D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL

NATURAL RESOURCES MTECHNICAL REPORT
Natural Resources Technical Report

September 2017
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail i Natural Resources Technical Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 

2.1.1 Passenger Rail Service in Project Corridor ................................................................... 2-3 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates ............................................................................................... 2-4

2.2 Project Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.1 No Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.2 Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2.2.1 Build Alternatives in Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) ............ 2-8 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternatives in Area 2: Northern Virginia ........................................... 2-9

2.2.2.3 Build Alternatives in Area 3: Fredericksburg ................................................ 2-9

2.2.2.4 Build Alternatives in Area 4: Central Virginia ............................................ 2-11

2.2.2.5 Build Alternatives in Area 5: Ashland .......................................................... 2-12

2.2.2.6 Build Alternatives in Area 6: Richmond ...................................................... 2-14

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Drainage Basins ................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.1.3 Surface Waters, Rivers, and Streams ............................................................................. 3-5

3.1.4 Designated Waters ......................................................................................................... 3-13

3.1.4.1 Navigable Waters ............................................................................................ 3-14

3.1.4.2 State Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................... 3-15

3.1.4.3 Nationwide Rivers Inventory ........................................................................ 3-15

3.1.4.4 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas ............................................................. 3-15

3.1.4.5 Virginia Coastal Zone Management Area ................................................... 3-16

3.1.5 Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.1.6 Floodplains and Floodways .......................................................................................... 3-19

3.1.7 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 3-23

3.1.8 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply .................................................................. 3-28

3.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-29

3.2.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 3-31

3.2.2 Regulated Natural Communities ................................................................................. 3-32
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail ii Natural Resources Technical Report 

3.2.2.1 National Wildlife Refuges .............................................................................. 3-32

3.2.2.2 State Wildlife Lands ........................................................................................ 3-35

3.2.2.3 County Wildlife Lands .................................................................................... 3-35

3.2.2.4 Private Wildlife Lands .................................................................................... 3-36

3.2.2.5 Priority Conservation Areas .......................................................................... 3-36

3.2.3 Invasive Species .............................................................................................................. 3-39

3.2.4 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 3-41

3.2.4.1 Colonial Waterbirds ........................................................................................ 3-41

3.2.4.2 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................ 3-42

3.2.5 Aquatic and Marine Life ............................................................................................... 3-43

3.2.5.1 Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters ......................................... 3-43

3.2.5.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ..................................................................... 3-48

3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................... 3-50

3.2.6.1 Methods ............................................................................................................ 3-51

3.2.6.2 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... 3-50

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.1.1 Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Floodplains ...................................................... 4-2

4.1.1.1 Designated Waters ............................................................................................ 4-5

4.1.1.2 Floodplains and Floodways ............................................................................. 4-8

4.1.1.3 Stormwater/Drainage ...................................................................................... 4-8

4.1.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.1.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 4-12

4.1.3.1 Temporary Effects ........................................................................................... 4-12

4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects ........................................................................................... 4-12

4.1.3.3 Impaired Waters .............................................................................................. 4-12

4.1.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply .................................................................. 4-14

4.1.5 Permits ............................................................................................................................. 4-17

4.1.5.1 Section 401–Certification (Water Quality Certification [WQC]) ............... 4-17

4.1.5.2 Section 402–National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) ............................................................................................................ 4-18

4.1.5.3 Section 404–Dredge and Fill Materials ......................................................... 4-18

4.1.5.4 Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom ................................................................... 4-18

4.1.5.5 Section 9–United States Coast Guard ........................................................... 4-18

4.1.5.6 Section 10–USACE ........................................................................................... 4-18

4.1.5.7 Virginia Water Protection Permit .................................................................. 4-18

4.1.5.8 MS4 Permit–Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems ................. 4-19

4.1.5.9 Joint Permit Application–USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, Local 

Wetlands Board ................................................................................................ 4-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iii Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.1.5.10 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act ................................................................. 4-19

4.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation ............................................. 4-19

4.1.6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Resources .................................................... 4-19

4.1.6.2 Floodplains and Stormwater/Drainage ....................................................... 4-20

4.1.6.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 4-21

4.1.6.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply ................................................... 4-22

4.2 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................... 4-22

4.2.1 Habitat and Natural Communities .............................................................................. 4-22

4.2.1.1 Conservation Areas ........................................................................................ 4-25

4.2.1.2 Invasive Species ............................................................................................... 4-30

4.2.1.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ..................................................................... 4-30

4.2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .............................. 4-35

4.2.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 4-35

4.2.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds ........................................................................................ 4-36

4.2.2.2 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................ 4-36

4.2.2.3 Aquatic and Marine Life ................................................................................. 4-37

4.2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .............................. 4-39

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................................... 4-40

4.2.3.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................. 4-45

4.2.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation .............................. 4-46

CHAPTER 5 – SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ........................................................................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6 – REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 5-1

APPENDICES 

A Water Resources Impacts – Area 1: Arlington ......................................................................... A-1 

B Water Resources Impacts – Area 2: Northern Virginia ........................................................... B-1

C Water Resources Impacts – Area 3: Fredericksburg ................................................................ C-1

D Water Resources Impacts – Area 4: Central Virginia .............................................................. D-1

E Water Resources Impacts – Area 5: Ashland ............................................................................ E-1

F Water Resources Impacts – Area 6: Richmond ......................................................................... F-1

G Field Survey Data Sheets ............................................................................................................. G-1 

H Soils With Potential Construction Limitations ......................................................................... H-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2-1: Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2-7

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C ................................................... 2-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail iv Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A ..................................................................... 2-9

Table 2-4: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3A ............................................................... 2-10

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B ................................................................ 2-10

Table 2-6: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3C ............................................................... 2-11

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A ............................................................. 2-11

Table 2-8: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake ......................................... 2-12

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake ........................................... 2-13

Table 2-10: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake .......................................... 2-13

Table 2-11: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake ....................................................... 2-14

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station 

Only) ............................................................................................................................... 2-14

Table 2-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station 

Only) ............................................................................................................................... 2-15

Table 2-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station 

Only) ............................................................................................................................... 2-15

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) ....... 2-16

Table 2-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D (Broad Street Station Only) ...... 2-16

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) ................................. 2-16

Table 2-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) .................................. 2-17

Table 2-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) ............................ 2-17

Table 3-1: Surface Waters, Rivers, And Streams ........................................................................ 3-12

Table 3-2: Special Stream Designations ....................................................................................... 3-13

Table 3-3: State Scenic Rivers Crossed by the Project ................................................................ 3-15

Table 3-4: Designated Nationwide River Reaches ..................................................................... 3-15

Table 3-5: DC2RVA Resource Protection Areas ......................................................................... 3-16

Table 3-6: Virginia Coastal Zone Enforceable Regulatory Programs ...................................... 3-18

Table 3-7: Wetlands (acres) ............................................................................................................ 3-19

Table 3-8: Floodplains .................................................................................................................... 3-23

Table 3-9: 303(d) Assessed Water Bodies (Water Quality) ....................................................... 3-24

Table 3-10: General Habitat Types (acres) ..................................................................................... 3-32

Table 3-11: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas ....................................................................... 3-37

Table 3-12: Wildlife Corridors ........................................................................................................ 3-39

Table 3-13: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area .......................................................... 3-40

Table 3-14: Colonial Waterbird Colonies ...................................................................................... 3-41

Table 3-15: Confirmed and Potential Anadromous Fish Use Waters ....................................... 3-47

Table 3-16: Mapped Existing SAV Beds ........................................................................................ 3-50

Table 3-17: Federal and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that may 

occur within the Vicinity of the Study Area ............................................................. 3-51

Table 3-18: Known Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) Nest Locations ........................... 3-57
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail v Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-1: Stream Resource Effects ................................................................................................. 4-3

