMT shown for each County is the

sum of the products of the individual sections within the County (i.e., not the calculation of County-wide ADT and length). 

3.15.1.2 Regional Rail Network 

The DC2RVA corridor is a shared use corridor, with freight trains (operated by CSXT and NS 

railways), intercity passenger trains (operated by Amtrak), and local commuter trains (operated 

by VRE) commingled on the same tracks. These uses within the DC2RVA corridor and their 

operations are summarized below; refer to Appendix A, Alternatives Technical Report, for full 

details. 

CSX Transportation. CSXT, the principal operating subsidiary of CSX Corporation, is the track 

owner and operator of the DC2RVA corridor. CSXT owns 761 miles of railroad in Virginia 

(roughly 25 percent of Virginia’s total rail network) and has operating rights via lease or trackage 

rights over an additional 293 miles in the state. CSXT’s RF&P Subdivision between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond makes up most of the DC2RVA corridor. 

The DC2RVA project limits include components of three critical rail corridors in the larger CSXT 

freight rail network: 

 I-95 Freight Rail Corridor. The I-95 Freight Rail Corridor is a 1,400-mile-long rail line 

running the length of the eastern seaboard between New York and Miami, FL, that 

roughly parallels I-95 and serves many urban, port, industrial, and rural areas along the 

eastern seaboard and includes the RF&P Subdivision. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-192 

 National Gateway. The National Gateway is a public-private partnership to improve the 

transportation of shipping containers to population centers in the Midwestern United 

States. Projects to upgrade three rail corridors are part of the initiative, including the 

Virginia Avenue Tunnel clearance improvement project in Washington, D.C. 

 Coal Network. In Richmond, the DC2RVA project area includes a small component of the 

CSXT Peninsula Subdivision east to Beulah, which is part of CSXT’s Coal Network that 

connects coal mines in the Appalachian Mountains to electric power generating stations 

and export coal docks. 

Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway. NS operates approximately 20,000 route miles in 22 states 

and Washington, D.C., serves every major container port in the eastern United States, and 

provides connections to other rail carriers. NS owns 1,897 route-miles in Virginia (approximately 

60 percent of the state’s total rail network), including a rail line from Manassas that connects to 

the DC2RVA corridor in Alexandria. Additionally, NS has trackage rights from Alexandria north 

to Washington, D.C. on the DC2RVA corridor. 

Amtrak. Amtrak operates intercity passenger rail service throughout the United States and 

generally operates over the tracks of the private freight railroads. Amtrak operates 24 daily trains 

and 2 tri-weekly trains in Virginia. Operations are more frequent north of Alexandria, where 

Amtrak passenger trains, using an NS rail line from Lynchburg and Manassas, VA, join the 

DC2RVA corridor for trips north to Washington Union Station. The four types of passenger train 

serve that Amtrak operates in the DC2RVA corridor are summarized below (see Chapter 2 for 

full details): 

 Northeast Regional (Virginia) Amtrak service provides regional passenger rail service 

along the length of the Northeast Corridor from Boston and New York and continues 

south to serve routes in Virginia. Trains make local station stops. 

 Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) Amtrak operates between New York and North Carolina 

(one single daily round trip) through Virginia, making fewer stops in the DC2RVA 

corridor than the Northeast Regional service. 

 Long Distance Amtrak service operates from New York and continues through 

Washington, D.C. and Virginia to other out-of-state locations. Long distance trains serve 

the fewest of Amtrak station stops within the DC2RVA corridor. 

 Auto Train Amtrak service operates as a daily nonstop, overnight train between dedicated 

station facilities in Lorton, VA and Florida, and carries passengers and their automobiles. 

Virginia Railway Express. VRE is a transportation partnership of the Northern Virginia 

Transportation Commission (NVTC) and the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation 

Commission (PRTC) and has been providing commuter rail service to the residents of Northern 

Virginia since 1992. VRE commuter trains operate on two lines⎯the Fredericksburg Line and the 

Manassas Line⎯that join at Alexandria and continue into Washington Union Station. 

VRE trains operate Monday−Friday only, with most trips timed to bring passengers to 

Washington, D.C. for work in the morning and from Washington, D.C. back home in the evening. 

As of 2015, operations on each line are as follows: 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-193 

 Fredericksburg Line: Eight weekday-only revenue2 round trips between Washington, D.C. 

and Spotsylvania (60 miles). 

 Manassas Line: Eight weekday-only revenue round trips and one weekday-only 

nonrevenue round trip between Washington, D.C. and Broad Run/Airport Station (36 

miles), operating in the DC2RVA corridor between Washington, D.C. and AF interlocking 

in Alexandria (9 miles). VRE operates one of its Manassas Line daily round trips as a midday train and a second daily round trip as reverse-peak southbound in the morning and 

northbound in the evening. 

3.15.1.3 Stations and Other Regional Transportation Facilities 

Station Location, Service, and Connection. Amtrak and VRE stations that currently serve 

the DC2RVA corridor are summarized in Table 3.15-2 and are included in Figure 3.15-2. Full 

details of these stations are provided in Appendix A, Alternatives Technical Report. 

Existing Passenger Stations 

 

2 A revenue trip is a trip that carries paying passengers. A non-revenue trip is a trip that does not carry paying 

passengers, for example for the purposes of moving crew or empty trains. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-194 

Table 3.15-2: Amtrak and VRE Stations in the DC2RVA Corridor

City/County 

Station 

Name 

Amtrak 

Service 

VRE 

Service Nearest Major Highway Transit Connections 

Arlington Crystal City X 0.35 mile to U.S. Route 1 

0.5 mile to I-395 

1 mile to George Washington 

Memorial Parkway 

VRE Fredericksburg and Manassas 

Lines 

Metrorail Blue and Yellow Lines 

Metrobus, ART, Fairfax Connector, 

PRTC OmniRide buses 

Alexandria Alexandria X X Less than 2 miles to I-95/I-495 VRE Fredericksburg and Manassas 

Lines 

Metrorail Blue and Yellow Lines 

(nearby) 

Metrobus, Dash, King St. Trolley, 

Richmond Highway Express Buses 

Fairfax FranconiaSpringfield  X 0.75 mile to I-95 

2 miles to U.S. Route 1 

On Franconia-Springfield 

Parkway 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Metrorail Blue Line 

Metrobus, Fairfax Connector, 

PRTC OmniRide buses 

Greyhound intercity bus 

Lorton (VRE) X 1 mile to U.S. Route 1 

1.5 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Fairfax Connector bus 

Vamoose intercity bus 

Lorton Auto 

Train 

X 0.13 mile to I-95 

1 mile to U.S. Route 1 

None 

Prince William Woodbridge X X Adjacent to U.S. Route 1 

Less than 3 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

PRTC OmniRide, OmniLink and 

Prince William Metro Direct buses 

Greyhound intercity bus 

Rippon X 2 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Potomac 

Shores 

 X 3 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4.5 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line (station 

planned to open in 2018; not shown 

in Figure 3.15-2)

Quantico X X 5 miles to I-95 

3 miles to U.S. Route 1 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

PRTC OmniLink bus 

Stafford Brooke X 4 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4.5 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Leeland Road X Less than 2 miles to 

U.S. Route 1 

4 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Fredericksburg Fredericksburg X X 1 mile to VA Route 3 

Less than 2 miles to 

U.S. Route 1 

3 miles from I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Fredericksburg Transit (FRED) bus 

Spotsylvania Spotsylvania X 3.6 miles to U.S. Route 1 

4.3 miles to I-95 

VRE Fredericksburg Line 

Hanover Ashland X 2 miles to I-95 None 

Henrico Staples Mill 

Road 

X 2 miles to I-64 

2.6 miles to U.S. Route 1 

5 miles to I-95 

GRTC bus 

Richmond Main Street 

Station 

X 0.6 mile to I-95 GRTC bus, Megabus intercity bus 

Note: While rail service extends to Union Station and L’Enfant Plaza Station in Washington, D.C., the data in this table are for current (existing 

and under construction) stations that are located within the DC2RVA corridor in Virginia. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-195 

Figure 3.15-2: Airports and Train Stations in Project Corridor
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-196 

Parking at Stations Served by Amtrak. The existing parking that is provided at each station 

in the DC2RVA corridor that is served by Amtrak is summarized in Table 3.15-3 below. Typically, 

long-term parking spaces are daily and/or overnight spaces, and short-term spaces have hourly 

limits. The majority of the provided parking spaces in the corridor are free for riders, unless 

otherwise noted; the exceptions are the long-term parking provided at the Main Street and Staples 

Mill Road stations in Richmond. 