Table 4-2: Wetland Effects (acres)................................................................................................. 4-10

Table 4-3: Potential Effects to 303[d] Impairment from the DC2RVA Project ....................... 4-13

Table 4-4: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones ..................................... 4-15

Table 4-5: Habitat Impacts (acres) ................................................................................................ 4-23

Table 4-6: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) ............................................................................ 4-26

Table 4-7: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) ............................................................................ 4-27

Table 4-8: Impacts to Wildlife Corridors (acres) ........................................................................ 4-29

Table 4-9: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts (acres) ...................................................... 4-30

Table 4-10: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters ................................................................ 4-37

Table 4-11: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project ............................ 4-40

Table 4-12: Potential for State-listed Species to be Affected by Project ..................................... 4-43

Table 4-13: Number of Bald Eagle Nests within Buffer Zones ................................................... 4-46

Table 4-14: Potential Mitigation Measures for Threatened and Endangered Species 

with Potential to Occur in the DC2RVA Corridor ................................................... 4-54

Table 4-15: Bald Eagle Management Guidelines .......................................................................... 4-55

Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Resources ....................................................................... 5-1

Table 5-2: Summary of Environmental Impacts within Planning Level Right-of-Way 

Limits ................................................................................................................................ 5-5

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor ............................................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-2: Build Alternative Areas ................................................................................................. 2-6

Figure 2-3: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C ..................................................................................... 2-18

Figure 2-4: Build Alternative 2A .................................................................................................... 2-19

Figure 2-5: Build Alternative 3A .................................................................................................... 2-20

Figure 2-6: Build Alternative 3B ..................................................................................................... 2-21

Figure 2-7: Build Alternative 3C ..................................................................................................... 2-22

Figure 2-8: Build Alternative 4A .................................................................................................... 2-23

Figure 2-9: Build Alternative 5A .................................................................................................... 2-24

Figure 2-10: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake ................................................................................... 2-25

Figure 2-11: Build Alternative 5B ..................................................................................................... 2-26

Figure 2-12: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake .................................................................................... 2-27

Figure 2-13: Build Alternative 5C ..................................................................................................... 2-28

Figure 2-14: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake .................................................................................... 2-29

Figure 2-15: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake ................................................................................... 2-30

Figure 2-16: Build Alternative 6A .................................................................................................... 2-31

Figure 2-17: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line ....................................................................................... 2-32
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail vi Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-18: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line ........................................................................................ 2-33

Figure 2-19: Build Alternative 6C ..................................................................................................... 2-34

Figure 2-20: Build Alternative 6D .................................................................................................... 2-35

Figure 2-21: Build Alternative 6E ..................................................................................................... 2-36

Figure 2-22: Build Alternative 6F ..................................................................................................... 2-37

Figure 2-23: Build Alternative 6G .................................................................................................... 2-38

Figure 2-24: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ................................. 2-39

Figure 2-25: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A ............................... 2-40

Figure 2-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C ........... 2-41

Figure 2-27: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B ........................... 2-42

Figure 2-28A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................... 2-43

Figure 2-28B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C 

(Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................... 2-44

Figure 2-29: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 

5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake ........................................................... 2-45

Figure 2-30A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................. 2-46 

Figure 2-30B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B 

(Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms) ............................................................................. 2-47

Figure 2-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A ...................... 2-48

Figure 2-32: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 

6B–S-Line ....................................................................................................................... 2-49

Figure 2-33: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C ................................ 2-50

Figure 2-34: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D ................................. 2-51

Figure 2-35: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ....................... 2-52

Figure 2-36: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E ................................. 2-53

Figure 2-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F ....................... 2-54

Figure 2-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F .................................. 2-55

Figure 2-39: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ...................... 2-56

Figure 2-40: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G ................................. 2-57

Figure 3-1: Watershed Boundaries ................................................................................................... 3-4

Figure 3-2: Surface Waters and Wetlands Indicating Designated Waterways .......................... 3-6

Figure 3-3: Virginia’s Coastal Zone................................................................................................ 3-17

Figure 3-4: Floodplains and Impaired Waters .............................................................................. 3-21

Figure 3-5: EcoRegions .................................................................................................................... 3-30

Figure 3-6: Habitat & Natural Communities ................................................................................ 3-33

Figure 3-7: North American Flyways ............................................................................................ 3-43

Figure 3-8: Anadromous Fish Waters Potentially Impacted ...................................................... 3-45

Figure 3-9: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation .................................................................................. 3-49
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail vii Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 4-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Alternative 2A ..................................... 3-31

Figure 4-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Alternative 2A ................................................................ 3-47
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 1-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public 

Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in 

the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger 

rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. 

to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project. The Project will increase capacity to 

deliver higher speed passenger rail, improve conventional speed passenger service, expand 

commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service, in an efficient and reliable 

multimodal rail corridor. The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, 

reliability and travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and 

freight rail traffic, thereby providing a door-to-door time-competitive option for travelers 

between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and those traveling to and from adjacent connecting 

corridors. The Project is part of the larger Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) corridor, which 

extends from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, and continues east to Hampton Roads 

(Norfolk), VA, and south to Raleigh, NC, and Charlotte, NC, and then continues west to Atlanta, 

GA and south to Florida. The Project connects to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

(Amtrak) Northeast Corridor (NEC) at Union Station in Washington, D.C. 

The purpose of the SEHSR program, as stated in the 2002 Tier I Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) completed for the full SEHSR corridor, is to provide a competitive transportation 

choice to travelers within the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. The current DC2RVA 

project carries forward the purpose of the SEHSR Tier I EIS within the Washington, D.C. to 

Richmond segment of the larger SEHSR corridor by identifying the infrastructure improvements 

necessary to provide a competitive transportation choice for current and future conditions. The 

Purpose of the DC2RVA project is to increase the capacity between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond to deliver higher speed passenger rail, improve conventional speed passenger rail, 

expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable 

multimodal rail corridor. This Project will enable passenger rail to be a competitive transportation 

choice for intercity travelers between Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond. 

The purpose of this Natural Resources Technical Report is to identify the natural environment 

along the DC2RVA corridor and analyze potential effects that could result from implementation 

of the build alternatives. Information in this Technical Report supports discussions presented in 

the Draft EIS.

1 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The Washington, D.C. to Richmond corridor spans 123 miles along an existing rail corridor owned 

by CSXT between Control Point Rosslyn (RO) at milepost (MP) CFP 110 in Arlington County, VA to 

the junction of the CSXT North End Subdivision (referred to as the A-Line) between West Acca Yard 

in Richmond and Centralia, VA, and the CSXT Bellwood Subdivision (referred to as the S-Line) 

between Control Point Hermitage in Richmond and Centralia, VA (CE) at MP A-11 in Chesterfield 

County, VA (Figure 2-1). At the northern terminus in Arlington County, the Project limit is marked 

by the southern approach to Long Bridge, a double-track rail bridge connecting the rail corridor over 

the Potomac River to Washington, D.C. The Project corridor follows the CSXT Richmond, 

Fredericksburg & Potomac (RF&P) Subdivision from the Potomac River to Richmond. The southern 

terminus in Centralia is the junction of two CSXT routes (the A-Line and the S-Line) that begin in 

Richmond and rejoin approximately 11 miles south of the city. 

Additional sections evaluated as part of the Project included approximately 8.3 miles of the CSXT 

Peninsula Subdivision CA-Line from Beulah Road (MP CA-76.1) in Henrico County, VA east of 

Richmond to AM Junction in downtown Richmond, and the approximately 26-mile Buckingham 

Branch Railroad (BBR) from AM Junction to the RF&P Crossing (MP CA-111.8) north of 

Richmond in Doswell, VA. 

In Arlington, the Project connects to existing CSXT track extending across the Potomac River on 

the Long Bridge into Washington, D.C. and Union Station, the southern terminus of Amtrak’s 

NEC. In downtown Richmond and at Centralia, the Project connects to both the Richmond to 

Raleigh segment of the SEHSR corridor and the Richmond to Hampton Roads segment of the 

SEHSR corridor. The Washington, D.C. to Richmond segment is an integral part of the overall 

Washington, D.C. to Charlotte SEHSR corridor and provides a critical link between high speed 

passenger service from Boston to Washington, D.C. and the southeastern United States (U.S.). 

Long Bridge Over the Potomac River 

2 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-2 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-1: DC2RVA Project Corridor 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-3 Natural Resources Technical Report 

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Alternatives developed as part of the DC2RVA Project include two elements: proposed train 

service that would run throughout the corridor (see Section 2.1.1), and physical improvements 

along the rail alignment. The Project will include specific rail infrastructure improvements and 

service upgrades to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and 

accommodate growth of freight rail service in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. 

The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability, and door-todoor competitive travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, 

and freight rail traffic. Specific improvements to the existing rail infrastructure between 

Arlington, VA, and Centralia, VA, include: 

 Corridor-wide improvements to train operating capacity to accommodate efficient 

operation of passenger, commuter, and freight rail service with increased frequency, 

reliability, and speed, including an additional main track along most of the corridor, 

additional sidings, crossovers, yard bypasses and leads, and other capacity and reliability 

improvements at certain locations. 

 Corridor-wide upgrades to existing track and signal systems to achieve higher operating 

speeds, including curve realignments, higher-speed crossovers between tracks, passing 

sidings, and grade crossing improvements. 

 New or replacement station, platform, and parking improvements at intercity passenger 

stations in the corridor to improve the efficiency of railroad operations, improve quality 

of service, and accommodate increased ridership. 

 Safety improvements to roadway crossing treatments, to include median treatment, grade 

separations, and/or closure of existing at-grade crossings of the rail corridor. 

The environmental impacts of these improvements and measures to avoid, minimize, or 

otherwise mitigate such impacts are described in the EIS. 

Studies in support of the Project addressed passenger and freight rail operations and service 

between Union Station in Washington, D.C. and Richmond and beyond, but the Project will not 

include physical improvements to the Long Bridge across the Potomac River or to rail infrastructure 

within Washington, D.C. Other projects will address these improvements as well as improvements 

to the rail infrastructure north of Arlington and south of Centralia along the SEHSR corridor. 

2.1.1 Passenger Rail Service in Project Corridor 

Amtrak operates four types of passenger service in the DC2RVA corridor: 

 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. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-4 Natural Resources Technical Report 

 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. 

DRPT is proposing to add nine daily roundtrip SEHSR intercity passenger trains to the corridor: 

 Four new roundtrips of Northeast Regional (SEHSR) service, to provide additional 

frequencies on the same routes of existing Amtrak Northeast Regional (Virginia) services, 

terminating within Virginia (either Newport News, Norfolk, or Richmond). 

 Five new roundtrips of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, to complement Amtrak’s 

current Interstate Corridor (North Carolina) service, by providing additional frequencies 

to North Carolina. The SEHSR trains have slightly different service patterns in the 

DC2RVA corridor than the existing Amtrak service, and use different routes south of the 

DC2RVA corridor, where SEHSR trains are expected to provide a faster and more direct 

route to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC. 

From Washington, D.C., all new SEHSR trains would continue on to Philadelphia, New York, 

and Boston. The plan is to incorporate this service in to Amtrak’s regional and long-distance 

intercity passenger rail network. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for full summary of proposed 

service and ridership. 

2.1.2 Tier II EIS Planning Dates 

For this EIS, FRA and DRPT established two important planning dates. The first planning date 

is 2025, which is FRA and DRPT’s current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA 

infrastructure could be completed and the new DC2RVA service would be placed in operation. 

FRA and DRPT’s estimate of the year 2025 as the “opening day” is dependent on many factors, 

not the least of which is finalizing the EIS and Record of Decision. The date also assumes that 

federal funding in addition to other funding sources will be available at the level required to build 

all of the proposed infrastructure improvements and acquire the necessary equipment and trainsets. DRPT based this date on an aggressive but potentially achievable schedule assumption that 

all necessary permits, approvals, agreements, and funding could be finalized by 2020, final design 

would take one year (2021), right-of-way acquisition (if needed) would take one year (2022), and 

construction would take three years (2023 – 2025). FRA and DRPT also used 2025 as the date 

when the physical impacts associated with DC2RVA Project construction would take place. Thus, 

all of the physical impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are 

estimated for 2025, and compared to the No Build Alternative conditions projected for 2025. 

The second key planning date established by FRA and DRPT is the planning horizon date of 2045, 

20 years after the projected implementation of the new rail service in 2025. Both the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) and FRA guidance require that DRPT 

demonstrate that the proposed project is sufficient to deliver the proposed passenger rail benefits 

and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-year time horizon following the 

completion of the passenger project. DRPT uses operational simulations analysis, as discussed in 

Section 2.6.2, to test the proposed alternatives to determine if the rail capacity is adequate for both 

the opening day (2025) levels of projected freight, commuter and passenger rail traffic and to 

determine if the infrastructure remains adequate over the 20 year planning horizon or until 2045. 

DRPT also used the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate some of the longer term effects of the 

proposed service such as ridership, energy use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and 

cumulative effects. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-5 Natural Resources Technical Report 

2.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

Developing potential rail alignments was an iterative process. DRPT relied on previous studies 

and public scoping comment as the starting point for developing potential rail alignments. Rail 

alignment modifications were made to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on 

environmental resources and existing infrastructure, and to minimize the need for additional new 

infrastructure, while preserving the ability of that alignment to meet the Project’s Purpose and 

Need. The final screening evaluation—to determine the Build Alternatives to be carried forward 

for evaluation in the Draft EIS—focused on each rail alignment’s ability to reduce trip times based 

on increased track design speed and to increase the reliability of rail operations based upon added 

capacity, with the least potential environmental impact and consideration of cost to construct. 

As part of the Build Alternatives, DRPT evaluated both existing and potential new passenger rail 

stations in the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT plans to incorporate the DC2RVA SEHSR passenger train 

service into Amtrak’s regional and long distance intercity passenger rail network; along the 

DC2RVA corridor, these existing stations include: Alexandria, Woodbridge, Quantico, 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Staples Mill Road and Main Street in Richmond. Additionally, in 

Richmond, DRPT is considering two proposed new locations under some Build Alternatives: 

Boulevard Station and Broad Street Station. However, not all proposed trains would necessarily 

serve all existing or proposed stations. 

For evaluation in the Tier II Draft EIS, DRPT combined and categorized Build Alternatives into 

six alternative areas along the corridor (Figure 2-2): 

 Alternative Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach): 1-mile section that includes 

approach alignments to the Long Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River between VA 

and DC. 

 Alternative Area 2: Northern Virginia: 47-mile section that includes additional track 

within existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads): 14-mile section that 

includes alignments through or around the city. 

 Alternative Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell): 29-mile section that includes 

additional track primarily within the existing railroad right-of-way. 

 Alternative Area 5 Ashland: Ashland (Doswell to I-295): 10-mile section including 

alignments through or around the town. 

 Alternative 6 Richmond (I-295 to Centralia): 23-mile section including different station 

locations and routing options along the A-Line and/or S-Line. 