Table 3.15-3: Existing Parking Inventory by Amtrak Station 

Amtrak Station 

Name Number of Spaces1 Facilities Notes 

Alexandria 25 Short-Term 

25 Long-Term 

Surface parking lot. 

General parking available in City of Alexandria (public parking 

garages, street parking, etc.). 

Lorton Auto Train 20 Short-Term 

0 Long-Term 

Surface parking lot. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces available. 

Woodbridge 150 Ground Level Lot 

738 Parking Garage 

Short- and Long-Term spaces are combined. 

Parking facilities estimated at 65% capacity. 

Quantico 210 Short-Term 

60 Long-Term 

Surface parking lot. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces available. 

Parking facilities estimated at 70% capacity. 

Bicycle racks are provided. 

Fredericksburg 810 Total 

684 VRE Only 

124 City Resident Only 

Surface parking lots located near the station. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces and motorcycle 

parking available. 

Parking facilities estimated at 47% capacity. 

Ashland 0 No dedicated parking lot. General parking available throughout the 

Town (parallel parking on streets, etc.). 

Staples Mill Road 20 Short-Term (1-3 hours free) 

288 Long-Term (Paid) 

Pre-paid parking via third party vendor required. 

Parking provided in surface parking lots. 

Additional ADA-accessible dedicated spaces available. 

DRPT has acquired 4.95 acres for development as additional 

parking accommodations; the project is still in the planning stage, 

and a timeframe for availability of the increased parking is 

unknown. 

Main Street 30 Long-Term (Paid) 

First 30 minutes Free 

Parking provided in surface parking lots. 

1. Inventory as of July 2016 

Other Regional Transportation Facilities. In addition to the stations that specifically serve 

the DC2RVA corridor, various other transportation facilities connect to and through the DC2RVA 

corridor, as summarized below. For full details, refer to Appendix S, Transportation Technical 

Report.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-197 

Public Transit 

 WMATA Metrorail and Metrobus serving Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia 

 Arlington Transit (ART) serving Arlington County, VA 

 Alexandria Transit Company (ATC) DASH system serving connection to Metrobus, 

Metrorail, VRE, and other local bus routes in Alexandria, VA 

 Fairfax Connector Bus serving routes connecting to Fairfax County, VA 

 OmniRide and OmniLink (PRTC) serving Prince William, Stafford, and Spotsylvania 

Counties and the City of Fredericksburg 

 FRED serving the City of Fredericksburg and connecting to Stafford, Spotsylvania, and 

Caroline counties 

 GRTC (Greater Richmond Transit Company) Transit System serving the City of 

Richmond and Henrico County and connecting to Chesterfield County 

Aviation (Airport locations are shown in Figure 3.15-2.) 

 Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (Arlington, VA) 

 Richmond International Airport (Richmond, VA) 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities On and/or Adjacent to Public Roadways 

 Potomac Yard Trail (Alexandria, VA) 

 Mount Vernon Trail (Northern Virginia) 

 Richmond Capital Trail (from Williamsburg, VA, to Richmond, VA) 

 Cannon Creek Greenway (Richmond Henrico Turnpike in Richmond, VA) 

 Bike lanes (various streets in Richmond, VA, and Alexandria, VA) 

 U.S. Bike Routes 1 and 76 

 Ashland Trolley Line Trail 

3.15.1.4 Regional Highway–Rail Crossing Accident Data 

FRA data show that 96 percent of rail-related fatalities, most of which are considered preventable, 

are the result of accidents at highway−rail crossings and by vehicles trespassing onto the tracks3. 

Highway–rail accident data for public crossings from the FRA Office of Safety Analysis (OSA)4 

were reviewed for types of highway−rail crossing accidents5 as well as overall incident trends. 

 

3 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17371

4 Data obtained online reporting databases (accessed February 2017 for the most recently available data for each report 

type). 

5 Train accidents that do not affect the public highway system, the causes of which range from human operation factors 

to mechanical/track and electrical failures. These types of train-only accidents are not included in the data presented 

in this section; however, in the state of Virginia from 2013 to November 2016, there were a total of 33 train (nonhighway) accidents. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-198 

The tables below present the data for total number of accidents for highway−rail incidents (Tables 

3.15-4 and 3.15-5. Refer to Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report for more details. 

As shown in Tables 3.15-4 and 3.15-5, the highway−rail crossing accident data for specific counties 

within the DC2RVA corridor are reported and compared to all other counties within the state. If 

a DC2RVA county is not listed, no documented collisions in that county were reported during 

the reporting dates. All counties that have experienced highway−rail-related accidents but are 

not located in the DC2RVA corridor are grouped together as “Other Counties.” 

Throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia for the four-year period through the end of 2016, 

there were 21 highway–rail accidents. Highway–rail accidents consist of an accident between a 

train and any type of motor vehicle at a public highway–rail crossing. Table 3.15-4 provides the 

county-by-county breakdown of these accidents. 

In the DC2RVA corridor, seven public at-grade crossings had at least one accident in the fouryear period through the end of 2016, as reported in Table 3.15-5. All accidents involved a train 

striking a highway user, six of which were automobile vehicles and one of which was a 

motorcycle; one accident involved pedestrians and resulted in two fatalities. Seven of the eight 

total accidents occurred at crossings that have non-four-quadrant gates. Any discrepancies 

between the data in Tables 3.15-4 and 3.15-5 are due to the use of different FRA OSA data systems 

and their source data reporting time periods that were available. 

3.15.2 Corridor Scale 

The following section describes the transportation network for a 1-mile-wide study area that is 

centered on the existing CSXT rail line within the EIS alternative areas6; the DC2RVA corridor scale 

is shown in Figure 3.15-1. The transportation network is presented as a county-by-county overview 

of general characteristics of land use and facilities, as well as a more-focused description of the 

roadway network that is targeted on the highway–rail crossings and their operations. Refer to 

Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report, for more details on the summaries provided below. 

3.15.2.1 Transportation Corridor Network (by City/County) 

The following paragraphs describe the general transportation characteristics of the DC2RVA 

corridor, including a summary of total highway–rail crossings (both public and private, at grade 

and grade separated) within each County and/or City. Refer to Section 3.15.2.2 for more-detailed 

descriptions and data of the DC2RVA corridor crossings. 

 

6 The extents of the Peninsula Subdivision rail line, which serves passenger trains between Richmond and Newport 

News, that are located within the Draft EIS limits were included in the preliminary identification of roadway crossings. 