Project Build Alternatives were developed separately, specific to the existing conditions, 

constraints, and/or needs of each of the six areas, and will be linked to form a single DRPT 

Recommended Preferred Alternative for the corridor, to be confirmed in the Final EIS and Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

Refer to Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS for full summary of the alternatives development process and 

description of Build Alternatives, and Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS for description of the DRPT 

Recommended Preferred Alternative. 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-6 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-2: Build Alternative Areas 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-7 Natural Resources Technical Report 

In general, the DC2RVA Project proposes to increase capacity by adding one additional main 

track. In most areas, the Project will add a new third track in addition to two existing tracks. The 

determination of the location of the new track on the east or west of existing trackage varies by 

location within the corridor based on physical constraints and minimization of impacts. For each 

alternative, DRPT also evaluated the potential to realign the tracks to improve speeds. The 

proposed Build Alternatives vary within the City of Fredericksburg and the Town of Ashland, 

where alignments outside of the existing right-of-way were considered (i.e., bypass alignments 

around the downtown areas); the typical section of the new bypass alignments consists of two 

tracks. 

From a wide range of options that were considered during the alternatives development process, 

23 Build Alternatives, which vary within each alternative area, were included for evaluation in 

the Draft EIS (Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1: Build Alternatives 

Alternative Area Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A Add Two Tracks on the East 

1B Add Two Tracks on the West 

1C Add One Track East and One Track West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

3B Add One Track East of Existing 

3C Add Two-Track Bypass East 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add One Track/Improve Existing Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A Maintain Two Tracks Through Town 

5A–Ashcake Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5B Add One Track East of Existing 

5B–Ashcake Add One Track East of Existing (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5C Add Two-Track West Bypass 

5C–Ashcake Add Two-Track West Bypass (Relocate Station to Ashcake) 

5D–Ashcake Three Tracks Centered Through Town (Add One Track, Relocate 

Station to Ashcake) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A Staples Mill Road Station Only 

6B–A-Line Boulevard Station Only, A-Line 

6B–S-Line Boulevard Station Only, S-Line 

6C Broad Street Station Only 

6D Main Street Station Only 

6E Split Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6F Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

6G Shared Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations 

As shown in the table, the eight Build Alternatives in Richmond include four single-station 

options that would consolidate passenger service to one station, and three two-station 

alternatives that offer combinations of services and rail line routes using Main Street Station and 

Staples Mill Road Station. These Richmond station options drive the corridor-wide operations of 

the DC2RVA Project. Ridership, travel time, and on-time performance vary by Build Alternative 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-8 Natural Resources Technical Report 

based on the different Richmond station options. Estimated travel time between Washington, 

D.C. and Richmond is dependent on the number and location of station stops as well as the track 

design. 

Each Build Alternative includes build-alternative-specific improvements to features such as 

stations and at-grade roadway crossings, as applicable. The following sections provide details of 

each of these Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative. 

2.2.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative defines the future infrastructure and service levels that will result from 

planned investments in the Washington, D.C. to Richmond rail corridor, independent of the 

improvements planned by the DC2RVA Project. 

Information about planned physical improvements and rail service additions in the corridor was 

gathered from fiscally-constrained Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning 

documents, Commonwealth multiyear improvement programs, and from transit agency 

planning documents. If a project was under construction, fully-funded, or was the focus of 

advanced collaborative planning (evidenced by partial funding, board-level commitments, or 

interagency agreements), it was assumed to be complete by 2025 for the purposes of the Draft EIS 

evaluation. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full description of elements included in the No 

Build Alternative. 

The purpose of the No Build Alternative is to serve as a baseline for comparison of potential 

effects and impacts of the DC2RVA Build Alternatives. The No Build alternative was fully 

evaluated and dismissed by the FRA in the 2002 SEHSR Tier I ROD because it does not meet the 

SEHSR Purpose and Need. Although previously dismissed as not a viable alternative, it is fully 

considered as part of the Tier II Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project because the baseline is required 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

2.2.2 Build Alternatives 

The 23 Build Alternatives that are evaluated in the Tier II EIS for the DC2RVA Project are 

summarized below. Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS provides full information, including lists of specific 

improvements for track and station improvements, for each Build Alternative. 

Figures 2-3 through 2-23 show the proposed rail alignment improvements by alternative. Figures 

2-24 through 2-40 show the proposed station improvements. Note that all figures are provided 

at the end of this section. 

2.2.2.1 Build Alternatives in Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

There are three Build Alternatives in Area 1, which are described in Table 2-2. Build Alternative 

1A, 1B, and 1C are shown in Figure 2-3. There are no stations within this alternative area. 

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

TRACK 

All three Build Alternatives would: 

 Equally support expanded intercity passenger service (all types), expanded VRE commuter service, and expanded CSXT 

freight service 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-9 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-2: Arlington Area Build Alternatives: 1A, 1B, and 1C 

 Add two main tracks, with minor shifts to improve speed 

 Be constructed within existing railroad right-of-way 

The difference between the alternatives is on which side(s) of the existing track the new track is added (as indicated in Build

Alternative names): two tracks on the east (1A); two tracks on the west (1B); one track east and one track west (1C) 

Final decision deferred to the completion of the Long Bridge Study (separate study by DDOT) 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 45 mph 

STATIONS 

No stations within area 

CROSSINGS 

No changes to existing public roadway crossings 

2.2.2.2 Build Alternatives in Area 2: Northern Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Area 2, which is described in Table 2-3. Build Alternative 2A is 

shown in Figure 2-4. 

Table 2-3: Northern Virginia Build Alternative 2A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with realignment of some curves to improve speed, to create: 

 Fourth track from Alexandria to Crystal City 

 Third track from Spotsylvania to Alexandria 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Station improvements are mainly platform improvements and to be performed by VRE 

Proposed new DC2RVA service includes: 

 Alexandria: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) (Figure 2-24)

 Woodbridge: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (Figure 2-25)

 Quantico: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) (no figure) 

 All other stations: VRE service only (no figure)

No changes to the locations of Amtrak (Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), Long Distance, or Auto 

Train) or VRE commuter stations served 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Mount Hope Church Road), with alternate access provided; no grade separations 

of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major water crossings at Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, and Aquia Creek 

2.2.2.3 Build Alternatives in Area 3: Fredericksburg 

There are three Build Alternatives in Area 3, which are described in Table 2-4, Table 2-5, and 

Table 2-6. Build Alternative 3A, 3B, and 3C are shown in Figure 2-5, Figure 2-6, and Figure 2-7 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-10 Natural Resources Technical Report 

respectively. All three Build Alternatives would support expanded intercity passenger (all 

types), VRE commuter, and CSXT freight service, without change to stations served by existing 

Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Northeast Regional (Virginia), and Long Distance 

passenger service or VRE commuter service. Due to constraints of the geography through this 

location, the maximum authorized speed in this section is designed for 79 mph where feasible. 

Build Alternative 3B is consistent with the City of Fredericksburg Comprehensive Plan (2015). 

Table 2-4: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3A 

TRACK 

No construction of new track / no additional rail capacity within Fredericksburg 

 Existing two main tracks would be maintained, which are used by freight, passenger, and commuter trains, similar to existing 

conditions 

 Tracks would be shifted in some areas to improve speed 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the city 

All improvements are within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new 

parking structure (Figure 2-26)

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only 

CROSSINGS 

All public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements (no roadway crossing closures or grade 

separations of public at-grade crossings) 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B

TRACK 

One main track would be added in most areas, with track shifts to improve speed 

 Within Fredericksburg, the additional track would be added east of the existing two tracks 

 A third track already exists between Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania stations; therefore, no improvements are required 

in this section 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg Station would include a new station building, a new elevated railway, side and center 

platform improvements, and a new parking structure (Figure 2-27) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-11 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-5: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3B

CROSSINGS 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

Table 2-6: Fredericksburg Area Build Alternative 3C 

TRACK 

Existing two-track corridor through the city would be maintained, with some track shifts to improve speed 

New two-track bypass would be constructed east of the city 

 Would serve all freight rail as well as some or all of Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor 

(Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 Would require new right-of-way 

Construction of one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the bypass 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 79 mph 

STATIONS 

Improvements to Fredericksburg station would include a new station building, side platform improvements, and a new parking 

structure (Figure 2-26) 

Proposed new DC2RVA service at Fredericksburg Station: Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) 

The other station in this alternative area is located in Spotsylvania County and provides VRE service only

CROSSINGS 

Public roadway crossings along existing Dahlgren Spur would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

All new public roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Improvements to major rail bridge over the Rappahannock River 

2.2.2.4 Build Alternatives in Area 4: Central Virginia 

There is one Build Alternative in Area 4, which is described in Table 2-7. Build Alternative 4A is 

shown in Figure 2-8. Based on geography throughout this area, this section is most suitable for 

higher speed passenger rail service, and therefore provides the greatest contiguous section along 

the DC2RVA corridor with a maximum authorized speed up to 90 mph. There are no stations 

within this alternative area. 

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A 

TRACK 

One main track would be added, with track shifts to improve speed 

Improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

Supports expanded intercity passenger service (all types) and CSXT freight service 

Track maximum authorized speed: ≤ 90 mph 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-12 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-7: Central Virginia area Build Alternative: 4A 

STATIONS 

No stations within the area 

Would not preclude the development of a proposed future station at Carmel Church (not included as part of this study) 

CROSSINGS 

Close one existing public roadway crossing (Colemans Mill Road); no grade separations of at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Multiple crossings of small waterways and wetlands 

2.2.2.5 Build Alternatives in Area 5: Ashland 

There are seven Build Alternatives in Area 5, which are described in Table 2-8 through Table 2-

11 below. Build Alternative 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

are shown in Figure 2-9, Figure 2-10, Figure 2-11, Figure 2-12, Figure 2-13, Figure 2-14, and Figure 

2-15, respectively. 

The Ashland Build Alternatives include different station locations: either maintaining the station 

at the existing downtown station with improvements (Build Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C) or 

relocating the station to south of Ashcake Road (all Build Alternatives with “–Ashcake” in their 

name). The Build Alternatives with the same letter, with and without the “–Ashcake” 

designation, are otherwise similar in terms rail alignment through Ashland and identical north 

and south of Town. For ease of comparison, they are presented together in the tables below. 

Due to constraints of the geography through this location, the maximum authorized speed in this 

section is designed for 79 mph where feasible, with an existing 35 mph municipal slow order 

through the Town of Ashland. 

Table 2-8: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5A and 5A–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks (no construction of new track/no additional rail capacity) within Ashland 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

All rail improvements are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5A: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which would require closure 

of the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts 

(Figure 2-28 A & B)

 5A–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-13 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-9: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5B and 5B–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would maintain two existing tracks and construct one additional track east of the existing tracks within Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

 New right-of-way would be required for rail improvements within the town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the town 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia), with different station locations: 

 5B: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

2-30 A & B)

 5B–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Both alternatives include the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and 

Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Table 2-10: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5C and 5C–Ashcake 

TRACK 

Both alternatives would construct a two-track bypass, west of Ashland, to serve all freight rail as well as all Interstate 

Corridor (SEHSR) and Amtrak Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), Long Distance, and Auto Train passenger trains 

 New right-of-way would be required on bypass alignment 

Both alternatives would maintain the existing two-track corridor through town 

 No additional right-of-way needed in town 

Both alternatives would construct one additional track, with some track shifts to improve speed, north and south of the 

bypass 

 Rail improvements north and south of the town are generally within existing right-of-way 

STATIONS 

Both alternatives would provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service at different station locations: 

 5C: Would maintain existing station location with improvements, including 850-foot platforms, which requires closure of 

the existing roadway crossing at College Avenue; use of shorter, 350-foot platforms is an option to minimize impacts (Figure 

2-28 A & B) 

 5C–Ashcake: Would close the existing station location and relocate service to a new the station south of Ashcake Road 

(Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

All new roadway crossings on the bypass would be grade-separated 

All existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-14 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-11: Ashland Area Build Alternatives: 5D–Ashcake 

TRACK 

One additional main line track, with centering of all main line tracks on the existing alignment, would be constructed through 

the entire area, which generally requires additional railroad right-of-way, especially within the town of Ashland 

 The addition of a third track through town would require closure of a short portion of Railroad Avenue/Center Street 

STATIONS 

This rail alignment would require removal of the existing station building and platforms, resulting in the relocation of service 

to a new station south of Ashcake Road, to provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) service (Figure 2-29)

CROSSINGS 

Includes the grade separation of two existing at-grade roadway crossings in Ashland: West Vaughan Road and Ashcake Road 

All other existing public roadway crossings within town would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

2.2.2.6 Build Alternatives in Area 6: Richmond 

There are eight Build Alternatives in Area 6. All Build Alternatives generally add one main track 

(though they vary whether they use the A-Line or S-Line through the city), and they vary in whether 

they consolidate passenger train service to a single station (including two potential new stations at 

Boulevard Station or Broad Street Station) or provide combinations of service at two stations. There 

are no changes to CSXT freight service routes due to proposed changes to passenger train routes as 

part of the DC2RVA Project. The Amtrak Auto Train does not stop in Richmond. 

Five of the Richmond area Build Alternatives are single-station alternatives, which are presented 

in Table 2-12 through Table 2-16. The single station alternatives are Build Alternative 6A, 6B–ALine, 6B–S-Line, 6C, and 6D, which are shown in Figure 2-16, Figure 2-17, Figure 2-18, Figure 2-

19, and Figure 2-20, respectively. All single-station alternatives consolidate Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service, as well as all Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate 

Corridor (Carolinian), and Northeast Regional (Virginia) service, to one station. 

Three of the Richmond area Build Alternatives are two-station alternatives, which are presented 

in Table 2-17 through Table 2-19. All two station alternatives use the existing Staples Mill Road 

and Main Street Stations. The two station Build Alternatives are Build Alternatives 6E, 6F, and 

6G, which are shown in Figure 2-21, Figure 2-22, and Figure 2-23, respectively. All two-station 

alternatives provide Northeast Regional (SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service to at 

least one station, and serves Amtrak Long Distance, Interstate Corridor (Carolinian), and 

Northeast Regional (Virginia) to one or both stations. 

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with track shifts 

to improve speed

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street Station would be closed to passenger rail service, and all service consolidated at Staples Mill Road Station 

Staples Mill Road Station would be improved and becomes the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-31)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-15 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-12: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6A (Staples Mill Road Station Only) 

 Does not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR)service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-13: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–A-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

One of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

Elevated loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and consolidated 

to a new station at Boulevard Road 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-32) 

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-14: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6B–S-Line (Boulevard Station Only) 

TRACK 

Second of two Boulevard Station-Only alternatives in Area 6 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service and all service relocated and 

consolidated to a new station at Boulevard Road 

New Boulevard Road Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-32)

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR)service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate four at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-16 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-15: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6C (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

At-grade loop track at new station 

STATIONS 

Existing Main Street and Staples Mill Road stations would be closed to passenger rail service 

New Broad Street Station would be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-33)

 May not meet FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Station location would require two new at-grade crossings on West Leigh Street adjacent to proposed station, which would 

require a variance from state code and/or coordination with VDOT 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-16: Richmond Single Station Build Alternative: 6D (Broad Street Station Only) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Existing Staples Mill Road Station would be closed to passenger rail service and all service consolidated at Main Street Station 

Main Street Station would be improved and be the one passenger rail station to serve Richmond (Figure 2-34)

 Meets FRA requirement for CBD location 

 Would be served by all passenger trains, including new proposed Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) service 

 Potential increases in passenger and freight delay may occur as proximity to I-95 prevents adding sufficient station platforms 

/ track on the west side of the station 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and A-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational. All passenger trains would serve Staples Mill Road Station; trains to and 

from Newport News would additionally serve Main Street Station. 