It was the intent of the at-grade crossing evaluation methodology (refer to Appendix OO of the Alternatives Technical 

Report) to evaluate all public roadway crossings and any private roadway crossings that could have an impact on the 

public (either through public use of a private crossing or private ownership by a citizen of a parcel that has and/or 

needs crossing access). Within the Draft EIS limits on the Peninsula Subdivision rail line, there is a single at-grade 

roadway crossing that functions as private exclusive railroad access, as well as several existing grade-separated 

crossings. However, the DC2RVA project was not anticipated to have build alternative effects that would affect 

roadway crossings to the same levels as along the RF&P line, A-Line, and S-Line because the Peninsula Subdivision 

rail line is not proposed to have an additional track and does not serve trains to the same level through the entire 

corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond. Accordingly, the short segment of the Peninsula Subdivision rail 

line was not included in further transportation affected environment or environmental consequences. This does not, 

however, preclude the addition of any safety measures at the existing crossings in coordination with FRA. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-199 

Table 3.15-4: Highway–Rail Accidents at Public Crossings in Virginia 

County/City 

Total 

Total Calendar Year (CY) 

Accidents % Change over Time 

Accidents Percent of Total CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016* CY 2013 to CY 2015 CY 2014 to CY 2015 Month-toMonth % Change CY 2015 to CY 2016 

Caroline 1 4.8 – – 1 – – – – 

Henrico 1 4.8 – 1 – – – – – 

Richmond 3 14.3 – 1 1 1 – – – 

Chesterfield 3 14.3 – – 3 – – – – 

Other Counties 13 61.8 1 6 3 3 – – – 

State Total 21 100 1 8 8 4 700 – -50.0 

Source: FRA OSA, Query Accident/Incident Trends⎯Highway−Rail Crossings. CY = Calendar Year 

*2016 accident data reported from FRA month-to-month for the CY. 

Table 3.15-5: Highway–Rail Accidents at Public Crossings in DC2RVA Corridor 

Crossing City/County Total Year 

Warning 

Device 

Circumstance 

(User) 

User Injuries 

(Fatalities) 

Featherstone 

Road Prince William 1 2015 

FourQuadrant 

Gates 

Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 1 (0) 

Myrtle Street Hanover 1 2012 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 1 (0) 

Hungary Road Henrico 1 2014 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Broad Rock 

Boulevard Richmond 2 

2015 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Pedestrian) 0 (2) 

2011 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Motorcycle) 1 (0) 

Terminal Avenue Richmond 1 2011 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Hospital 

Street/N. 7th

Street 

Richmond 1 2015 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Bells Road Richmond 1 2014 Gates Train Struck Highway 

User (Auto) 0 (0) 

Source: FRA OSA, Web Accident Prediction System. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-200 

Arlington County/City of Alexandria (Arlington and Northern Virginia Areas). Starting from 

the northern extent of the DC2RVA corridor at the Long Bridge connecting into Washington, D.C., 

the Project corridor parallels U.S. Route 1 and the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the 

southern edge of the Capital Beltway through Arlington County and the city of Alexandria, a section 

of just greater than 7 rail miles. The rail in this area consists of three main line tracks. The Northern 

Virginia area is one of the most urban in the DC2RVA corridor, with dense development surrounding 

the DC2RVA corridor. All highway–rail crossings (a total of 11 within this section, 10 public and 1 

private) are grade separated with typically less than 1 mile between adjacent crossings. In downtown 

Alexandria, adjacent roadway crossings can be within a few hundred feet of each other. Daily vehicle 

volumes on the crossing roadways range from less than 10,000 vehicles in downtown Alexandria to 

more than 60,000 vehicles on the George Washington Parkway and on Telegraph Road near where it 

interchanges with I-95. Also adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor is Ronald Reagan Washington National 

Airport, which is served by Metrorail to the Crystal City Station (VRE only) in Arlington County and 

the Alexandria Station (Amtrak and VRE, adjacent to Metrorail station) in the city of Alexandria.

Fairfax County. The DC2RVA corridor in Fairfax County parallels the eastern side of I-95, with U.S. 

Route 1 running farther to the east. The 13 miles of this section consist of either two or three main line 

tracks. Land use transitions in this Fairfax County section from dense urban south of Alexandria into more 

suburban, typically housing-based development, in the southern part of the county; many of the 

commercial land uses are directly adjacent to I-95 and its interchanges with the crossing roadways of the 

DC2RVA corridor. All 12 highway–rail crossings within the County are grade separated and, outside of 

the city of Alexandria, adjacent crossings are typically 1 to 2 miles apart. The highway–rail crossing with 

the highest daily vehicle volume in the entire DC2RVA corridor is the crossing of I-95 in the northern part 

of Fairfax County, just south of the city of Alexandria, with a daily volume of more than 184,000 vehicles. 

Other crossing roadway volumes range from almost 50,000 daily vehicles on those principal arterial 

roadways that connect and interchange with I-95 (Franconia Road and Franconia-Springfield Parkway) 

to less than 5,000 daily vehicles on the smaller two-lane local roadways in the suburban southern parts of 

the County. The Franconia-Springfield and Lorton stations (VRE), as well as the Lorton Auto Train Station 

(Amtrak), are located within the DC2RVA corridor in Fairfax County. 

Prince William County. The 12 miles of DC2RVA corridor in Prince William County run parallel 

to I-95 and consist of either two or three main line tracks. For the southern half of the county, the 

DC2RVA corridor runs within 0.5 mile or less of the west bank of the Potomac River. Much of the 

land use throughout the DC2RVA corridor is suburban housing development. Crossing roadways 

typically provide access to these developments, extending from the Potomac River to I-95 and areas 

to the west. There are 11 crossings in Prince William County. Four of the six public crossings are 

grade separated, with most of the at-grade crossings located in the southern part of the county; all 

private crossings are at grade. The only public at-grade crossing with at least 10,000 daily vehicles 

is Featherstone Road. The smaller local roadway crossings, such as Daniel K. Ludwig Drive and 

Possum Point Road, have less than 500 vehicles per day. The DC2RVA corridor passes through two 

denser urban areas within the county: Woodbridge and MCBQ. Crossings that are located within 

military installations were categorized by DRPT as private crossings for analysis in the DC2RVA 

Project; Potomac Avenue, which is located in the Town of Quantico (and not within the MCBQ 

installation), is a public crossing within Prince William County. Adjacent crossings are within a few 

hundred feet of each other within these urban areas. As the DC2RVA corridor progresses south, 

adjacent crossings are farther apart (up to 3 miles apart). Woodbridge and Quantico Stations 

(Amtrak and VRE) and Rippon Station (VRE) are located within the DC2RVA corridor in Prince 

William County. Potomac Shores Station (VRE) is currently under construction. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-201 

Stafford County. In the Stafford County section of the DC2RVA corridor on the RF&P Line, 

which is approximately 18 miles of either two or three main line tracks, the rail alignment runs 

along the coast of the Potomac River until it reaches Arkendale/Widewater State Park, where it 

then shifts to the west toward U.S. Route 1 and I-95, which run parallel to each other in close 

proximity. Within most of this section, land use is generally rural, with large areas of 

undeveloped, forested land interspersed with relatively small residential communities. The 

public crossing roadways in the rural areas generally connect these communities together and to 

U.S. Route 1 and/or I-95. There are 18 roadway crossings of the DC2RVA corridor; 11 are public 

crossings (most of which are grade separated), and 7 are private crossings. Private crossings 

typically provide access to residential properties. Land use transitions to suburban as the 

DC2RVA corridor approaches the city of Fredericksburg. Volumes on the crossing roadways are 

representative of the adjacent land use densities with the highest volume crossing at Kings 

Highway (grade separated) located just north of the city of Fredericksburg; this road is a 4-lane 

median-separated minor arterial roadway with more than 25,000 daily vehicles. The lowest 

volume roadways typically carry several hundred daily vehicles, often providing sole access into 

small residential communities. In these rural areas, adjacent crossings tend to be located 1 to 3 

miles apart. The Brooke and Leeland Road VRE stations are located in the county. 

The portion of the DC2RVA corridor that bypasses the city of Fredericksburg on the bypass 

alignment splits from the main line track just north of Fredericksburg at Butler Road in Stafford 

County, along a CSXT single-track rail line called the Dahlgren Branch. It continues to the east of 

the city along Kings Highway, then crosses over the Rappahannock River. From there, it heads 

west to meet the main corridor just south of the Spotsylvania VRE Station. This bypass is 

approximately 13 rail miles long, with 6 miles of existing rail corridor along the CSXT Dahlgren 

Branch and 7 miles of new track alignment. At the beginning of the split north of Fredericksburg, 

the area is mostly suburban, but as the DC2RVA corridor moves farther away from the city, it 

becomes more rural. Along the existing Dahlgren Branch track, there are five existing at-grade 

highway–rail crossings. The roadways in this area carry daily traffic volumes ranging from 150 

vehicles on local roadways to 21,000 vehicles on principal arterial roadways. Additionally, the 

Fredericksburg Bypass alignment crosses five public and four private roadways that are not 

existing rail crossings on the portion of the alignment that would be new track. 

City of Fredericksburg. The DC2RVA corridor runs through the eastern part of the city of 

Fredericksburg for approximately 2 rail miles; the line in the city typically consists of either two or 

three main line tracks (with sections of three to four tracks that provide yard access in the southern 

portion of the city) and includes a two-track crossing of the Rappahannock River. This section has 

dense urban development, typical of a city, on both sides of the DC2RVA corridor. In the most 

downtown portion of the DC2RVA corridor, adjacent crossings are located within a few hundred 

feet of each other. Six public roadways cross the DC2RVA corridor, all but one of which are gradeseparated (Landsdowne Road, with almost 9,000 vehicles per day, is at grade). The Fredericksburg 

Station (Amtrak and VRE) is located between Lafayette Boulevard (to the northwest) and Frederick 

Street (to the southeast); these two streets generally parallel the DC2RVA corridor through 

downtown. The Blue and Gray Parkway (U.S. Route 3), a principal arterial roadway that crosses 

the DC2RVA corridor, carries more than 40,000 vehicles per day. Other crossing roadways in the 

City limits generally carry between 2,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. 

Spotsylvania County. The RF&P Line portion of the DC2RVA corridor traverses 8 miles of either 

two or three main line tracks through the eastern corner of Spotsylvania County, with sections of 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-202 

three to four tracks through the area near the US-17 (Mills Drive) crossing to provide yard access. 

This part of the county is generally rural, with large areas of the DC2RVA corridor crossing through 

undeveloped, forested land and farms. Four roadways cross the DC2RVA corridor in the county; 

two are at-grade crossings of local roads and two are grade-separated crossings. The Spotsylvania 

Station (VRE) is located within Spotsylvania County. The Fredericksburg Bypass alignment crosses 

through a portion of the county as it connects back to the RF&P Line; there are no existing highway–

rail crossings on this portion of the bypass alignment as it would be new track. 

Caroline County. The RF&P Line portion of the DC2RVA corridor travels through central Caroline 

County, consisting of 25 rail miles consisting of two main line tracks. The DC2RVA corridor begins 

veering to the east toward Bowling Green and the Richmond Turnpike before making its way back 

toward U.S. Route 1 and I-95 in Ruther Glen and continues to run south between the two roadways. 

Most of the land use in this long section of corridor is rural, with large areas of the DC2RVA corridor 

crossing through undeveloped, forested land and farms. There are 22 roadway crossings in the 

county: 12 public roadway crossings and 10 private crossings, which typically provide access to 

residences and farm lands. Most of the public crossings are at grade, which is typical of a more rural 

area, with adjacent crossings ranging from 1.5 to 5 miles apart. In the southern part of the county, the 

DC2RVA corridor crosses I-95; this grade-separated crossing is one of the highest volume crossings 

in the DC2RVA corridor, with almost 100,000 daily vehicles. 

Additionally, the Fredericksburg Bypass alignment crosses through a portion of the northwestern 

corner of the county as it connects back to the RF&P Line; there are no existing highway–rail 

crossings on this portion of the bypass alignment as it would be new track. 

Hanover County. The RF&P Line of the DC2RVA corridor traverses central Hanover County for a 

section of just over approximately 13 miles of two main line tracks. The DC2RVA corridor runs 

between U.S. Route 1 and I-95 until just north of the town of Ashland where it crosses over U.S. Route 

1 and continues on the west side of both of these roadways. Outside the town of Ashland, which 

includes development typical of a small-town business district that extends approximately two blocks 

in either direction, land use in the DC2RVA corridor is generally rural or suburban. There are 17 

roadway crossings of the DC2RVA corridor in the county, 11 of which are at-grade public crossings 

and 5 of which are public grade-separated crossings (there is also one private grade-separated 

crossing in the county). Seven of the public at-grade crossings are within the limits of the town of 

Ashland. Through Ashland, the rail line runs down the median of Center Street through the 

downtown commercial area, as well as the campus of Randolph-Macon College and residential areas 

north and south of the commercial district. Adjacent roadway crossings within the town are less than 

0.5 mile apart, with some located within a few hundred feet of each other. Center Street operates as 

two one-way roadways (one on each side of the rail line). The main roadway in the town is England 

Street/Thompson Street (Route 54), which crosses the DC2RVA corridor adjacent to the Ashland 

Station at a five-way roadway intersection that includes both sides of Center Street and Hanover 

Avenue. This roadway crossing is one of the highest volume (14,000 daily vehicles) at-grade crossings 

in the DC2RVA corridor. There are also 11 at-grade pedestrian crossings of the DC2RVA corridor 

within the town of Ashland. The 11 pedestrian crossings consist of approximately 3-foot-wide wood 

or composite platforms placed between the tracks and rails. The pedestrian crossings do not have 

active warning devices (i.e., flashing lights, bells, and crossing gates activated by approaching trains), 

although many of the pedestrian crossings are located near or adjacent to at-grade roadway crossings 

with approach-activated flashing lights, bells, and gates. Outside of the town of Ashland, the roadway 

crossings generally carry a few hundred to several thousand vehicles per day, depending on the type 

of roadway served, and they are typically located within 1 to 2 miles of each other. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-203 

The Ashland Bypass alignment splits from the RF&P Line after the Old Ridge Road crossing just north 

of the town of Ashland. It runs west of the town toward the intersection of West Patrick Henry Road 

and Independence Road. After passing between Kings Pond and Lucks Pond, the alignment begins 

to veer back to the east toward the main corridor where it merges just before the Elmont Road 

crossing. This section consists of just more than 7 miles of new construction. Most of the roads in this 

area are either minor collector or local roads with daily volumes ranging from 500 to 900 vehicles, or 

major collector or minor arterial roads with daily volumes ranging from 2,000 to 8,000 vehicles. There 

are no existing highway–rail crossings on the Ashland Bypass alignment as the entire alignment 

would be new track; the bypass alignment would cross eight public and seven private roadways. 

Henrico County. The DC2RVA corridor in Henrico County quickly transitions from more rural and 

light suburban land use patterns into denser suburban residential and commercial development as it 

moves toward the city of Richmond. This section, which consists of just more than approximately 8 

miles of either two or three main line tracks, is typified by residential areas and collector-type crossing 

roadways that connect neighborhoods to the major roadway arteries of Staples Mill Road (Route 33), 

U.S. Route 1, and I-95. The DC2RVA corridor generally parallels Route 33 for the southern portion of 

the county and crosses I-295 and I-64. There are 10 public roadway crossings in the county, 6 of which 

are grade separated. Roadway crossings in the county are typically located within 1 mile or less of an 

adjacent crossing. In general, the at-grade crossings are located within the more suburban northern 

areas of the county, transitioning to mostly grade-separated crossings closer to the city of Richmond. 