 Staples Mill Road Station would be expanded and would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including 

new proposed Northeast Regional (SEHSR) to Norfolk and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) trains (Figure 2-35)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-17 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 2-17: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6E (Split Service) 

 Main Street Station would have platform and parking improvements and would be served by all Northeast Regional (SEHSR 

and Virginia) passenger trains to Newport News (Figure 2-36)

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close four existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-18: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6F (Full Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and S-Line (through Richmond), with 

track shifts to improve speed 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with all passenger trains serving both stations. 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 2-37 and Figure 2-38) 

 Both stations would be served by all passenger trains that stop in Richmond, including new proposed Northeast Regional 

(SEHSR) and Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) service 

Locating all passenger train service (except Auto Train, which does not stop in Richmond) to S-Line, separate from CSXT’s 

principal freight corridor through Richmond (the A-Line), would reduce rail congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 

Table 2-19: Richmond Two Station Build Alternative: 6G (Shared Service) 

TRACK 

One main track would be added along portions of existing RF&P (north of Richmond) and the S-Line (through Richmond), 

with track shifts to improve speed 

 The A-Line is used for service but does not require proposed track 

STATIONS 

Both existing stations would remain operational, with both stations being served by all new proposed SEHSR service and 

other Amtrak passenger train services to either one or both stations. 

 Both stations would be improved, including new/modified station buildings, platforms, and parking (Figure 2-39 and Figure 2-40)

 Both stations would be served by all Interstate Corridor (SEHSR) and Northeast Regional (SEHSR and Virginia) trains 

 Long Distance (Amtrak) and Interstate Corridor (Carolinian) would serve Staples Mill Station only 

Freight and passenger rail service operating together on the A-Line, CSXT’s principal freight corridor, would increase rail 

congestion/delay 

CROSSINGS 

Close five existing public roadway crossings; grade separate three at-grade roadway crossings 

All other public roadway crossings would remain at-grade, with safety improvements 

Major waterway crossing of James River 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-18 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-3: Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-19 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-4: Build Alternative 2A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-20 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-5: Build Alternative 3A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-21 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-6: Build Alternative 3B 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-22 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-7: Build Alternative 3C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-23 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-8: Build Alternative 4A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-24 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-9: Build Alternative 5A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-25 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-10: Build Alternative 5A–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-26 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-11: Build Alternative 5B 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-27 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-12: Build Alternative 5B–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-28 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-13: Build Alternative 5C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-29 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-14: Build Alternative 5C–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-30 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-15: Build Alternative 5D–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-31 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-16: Build Alternative 6A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-32 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-17: Build Alternative 6B–A-Line 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-33 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-18: Build Alternative 6B–S-Line 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-34 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-19: Build Alternative 6C 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-35 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-20: Build Alternative 6D 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-36 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-21: Build Alternative 6E 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-37 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-22: Build Alternative 6F 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-38 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 2-23: Build Alternative 6G 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-39 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-24: Alexandria Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-40 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-25: Woodbridge Station Improvements for Build Alternative 2A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-41 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-26: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 3A and 3C
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-42 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-27: Fredericksburg Station Improvements for Build Alternative 3B
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-43 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-28A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/850-Foot Platforms) 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-44 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-28B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A and 5C (Two-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-45 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-29: Ashcake Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 5A–Ashcake, 5B–Ashcake, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-46 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-30A: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/850-Foot Platforms) 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-47 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-30B: Ashland Station Improvements for Build Alternative 5B (Three-Track/350-Foot Platforms)
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-48 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-31: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6A 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-49 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-32: Boulevard Station Improvements for Build Alternatives 6B–A-Line and 6B–S-Line
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-50 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-33: Broad Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6C
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-51 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-34: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6D
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-52 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-35: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-53 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-36: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6E
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-54 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-37: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-55 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-38: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6F
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-56 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-39: Staples Mill Road Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G 
PROJECT OVERVIEW 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 2-57 Natural Resources Technical Report Figure 2-40: Main Street Station Improvements for Build Alternative 6G
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

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. 

3.1.1 Methods 

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

401 of the 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) 

3 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-2 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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). 

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (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 Appendices A through 

F. Lengths of streams and areas of wetlands within the study corridor were calculated using GIS. 

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, including: 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Norfolk and Baltimore Districts 

 United States Department of Interior, National Park Service (NPS) 

 United States Department of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

 United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service 

 United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services 

 United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), 

Fifth Coast Guard District 

 United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, Region III 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III 

 Virginia Department of Forestry 

 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) 

 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

 Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) 

 Virginia Port Authority 

 Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-3 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Lengths of streams and areas of wetlands along the DC2RVA corridor were calculated using GIS. 

This report uses an abbreviated version of the classification system developed by the USFWS, 

also known as the Cowardin System (Cowardin et. al, 1979), for identifying wetlands. Wetlands 

found in the study area include palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS), and 

palustrine forested (PFO) systems. These are freshwater systems dominated by emergent 

herbaceous plants (plants with no woody stem present from year to year), shrubs, and trees or 

forest. 

3.1.2 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, in addition to many wetland and stream resources: 

 Middle Potomac−Anacostia−Occoquan (HUC 02070010); 

 Lower Potomac River (HUC 02070011) 

 Lower Rappahannock (HUC 02080104) 

 Mattaponi (HUC 02080105) 

 Pamunkey (HUC 02080106) 

 Middle James−Willis (HUC 02080205) 

 Lower James (HUC 02080206) 

Figure 3-1 shows these watersheds. 

Middle Potomac−Anacostia−Occoquan Watershed (HUC 02070010) 

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 (HUC 02070011) 

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). 

Lower Rappahannock Watershed (HUC 02080104) 

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. 

 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-4 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-1: Watershed Boundaries 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-5 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Mattaponi Watershed (HUC 02080105) 

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 (HUC 02080106) 

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 about 4 percent is developed or barren. 

Middle James−Willis Watershed (HUC 02080205) 

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 (HUC 02080206) 

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. 

3.1.3 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 3-2), including approximately 204,563 linear feet, and 632 acres 

of surface waters, including rivers and streams (Table 3-1). Most of the surface waters are small 

perennial or intermittent streams. Eight of the waters are classified as navigable. 

Occoquan River 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-6 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-2: Surface Waters and Wetlands Indicating Designated Waterways 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-7 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-8 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-9 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-10 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-11 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-12 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-1: Surface Waters, Rivers, And Streams 

Alternative 

Area 

Major Water Bodies1 Number of 

Streams 

Delineated 

Linear Feet 

in Study 

Area2

Acres 

Surveyed 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long 

Bridge 

Approach)

Roaches Run 1 214 * 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur)) 

- Roaches Run 

- Four Mile Run 

- Timber Branch (piped underground) 

- Taylor Run 

- Cameron Run 

- Long Branch 

- Accotink Creek 

- Pohick Creek 

- Giles Run 

- Occoquan River** 

- Marumsco Creek 

- Marumsco Acres Creek/Lake 

- Farm Creek 

- Neabsco Creek** 

- Powells Creek** 

- Boars Creek 

- Aquia Creek** 

- Accokeek Creek 

- Potomac Creek 

- Claiborne Run 

112 49,147 382 

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 21 

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 12 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I295) 

- South Anna River

- Falling Creek 

- Stony Run 

- Chickahominy River 

45 31,129 4 

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 

69 51,561 213 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-13 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-1: Surface Waters, Rivers, And Streams 

Alternative 

Area 

Major Water Bodies1 Number of 

Streams 

Delineated 

Linear Feet 

in Study 

Area2

Acres 

Surveyed 

- James River** 

- Kingsland Creek 

- Proctors Creek 

- Reedy Creek 

- Broad Rock Creek 

Source: Field Surveys, 2015-2016. 

Notes: *Field survey access restricted. **Listed as navigable by USACE and/or USCG. 