Henrico County has one of the highest volume at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor (Hungary 

Road with 16,000 daily vehicles), as well as one of the highest volume grade-separated crossings (I64 with 140,000 daily vehicles). The Staples Mill Road Amtrak Station serves Henrico County and is 

located just north of I-64 along Staples Mill Road. The Richmond International Airport is located 

approximately 8 miles east of the DC2RVA corridor in the county. 

City of Richmond. The DC2RVA corridor splits just north of Richmond into two lines, one to 

the east and one to the west of the city. The A-Line runs west of the city along I-195 and Route 76 

until it crosses over the James River, where it runs parallel to Westover Hills Boulevard and Belt 

Boulevard. This line is approximately 9.5 miles long and consists of 2 main line tracks with 23 

public highway–rail crossings (5 at grade and 18 grade separated). The S-Line runs east of the city 

along I-64 and then continues south through downtown Richmond along I-95. The Main Street 

Amtrak Station is located along this line. The S-Line is just more than approximately 10 miles 

long and consists of either 1 or 2 main line tracks with 34 highway–rail crossings (30 public and 

4 private). This jurisdiction consists of the city of Richmond, as well as the more suburban area of 

Richmond south of the James River. In the city, adjacent crossings are generally within 0.3 mile 

of each other and are mostly grade separated; as the two rail lines move away from the city to the 

more suburban areas, adjacent crossings are typically between 0.3 and 1 mile. Of all the at-grade 

crossings in the DC2RVA corridor, Broad Rock Boulevard in Richmond on the A-Line has the 

highest daily volume of 19,000 vehicles. There are two main interstates in Richmond⎯I-95 and I64⎯with multiple crossings that have some of the highest daily vehicle volumes for gradeseparated crossings in the DC2RVA corridor (I-95 carries volumes greater than 130,000 vehicles 

per day and I-64 carries more than 95,000 vehicles per day). 

Chesterfield County. There are two different lines of the DC2RVA corridor in Chesterfield 

County, the A-Line, to the west, and the S-Line, to the east. The A-Line runs west of and parallel 

to U.S. Route 301. This line is approximately 5 rail miles of two main line tracks with nine public 

crossings (three at grade and six grade separated). The northern portion of this line is more 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-204 

suburban with mostly grade-separated crossings that are within 0.3 mile of each other, whereas 

the southern portion is rural and consists of at-grade crossings approximately 0.5 mile from each 

other. The S-Line runs parallel between U.S. Route 301 and I-95. This line is approximately 5.5 

rail miles of either 1 or 2 main line tracks with 11 highway–rail crossings (7 public crossings and 

4 private crossings). The northern portion of this line is more suburban or industrial with private 

crossings or public grade-separated crossings, while the southern portion is rural with at-grade 

crossings. The crossings in Chesterfield County consist of either major freeways/ expressways or 

principal arterial roads with daily volumes greater than 20,000 vehicles, or local roads or major 

collectors with volumes less than 5,000 vehicles per day. The A-Line and S-Line meet between 

Route 288 and Old Lane, which is the southern terminus of the DC2RVA project. 

3.15.2.2 Roadway Network–Corridor Crossings 

This section summarizes the roadway network by highway–rail corridor crossings of all public 

and private facilities. Full details on all crossings, including information on adjacent land uses 

and connectivity to adjacent crossings, are located in Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report. 

Following the summary of the existing crossings, additional details of the at-grade crossings are 

provided. While the proposed DC2RVA project may affect crossings in the DC2RVA corridor that 

are currently grade separated (e.g., by increasing or decreasing roadway traffic on these 

crossings), potential effects are likely to be greater at locations that are currently at-grade because 

some of these locations could become candidates for crossing elimation (i.e., constructing a 

roadway (or rail) bridge to separate the rail traffic from the roadway traffic or crossing closure), 

which could affect existing traffic conditions and/or operations. Accordingly, the discussion in 

this section, therefore, focuses on the at-grade crossings because of the higher potential effects 

compared to grade-separated crossings. 

Summary of Existing Crossings. The highway–rail crossings in the DC2RVA corridor include 

at-grade crossings and grade-separated crossings, with public and private crossings of both types. 

There are 200 existing highway–rail crossings in the DC2RVA corridor, as summarized in Table 

3.15-6. The locations of all existing roadway crossings are shown in Figure 3.15-3. 

Table 3.15-6: Existing Highway–Rail Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Alternative Area 

Public Private 

Totals 

At Grade (By Area) 

Grade 

Separated At Grade 

Grade 

Separated 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 0 1 0 0 1 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 4 29 5 9 47 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 9 11 5 2 27 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 7 7 10 1 25 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 11 4 0 0 15 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 24 53 4 4 85 

Totals (by Crossing Type): 55 105 24 16 200 

Note that the I-295 crossing is located at the boundary between the Ashland area and the Richmond area; it is included in the total for the

Richmond area only in this table. This table includes the existing public crossing(s) in the Franconia to Occoquan Project (which is the subject

of a separate Categorical Exclusion) as well as in the Powell’s Creek to Arkendale section. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-205 

Figure 3.15-3: Roadway Rail Crossings in Project Corridor
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-206 

Figure 3.15-3: Roadway Rail Crossings in Project Corridor 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-207 

In addition to the existing crossings of the DC2RVA corridor, the new track sections of the two 

bypass alignments would cross roadways that are not currently railroad crossings. Note that 

Virginia state code7 restricts the creation of new at-grade crossings, so all new crossings would 

be grade separated, with potential roadway realignment and/or closure. The Fredericksburg 

Bypass alignment would cross five public roadways, and the Ashland Bypass alignment would 

cross eight public roadways that are not currently highway–rail crossings; both bypass 

alignments would additionally cross numerous private roadways that mainly act as driveways 

and access to private property. 

The 160 public at-grade and grade-separated crossings are summarized in Table 3.15-7, which is 

located at the end of this section, in addition to the 13 new public highway–rail crossings that 

would be created as part of the bypass alignments; data includes rail line, crossing type, roadway 

functional classification per VDOT, and daily traffic. 

Public At-Grade Crossings. There are 55 public at-grade crossings within the DC2RVA 

corridor. These public at-grade roadway crossings range from urban, median-separated, multilane facilities that carry more than 15,000 vehicles daily to rural, unstriped local crossings with 

100 daily vehicles (representative examples are shown in Figure 3.15-4). 

Figure 3.15-4. Examples of Public At-Grade Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor

All public highway–rail crossings are required to have warning/control devices, just as roadway 

intersections are required to have stop signs or traffic signals. These warning/control devices are 

specified in the Manual of Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD) and include passive and active types. 

“Passive” warning devices are the basic devices used at all highway–rail crossings; they include 

the crossbuck (the X-shaped signs that identify a crossing), signage, and roadway approach 

pavement markings. “Active” control devices are activated by the passage of a train over 

detection circuit in the track and are intended to physically warn and/or impede vehicles from 

the tracks when a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. Typical active traffic control 

devices include flashing light signals, bells, automatic gates, and highway traffic signals. 

In the DC2RVA corridor, most public at-grade two-lane crossings have active flashing signal 

lights with automatic gates on the roadway approach lanes (termed a two-quadrant gate system). 

An automatic gate serves as a physical barrier across the roadway travel lanes when a train is 

 

7 The applicable state law can be found at: https://vacode.org/56-363/. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-208 

approaching or occupying a crossing; however, when automatic gates are located on the 

approach lanes only, vehicles are able to cross the centerline pavement marking and navigate 

around an activated gate with little difficulty. 