1. Major water bodies are listed. Statistics for number of streams, linear feet, and acres include unnamed tributaries. 

2. Lengthwise measurement of streams and rivers (i.e., the width of the study area across larger river crossings) 

3.1.4 Designated Waters 

Table 3-2 identifies special status streams and other special waterway designations in the 

DC2RVA corridor. Figure 3-2 shows these designated waters. 

Table 3-2: 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, U.S. Forest 

Service 

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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-14 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-2: Special Stream Designations 

DESIGNATION ORGANIZATION WATER BODY ALTERNATIVE AREA 

Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation 

Areas 

VDCR The study area includes 1,760 acres of

Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection 

Areas (RPA). The remainder of the 

land located within the study location 

is considered to be Resource 

Management Area (RMA). 

All 

Virginia Coastal 

Zone Management 

Areas 

Virginia DEQ The entire project 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. 

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. 

3.1.4.1 Navigable Waters 

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

navigable:

 Occoquan River 

 Neabsco Creek 

 Powells Creek 

 Aquia Creek 

 Rappahannock River 

 Hazel Run 

 Mattaponi River 

 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 and 

USACE. Figure 3-2 identifies the navigable waters. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-15 Natural Resources Technical Report 

3.1.4.2 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 3-3 and Figure 3-2). 

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

RIVER DESIGNATED REACH ALTERNATIVE AREA STATUS 

Occoquan River Entire River Northern Virginia Potential Components—Identified as 

being 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 

being worthy of future study 

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

being worthy of future study 

James River West limits of Richmond to 

Orleans Street (extended) 

Richmond Scenic River—Legislatively designated 

component 

Source: VDCR, 2011. 

3.1.4.3 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 3-4 lists the resources within the DC2RVA 

corridor that are listed on the NRI. 

Table 3-4: 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. 

3.1.4.4 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-16 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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

comprehensive plans. A state-local cooperative program administered by DEQ's Water Division 

and 84 localities regulates activities in Chesapeake Bay Resource Management Areas and 

Resource Protection Areas (RPA) in Tidewater, Virginia. 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. 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). 

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 (Table 3-5). 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. 

Table 3-5: DC2RVA Resource Protection Areas 

AREA ACRES PERCENT OF THE TOTAL STUDY 

AREA 

1. Arlington 11 1% 

2. Northern Virginia 415 24% 

3. Fredericksburg 356 20% 

4. Central Virginia 384 22% 

5. Ashland 237 13% 

6. Richmond 357 20% 

Total 1,760 100% 

3.1.4.5 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-17 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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 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 3-3). 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 (Table 3-6). 

Figure 3-3: Virginia’s Coastal Zone 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-18 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-6: Virginia Coastal Zone Enforceable Regulatory Programs 

REGULATORY 

PROGRAM 

RESOURCE VIRGINIA CODE REGULATORY 

AGENCY 

Fisheries 

Management 

Conservation and enhancement of finfish and 

shellfish 

28.2‐200 to 28.2‐713 

29.1‐100 to 29.1‐570 

VMRC 

VDGIF 

Subaqueous 

Lands 

Management 

Establishes conditions for granting or denying 

permits to use State owned bottomlands 

28.2‐1200 to 28.2‐1213 VMRC 

Wetlands 

Management 

Preserve wetlands and prevent their 

despoliation 

28.2‐1301 to 28.21320 

621‐44.15:5 

VMRC 

Virginia DEQ 

Dunes 

Management 

Prevent destruction or alteration of primary 

dunes 

28.2‐1400 to 28.2‐1420 VMRC 

Non‐point 

Source Pollution 

Reduce soil erosion and decrease inputs of 

chemicals and sediments 

10.1‐560 et seq. VDCR

Point Source 

Pollution 

Control 

Regulates discharges into State waters through 

Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

and Virginia Pollution Abatement permits 

62.1‐44.15 Virginia DEQ 

Shoreline 

Sanitation 

Septic tank placement 32.1‐164 to 32.1‐165 Dept. of

Health 

Air Pollution Attainment and maintenance of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

10‐1.1300 to 10.1‐1320 Air Pollution Control 

Board 

Coastal Lands 

Management 

Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area 

cooperative program 

10.1‐2100 to 10.1‐2114 

9 VAS 10‐20 et seq.

VDCR

3.1.5 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. 

Executive Order 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 the USACE (33 CFR 328.3[b]) and the 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), cattails (Typha latifolia and angustifolia), rice cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), 

deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-19 Natural Resources Technical Report 

rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), willow oak (Quercus phellos), loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda), and river birch (Betula nigra). 

A small portion of the wetlands in the northern section of the alignment occur along tidal 

waterways and are tidally-influenced. Tidally influenced wetlands can provide unique habitat 

due to fluctuating water levels and varying salinities. These areas provide a difficult environment 

for most plants; however, some have adapted. Tidal wetlands offer important habitat to 

migratory waterfowl, provide nurseries for aquatic species of the Chesapeake Bay, are important 

for shoreline stabilization, and serve as a filter removing excess nutrients and pollutants from 

connected waters. The acreage of tidally-affected wetlands in the DC2RVA corridor is very small 

(approximately 23.2 acres), and the tidally-affected wetlands adjacent to the railway had low 

overall functional values.

DRPT used an abbreviated version of the classification system developed by the 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 3-7 and Figure 3-2). Most wetlands adjacent to the 

existing rail have a PEM component because during railroad maintenance, herbicides are often 

applied or trees are removed to ensure that proper clearances for railroad vehicles are maintained. 

If the herbicides and mechanical treatments were ceased there would be natural succession to 

PFO. 

Table 3-7: 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. 

3.1.6 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-20 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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.” 

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 3-4. 

Mapped floodplains include those associated with 51 waterways in the study area as listed below. 

Table 3-8 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. 

 Taylor Run 

 Backlick Run 

 Cameron Run 

 Long Branch 

 Farm Creek 

 Marumsco Creek 

 Giles Run 

 Little Creek 

 Tank Creek 

 Boars Creek 

 Accokeek Creek 

 Potomac Creek 

 Claiborne Run 

 Hazel Run 

 Deep Run 

 Massaponax Creek 

 Campbell Creek 

 Meadow Creek 

 Mill Run 

 Polecat Creek 

 Reedy Creek 

 Long Creek 

 Bull Run 

 Mechumps Creek 

 Falling Creek 

 Stony Run 

 Hungary Creek 

 North Run

 Upham Brook 

 Jordans Branch 

 Rocky Branch 

 Horsepen Branch 

 Rocky Branch 

 Cannon Branch 

 Shockoe Creek 

 Goode Creek 

 Kingsland Creek 

 Grindall Creek 

 Proctors Creek 

 Broad Rock Creek 

 Cannon Branch 

 Kingsland Creek 

 Great Branch 

 Reedy Creek 

 Broad Rock Creek 

 Almond Creek 

 Little Falls Run 

 Snow Creek 

 White Oak Run 

 Falling Creek 

 Stony Run 

 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-21 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-4: Floodplains and Impaired Waters 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-22 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-23 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-8: 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% 

3.1.7 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 the 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 (SAV 

– Submerged Aquatic Vegetation, Open Water – for aquatic life, Migration – fish spawning and 

nursery, deep-water – aquatic life). 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 (Table 3-9). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-24 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-9: 303(d) Assessed Water Bodies (Water Quality) 

WATER BODY AREA USES 

SUPPORTED1 

USES 

IMPAIRED1

IMPAIRMENT 

Four Mile Run Northern Virginia SAV2

Wildlife 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2

Recreation 

Chlordane, 

Escherichia coli, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 

Backlick Run Northern Virginia Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Long Branch Northern Virginia Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Accotink Creek Northern Virginia Wildlife Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Escherichia coli, PCB in 