The larger multi-lane roadway crossings in the DC2RVA corridor typically have active control 

devices that include either four-quadrant gates or median separation. 

 Four-quadrant gates are a system of automatic flashing light signals and automatic gates 

in which the gates extend across both the approach and the departure sides of roadway. 

By inhibiting nearly all traffic movements over the crossing when the gates are activated 

by an approaching train, four-quadrant gates provide an additional measure of safety. 

 Median separation and/or treatment, which includes barrier wall systems, wide raised 

medians, and mountable raised curb systems with vertical median separators, can be used 

with a two-quadrant gate system to impede vehicles from traversing a crossing when the 

automatic gate is activated by disallowing vehicles from using the roadway lane serving 

traffic flowing in the opposite direction. The barrier provided by the median treatment 

also provides an additional measure of safety compared to the two-quadrant gate system. 

Additionally, there are six public at-grade crossings that are currently designated8 as part of a 24-

hour “Quiet Zone,” which is a section of a rail line that contains one or more consecutive public 

crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded: 

 Prince William Quiet Zone: 

- Featherstone Road crossing 

 Ashland Quiet Zone: 

- West Patrick Street crossing 

- College Avenue/Henry Clay Street crossing 

- England Street/Thompson Street crossing 

- Myrtle Street crossing 

- East Francis Street crossing 

FRA’s regulations governing train horn use at grade crossings are found at 49 CFR Part 2229 and 

mandate that a horn be sounded at every public at-grade crossing (i.e., horns are not required to be 

sounded at locations where the crossing is grade separated). 49 CFR Part 222 also establishes the 

procedures necessary for a public authority to establish a Quiet Zone. The Quiet Zone program was 

established so that communities can opt-out of the mandatory horn signaling, excluding emergency 

situations. Even in existing Quiet Zones that are based on the “grandfather” provision in the 

regulation, the locomotive bell must still be rung as a train approaches an at-grade highway–rail 

crossing. Quiet Zones that may be proposed by local governments in the future would be based on 

local needs. They must be designed, however, in accordance with FRA standards and approved by 

FRA. Localities would also fund all improvements, equipment, and signage, and they would 

provide ongoing maintenance for all Quiet Zones within their jurisdictions.

 

8 There are 28 Quiet Zone locations in Virginia per the Quiet Zone FRAWeb Report 

(https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L05204). Individual crossings that are included as part of the Quiet Zone 

designation are verified per the U.S DOT Crossing Inventory Form for each crossing (accessed per 

http://fragis.fra.dot.gov/GISFRASafety/). 

9 49 CFR; Part 222; Part 229 can be found in its entirety on the FRA website at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02809. 
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-209 

Private At-Grade Crossings. Private at-grade crossings are defined as highway–rail crossings 

located on roadways that are not intended for use by the public nor maintained by a public 

authority. There are 24 private at-grade crossings that operate within the DC2RVA corridor. 

These private at-grade roadway crossings typically serve as driveways to residences, provide 

access between farm or undeveloped land tracts on both sides of the railroad, or provide access 

to industrial properties (representative examples shown in Figure 3.15-5). 

Figure 3.15-5. Examples of Private At-Grade Crossings in the DC2RVA Corridor

The private at-grade crossings within the DC2RVA corridor are typical of private crossings in 

general, located on narrow or unpaved roadways with minimal warning devices. Most 

residential, farm, and industrial private crossings provide sole access to the property (i.e., there 

are no alternate routes to access the property across the railroad tracks). In general, the private 

crossings with active control devices (i.e., automatic gates) are those serving industrial areas. 

Residential and farm crossings typically have signage as the sole passive warning device. Private 

crossings can be controlled by a barrier gate, which is a moveable gate (manual or automatic) that 

is kept in the controlled position (i.e., blocking the travel lanes) and opening only on demand; 

however, none of the private crossings in the DC2RVA corridor currently use barrier gates. 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

Arlington County George Washington 

Parkway 

RF&P CFP 110.07 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

63,240 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

Arlington County VA 233/Airport 

Access 

RF&P CFP 108.48 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 23,460 

Alexandria City U.S. Route 1/ 

N. Henry Street 

RF&P CFP 106.44 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

47,940 

Alexandria City E. Braddock Road RF&P CFP 105.84 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 7,344 

Alexandria City Commonwealth 

Avenue/Daingerfield 

Road 

RF&P CFP 105.38 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 6,222 

Alexandria City King Street RF&P CFP 105.33 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

16,320 

Alexandria City Duke Street RF&P CFP 105.10 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

22,440 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-210 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Alexandria City Telegraph Road RF&P CFP 104.54 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 61,200 

Alexandria City Eisenhower Avenue RF&P CFP 102.55 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 12,240 

Alexandria City Eisenhower Avenue 

Connector 

RF&P CFP 102.37 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 14,280 

Fairfax County S. Van Dorn Street RF&P CFP 101.14 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 48,960 

Fairfax County I-95/ I-495 RF&P CFP 100.04 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 185,640 

Fairfax County Franconia Road RF&P CFP 99.10 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 32,640 

Fairfax County Franconia - 

Springfield Parkway 

RF&P CFP 98.06 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

48,960 

Fairfax County Newington Road RF&P CFP 95.75 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 9,588 

Fairfax County Backlick Road RF&P CFP 95.15 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 2,142 

Fairfax County Fairfax County 

Parkway 

RF&P CFP 95.10 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

37,740 

Fairfax County Pohick Road RF&P CFP 93.85 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 12,240 

Fairfax County Lorton Road RF&P CFP 92.56 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 21,420 

Fairfax County Jefferson Davis 

Highway 

RF&P CFP 90.66 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

37,740 

Fairfax County Furnace Road RF&P CFP 90.04 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Collector 1,326 

Prince William 

County 

Railroad Avenue RF&P CFP 89.23 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 510 

Prince William 

County 

Dawson Beach Road RF&P CFP 88.79 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 7,344 

Prince William 

County 

Featherstone Road RF&P CFP 86.85 At Grade Major Collector 10,200 

Prince William 

County 

Daniel K Ludwig 

Drive/Powells Creek 

RF&P CFP 83.66 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 194 

Prince William 

County 

Possum Point Road RF&P CFP 80.02 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 326 

Prince William 

County 

Potomac Avenue RF&P CFP 78.79 At Grade Local 7,140 

Stafford County Brent Point Road RF&P CFP 72.35 At Grade Local 541 

Stafford County Courthouse Road RF&P CFP 69.09 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 561 

Stafford County Andrew Chapel 

Road 

RF&P CFP 68.01 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 5,406 

Stafford County Mount Hope 

Church Road 

RF&P CFP 67.54 At Grade Local 214 

Stafford County Eskimo Hill Road RF&P CFP 66.77 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,632 

Stafford County Leeland Road RF&P CFP 63.47 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 11,220 

Stafford County Primmer House 

Road 

RF&P CFP 63.02 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 10,200 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-211 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

Stafford County Harrell Road RF&P CFP 61.79 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Collector 3,876 

Stafford County Butler Road/ 

White Oak Road 

RF&P CFP 60.81 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 15,300 

Stafford County Kings Highway RF&P CFP 60.04 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 26,520 

Stafford County Naomi Road RF&P CFP 59.97 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 663 

Fredericksburg City Sophia Street RF&P CFP 59.46 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 5,712 

Fredericksburg City Caroline Street RF&P CFP 59.40 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 2,346 

Fredericksburg City Princess Anne 

Street 

RF&P CFP 59.33 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Arterial 2,754 

Fredericksburg City Charles Street RF&P CFP 59.27 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 5,916 

Fredericksburg City Blue and Gray 

Parkway 

RF&P CFP 58.68 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

40,800 

Fredericksburg City Landsdowne Road RF&P CFP 57.51 At Grade Major Collector 8,772 

Spotsylvania County Mine Road RF&P CFP 54.77 At Grade Major Collector 5,202 

Spotsylvania County Mills Drive RF&P CFP 53.45 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

14,280 

Spotsylvania County Summit Crossing 

Road 

RF&P CFP 51.45 At Grade Local 408 

Caroline County Claiborne Crossing 

Road 

RF&P CFP 48.63 At Grade Local 479 

Stafford County Cool Spring Road FBP CFQ 0.37 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 13,260 

Stafford County Debruen Lane FBP CFQ 0.53 At Grade Local 510 

Stafford County Ferry Road FBP CFQ 1.70 At Grade Major Collector 9,180 

Stafford County Federal Drive FBP CFQ 2.89 At Grade Local 1,326 

Stafford County Little Falls Road FBP CFQ 3.80 At Grade Local 153 

Stafford County Forest Lane Road FBP CFQ 4.68 At Grade Local 1,428 

Stafford County Kings Highway−

Route 3 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

21,420 

Spotsylvania County Mills Drive−

Route 17 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

6,324 

Spotsylvania County Fredericksburg 

Turnpike−Route 2 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 5,100 

Spotsylvania County Thorton Rolling 

Road−Route 609 

FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 2,652 

Spotsylvania County Patriot Lane FBP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Local 510 

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

Caroline County Stonewall Jackson 

Road 

RF&P CFP 47.27 At Grade Major Collector 1,938 

Caroline County Woodford Road RF&P CFP 44.54 At Grade Local 388 

Caroline County Woodslane Road RF&P CFP 43.51 At Grade Local 102 

Caroline County Paige Road RF&P CFP 40.40 At Grade Minor Collector 479 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-212 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Caroline County Route 207 RF&P CFP 38.49 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

11,220 

Caroline County Nelson Hill Road RF&P CFP 37.60 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,836 

Caroline County Penola Road RF&P CFP 33.00 At Grade Local 428 

Caroline County Colemans Mill Road RF&P CFP 29.70 At Grade Local 449 

Caroline County Dry Bridge Road RF&P CFP 28.38 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 949 

Caroline County Ruther Glen Road RF&P CFP 26.93 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 2,142 

Caroline County I-95 RF&P CFP 26.51 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 99,960 

Hanover County Doswell Road RF&P CFP 21.88 At Grade Local 316 

Hanover County Kings Dominion 

Boulevard 

RF&P CFP 20.81 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 5,100 

Hanover County Taylorsville Road RF&P CFP 19.59 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 184 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

Hanover County Old Ridge Road RF&P CFP 18.96 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,122 

Hanover County Elletts Crossing 

Road 

RF&P CFP 17.51 Roadway 

Underpass 

Minor Collector 133 

Hanover County U.S. Route 1 RF&P CFP 17.23 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 8,160 

Hanover County W. Vaughan Road/ 

Henry Street 

RF&P CFP 15.64 At Grade Local 1,326 

Hanover County W. Patrick Street RF&P CFP 15.21 At Grade Minor Collector 304 

Hanover County College Avenue/ 

Henry Clay Street 

RF&P CFP 14.90 At Grade Major Collector 1,326 

Hanover County England Street / 

Thompson Street 

RF&P CFP 14.77 At Grade Minor Arterial 14,280 

Hanover County Myrtle Street RF&P CFP 14.66 At Grade Major Collector 1,836 

Hanover County E. Francis Street RF&P CFP 14.22 At Grade Local 1,428 

Hanover County Ashcake Road RF&P CFP 13.85 At Grade Minor Arterial 7,752 

Hanover County Gwathmey Church 

Road 

RF&P CFP 12.94 At Grade Minor Collector 163 

Hanover County Elmont Road RF&P CFP 11.54 At Grade Major Collector 2,142 

Hanover County Cedar Lane RF&P CFP 11.15 At Grade Major Collector 1,938 

Henrico County Greenwood Road RF&P CFP 9.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 1,530 

Henrico County Mill Road RF&P CFP 9.65 At Grade Major Collector 2,754 

Henrico County I-295 (Northbound 

only) 

RF&P CFP 8.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 62,220 

Hanover County Washington 

Highway−Route 1 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 8,160 

Hanover County Cross Corner 

Road−Route 641 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 530 

Hanover County Blunts Bridge Road ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 551 

Hanover County Independence Road ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Collector 949 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-213 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Hanover County W. Patrick Henry 

Road 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 6,834 

Hanover County Yowell Road ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Local 775 

Hanover County Ashcake Road–

Route 657 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Minor Arterial 5,406 

Hanover County Elmont Road−

Route 626 

ABP (new) No Existing 

Crossing 

Major Collector 2,346 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to Centralia) 

Henrico County I-295 (Southbound 

only) 

RF&P CFP 8.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 62,220 

Henrico County Mountain Road RF&P CFP 8.15 At Grade Minor Arterial 5,304 

Henrico County Hungary Road RF&P CFP 6.59 At Grade Minor Arterial 16,320 

Henrico County E. Parham Road RF&P CFP 5.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

26,520 

Henrico County Hermitage Road RF&P CFP 5.43 At Grade Major Collector 4,284 

Henrico County Hilliard Road RF&P CFP 4.44 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 16,320 

Henrico County Dumbarton Road RF&P CFP 3.70 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 15,300 

Henrico County I-64 RF&P CFP 3.15 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 140,760 

Richmond I-195 RF&P CFP 1.84 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 77,520 

Richmond Westwood Avenue/ 

Saunders Avenue 

RF&P CFPD 1.73 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 12,240 

Richmond I-195 Northbound A-Line ARN 3.17 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 74,460 

Richmond W. Broad Street A-Line ARN 3.02 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

9,690 

Richmond Monument Avenue A-Line ARN 2.77 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 24,480 

Richmond Patterson Avenue A-Line ARN 2.49 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

8,772 

Richmond Grove Avenue A-Line ARN 2.18 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 11,220 

Richmond W. Cary Street A-Line ARN 1.92 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

15,300 

Richmond I-195 Southbound A-Line ARN 1.79 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 9,078 

Richmond Douglasdale Road A-Line ARN 1.21 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 510 

Richmond Powhite Parkway 

Southbound 

A-Line ARN 1.07 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

26,520 

Richmond Powhite Parkway 

Northbound 

A-Line ARN 1.01 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

94,860 

Richmond Riverside Drive A-Line ARN 0.32 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond Forest Hill Avenue A-Line A 0.31 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 20,400 

Richmond Jahnke Road A-Line A 0.68 At Grade Minor Arterial 12,240 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-214 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Richmond Bassett Avenue A-Line A 1.01 At Grade Local 1,399 

Richmond Midlothian Turnpike A-Line A 1.54 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

22,440 

Richmond Hull Street Road A-Line A 2.43 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

24,480 

Richmond Broad Rock 

Boulevard 

A-Line A 3.08 At Grade Other Principal 

Arterial 

19,380 

Richmond Hopkins Road A-Line A 3.67 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 8,772 

Richmond Terminal Avenue A-Line A 3.88 At Grade Major Collector 683 

Richmond Warwick Road A-Line A 4.66 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 11,220 

Richmond Walmsley Boulevard A-Line A 5.54 At Grade Minor Arterial 4,998 

Chesterfield County Castlewood Road/ 

Cardwell Road 

A-Line A 5.85 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 1,122 

Chesterfield County Cogbill Road A-Line A 6.37 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 3,876 

Chesterfield County Chippenham 

Parkway 

A-Line A 6.84 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

60,180 

Chesterfield County S. Beulah Road/ 

Dundas Road 

A-Line A 7.13 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 5,100 

Chesterfield County Kingsland Road A-Line A 9.37 At Grade Major Collector 2,142 

Chesterfield County Thurston Road A-Line A 10.00 At Grade Local 459 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Northbound 

A-Line A 10.36 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Southbound 

A-Line A 10.38 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

Chesterfield County Old Lane A- and SLine A 10.74 At Grade Major Collector 4,896 

Richmond N Boulevard S-Line SRNX 3.94 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

21,420 

Richmond Hermitage Road S-Line SRN 3.37 At Grade Minor Arterial 10,200 

Richmond I-64/I-95 S-Line SRN 2.93 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 138,720 

Richmond N. Lombardy Street S-Line SRN 2.83 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 7,752 

Richmond Brook Road S-Line SRN 2.34 At Grade Minor Arterial 8,262 

Richmond N. Belvidere Street S-Line SRN 2.24 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

22,440 

Richmond Chamberlayne 

Parkway 

S-Line SRN 2.20 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 7,548 

Richmond St James Street S-Line SRN 1.75 At Grade Local 1,000 

Richmond N. 1st Street S-Line SRN 1.64 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 3,774 

Richmond N. 2nd Street/ 

Valley Road 

S-Line SRN 1.60 At Grade Local 2,142 

Richmond N. 5th Street S-Line SRN 1.36 Roadway 

Overpass 

Major Collector 3,978 

Richmond I-64 S-Line SRN 1.30 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate 95,880 

Richmond Hospital Street/ 

N. 7th Street 

S-Line SRN 1.24 At Grade Minor Arterial 5,814 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 3-215 

Table 3.15-7: Summary of Public Crossings (By Alternative Area) 

Jurisdiction Crossing Name 

Rail 

Line1

CFP 

Milepost 

Crossing 

Type 

Functional 

Classification2

AADT3 

(2015) 

Richmond Leigh Street S-Line CA S 85.7 Roadway 

Overpass 

Minor Arterial 11,220 

Richmond I-95 Off-Ramp to 

17th Street 

S-Line SRN 0.43 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 6,018 

Richmond E. Marshall Street S-Line SRN 0.30 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond E. Broad Street S-Line SRN 0.23 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

26,520 

Richmond E. Main Street S-Line SRN 0.00 Roadway 

Underpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

21,420 

Richmond I-95 S-Line S 0.15 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 130,560 

Richmond E. Cary Street S-Line S 0.08 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond Dock Street S-Line S 0.16 Roadway 

Underpass 

Major Collector 510 

Richmond Ramps between 

I-195 and I-95 

S-Line S 0.17 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 24,480 

Richmond Byrd Street S-Line S 0.19 Roadway 

Underpass 

Local 510 

Richmond Maury Street S-Line S 0.78 At Grade Local 2,589 

Richmond I-95/Maury Street 

Ramp 

S-Line S 0.97 Roadway 

Overpass 

Interstate Ramp 19,951 

Richmond Goodes Street S-Line S 1.66 At Grade Local 204 

Richmond E. Commerce Road S-Line S 2.98 At Grade Minor Arterial 4,284 

Richmond Ruffin Road S-Line S 3.98 At Grade Major Collector 1,836 

Richmond Bells Road S-Line S 4.46 At Grade Minor Arterial 8,976 

Richmond Dale Avenue/ 

Trenton Avenue 

S-Line S 4.98 At Grade Local 0 

Chesterfield County Chippenham 

Parkway 

S-Line S 6.47 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

58,140 

Chesterfield County Elliham Avenue S-Line S 7.85 Roadway 

Overpass 

Local 520 

Chesterfield County Jefferson Davis 

Highway 

S-Line S 8.8 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Principal 

Arterial 

20,400 

Chesterfield County Kingsland Road S-Line S 9.14 At Grade Major Collector 2,040 

Chesterfield County Brinkley Road S-Line S 9.83 At Grade Local 1,836 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Northbound 

S-Line S C 10.60 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

Chesterfield County Route 288 

Southbound 

S-Line S C 10.62 Roadway 

Overpass 

Other Freeway/ 

Expressway 

19,890 

1

: The Rail Line includes the following terminology for purposes of the transportation analyses: 

- “FBP” is the Fredericksburg Bypass alignment and includes the existing crossings on the Dahlgren spur as well as new crossings along the 

proposed new track alignment. 

- “ABP” is the Ashland Bypass and includes the new crossings along the proposed new track alignment (there are no existing crossings of the 

proposed Ashland Bypass.) 

2

: Source of Functional Classification: VDOT 2014 Approved Functional Classification, 

http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3eca6c9adb6649c988d98734f85baddb (accessed January 2016). 3

: Source of ADT: VDOT, GIS online database for Annual Average Daily Traffic with Vehicle Classification for 2014 (accessed January 2016), 

Grown to 2015 (Refer to Section 4 of the Draft EIS details on growth rates). 

Note that this table includes the existing public crossing(s) in the Franconia to Occoquan Project (which is the subject of a separate Categorical 

Exclusion) as well as in the Powell’s Creek to Arkendale section for reference. The Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue at-grade crossing is not open 

to public vehicles in existing conditions. 
TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

 3-216 

3.16 UTILITIES AND RELATED SERVICES 

Utilities are, by definition, a commodity or service provided for public use. The DC2RVA corridor 

contains municipal, regional, interstate and private utility systems, including sanitary sewer 

collection and treatment; stormwater collection and discharge; electric power generation and 

distribution; communications facilities and cabling; natural gas storage and distribution; 

petroleum storage and transportation; solid waste collection and management facilities; and 

interstate pipelines. DRPT mapped existing utilities along the DC2RVA corridor based on 

available information from CSXT and other local sources. 

3.17 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

3.17.1 Community Safety and Access 

FRA is the agency primarily responsible for rail safety oversight. FRA promulgates and enforces 

safety regulations (49 CFR 200-299) covering many aspects of rail operations. Public safety is 

assessed based on the safety of passengers and employees on trains, in stations, and along the rail 

line, and construction workers during construction of any approved rail improvements. Safety is 

also considered for any persons or vehicles at any rail facilities, access points to the rail right-ofway, or to the rail system itself (stations). Detailed rail operations safety and security information 

is available in the System Safety Plan and System Security Plan. Detailed grade crossing safety 

assessments are available in Appendix S, Transportation Technical Report. 

Within the individual communities, safety and security along the rail line encompasses physical 

access around the rail right-of-way, as well as the safety of residents and businesses due to rail 

operations (e.g., accidents, hazardous materials transport). As stated previously, the communities 

have grown and developed around the existing railroad right-of-way. This includes the roadway 

network, which has also developed around the railroad right-of-way and is used by residents, 

businesses, school transportation, and emergency services. CSXT has strict safety procedures, 

including extensive safety training and certification, regarding access to the right-of-way. 

Physical barriers are used in those parts of the DC2RVA corridor where those persons other than 

CSXT workers can easily access the right-of-way. 

3.17.2 At-Grade Crossing Safety 

Crossings are divided into categories: public crossings are those on highways under the 

jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to the traveling public; private 

crossings are those on roadways privately owned and used only by the landowner or licensee; 

and pedestrian crossings are those used solely by pedestrians. There are 200 crossings with 

roadways in the DC2RVA corridor. Of these crossings, 160 are with public roads and 40 are with 

private roads. Crossings are either at grade (79) or grade separated (121). Private at-grade 

crossings are primarily residential, farm, or industrial. Section 3.15.2.2 provodes additional detail 

on at-grade crossings in the corridor.