Fish Tissue 

Pohick Creek Northern Virginia Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Giles Run Northern Virginia Wildlife Recreation BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Escherichia coli, PCB 

in Water Column 

Occoquan River Northern Virginia SAV2

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 

Marumsco Creek Northern Virginia Aquatic Life Recreation Escherichia coli 

Neabsco Bay Northern Virginia SAV2

Wildlife 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 

Powells Creek Northern Virginia SAV2 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2

Benzo[k]fluoranthene, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 

Powells Creek (confluence 

with Potomac) 

Northern Virginia SAV2 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2

Benzo[k]fluoranthene, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 

Quantico Creek Northern Virginia Recreation 

SAV2 

Wildlife

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-25 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-9: 303(d) Assessed Water Bodies (Water Quality) 

WATER BODY AREA USES 

SUPPORTED1 

USES 

IMPAIRED1

IMPAIRMENT 

Little Creek Northern Virginia Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

None Listed N/A 

Potomac River Northern Virginia Open Water2 

SAV2 

Aquatic Life 

Migration2 - I 

Fish Consumption PCB in Fish Tissue 

Chopawamsic Creek Northern Virginia Open Water2 

SAV2

Wildlife 

Aquatic Life 

Migration2 - I 

Fish Consumption PCB in Fish Tissue 

Unnamed tributary to 

Potomac River 

Northern Virginia Wildlife Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, pH 

Aquia Creek Northern Virginia Aquatic Life 

Open Water2 

Recreation

SAV2

Wildlife 

Migration2 - I 

Fish Consumption PCB in Fish Tissue 

Accokeek Creek Northern Virginia Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Potomac Creek Northern Virginia Aquatic Life Recreation Escherichia coli 

Claiborne Run Northern 

Virginia, 

Fredericksburg 

Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, PCB in 

Fish Tissue 

Rappahannock River Fredericksburg SAV2

Wildlife 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Open Water2 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

PCB in Fish Tissue 

Hazel Run Fredericksburg Wildlife Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Escherichia coli, PCB in 

Fish Tissue 

Little Falls Run Fredericksburg Aquatic Life - I None Listed N/A 

Massaponax Creek Fredericksburg Wildlife Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, pH 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-26 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-9: 303(d) Assessed Water Bodies (Water Quality) 

WATER BODY AREA USES 

SUPPORTED1 

USES 

IMPAIRED1

IMPAIRMENT 

Mattaponi River Central Virginia Aquatic Life 

Recreation

Wildlife 

None Listed N/A 

Mattaponi River Central Virginia Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Polecat Creek Central Virginia Fish Consumption

Recreation

Wildlife 

Aquatic Life BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Oxygen, Dissolved 

Reedy Creek Central Virginia Wildlife Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Escherichia coli, 

Mercury in Fish 

Tissue 

Unnamed tributary to North 

Anna River 

Central Virginia Public Water Supply 

Wildlife 

Fish Consumption - I 

Aquatic Life pH 

Little River Central Virginia Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

South Anna River Ashland Aquatic Life Recreation Escherichia coli 

Mechumps Creek Ashland None listed Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

pH 

Stony Run and Tributaries Ashland Fish Consumption Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, 

Dissolved Oxygen, 

pH 

Unsegmented rivers in G05 

(Unnamed tributary to 

Chickahominy) 

Ashland Fish Consumption None Listed N/A 

Chickahominy River Ashland Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

North Run Richmond Fish Consumption Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Escherichia coli, pH 

Upham Brook Tributaries Richmond Fish Consumption 

Aquatic Life - I 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Upham Brook Richmond Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Jordan Branch Richmond Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Wildlife 

Recreation Escherichia coli 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-27 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-9: 303(d) Assessed Water Bodies (Water Quality) 

WATER BODY AREA USES 

SUPPORTED1 

USES 

IMPAIRED1

IMPAIRMENT 

Unsegmented rivers in G01 

(Unnamed tributary to James 

River) 

Richmond Fish Consumption None Listed N/A 

James River Richmond Wildlife 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

SAV2

Chlorophyll-a, 

Escherichia coli, 

Estuarine 

Bioassessments, PCB 

in Fish Tissue, Aquatic 

Plants (Macrophytes) 

Manchester Canal (aka 

Walker Creek) 

Richmond Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption - I 

Wildlife - I 

Recreation Escherichia coli 

Goode Creek Richmond Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, PCB in 

Water Column 

XBG–Unnamed tributary to 

Goode Creek 

Richmond Fish Consumption 

Aquatic Life - I 

Wildlife - I 

None Listed N/A 

Broad Rock Creek Richmond Fish Consumption Recreation Escherichia coli 

Unsegmented rivers in 

G01(Unnamed tributaries to 

Goode Creek) 

Richmond Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Wildlife - I 

Recreation Escherichia coli

Grindall Creek Richmond Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Wildlife 

None Listed N/A 

Unsegmented estuaries in 

G01 (Falling Creek) 

Richmond Fish Consumption 

Open Water2 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

SAV2

Aquatic Plants 

(Macrophytes) 

XSZ - James River, UT (aka 

No Name Creek) 

Richmond Fish Consumption Recreation Escherichia coli 

Kingsland Creek Richmond Fish Consumption 

Wildlife - I 

Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, pH 

Unsegmented rivers in G01 

(Unnamed tributary to 

Kingsland Creek) 

Richmond Fish Consumption None Listed N/A 

Proctors Creek Richmond Fish Consumption 

Wildlife 

Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

BenthicMacroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments, 

Escherichia coli

Reedy Creek Richmond None listed Aquatic Life 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, 

Oxygen, Dissolved 

XCK–Unnamed tributary to 

Powhite Creek 

Richmond Aquatic Life Recreation Escherichia coli 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-28 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-9: 303(d) Assessed Water Bodies (Water Quality) 

WATER BODY AREA USES 

SUPPORTED1 

USES 

IMPAIRED1

IMPAIRMENT 

Falling Creek Richmond Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

Wildlife 

None Listed N/A 

Unsegmented rivers in G01 

(Unnamed tributary to James 

River) 

Richmond Fish Consumption None Listed N/A 

Gillies Creek Richmond Wildlife Aquatic Life 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, pH, 

PCB in Water 

Column 

Unsegmented estuaries in 

G01 (Gillies Creek) 

Richmond Fish Consumption 

Open Water2 

Migration2 - I 

Aquatic Life 

SAV2

Aquatic Plants 

(Macrophytes) 

Unsegmented rivers in G01 

(Unnamed tributary to 

Almond Creek) 

Richmond Fish Consumption None Listed N/A 

Almond Creek Richmond Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Fish Consumption 

Recreation 

Escherichia coli, PCB in 

Water Column 

XVO–Unnamed tributary to 

Almond Creek 

Richmond Fish Consumption Aquatic Life pH 

XVP–Unnamed tributary to 

Almond Creek 

Richmond Fish Consumption Aquatic Life 

Wildlife 

Copper, Zinc, pH 

Source: VDEQ, 2015. 

Notes: 1. Not all uses are investigated at each water body; 2. additional subcategories adopted for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries 

I = Insufficient Information 

3.1.8 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-29 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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. Private wells serving fewer than 

25 individuals are not regulated by the SDWA (EPA, 2014). 

CEDAR GIS mapping from VDOT and mapping of wells from the 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 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 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 

3-5). 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). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-30 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-5: EcoRegions 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-31 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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 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). 

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. 

3.2.1 Methods 

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 Appendices A through F. 

Table 3-10 summarizes the general habitat types along the Project in a 500-foot-wide study area. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-32 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-10: 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% 

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 

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. 

3.2.2 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 publicly or privately owned. Figure 3-6 shows these communities. 

3.2.2.1 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 U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 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. 

 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-33 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-6: Habitat & Natural Communities 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-34 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-35 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary. This sanctuary a 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. 

3.2.2.2 State Wildlife Lands 

This network of diverse and strategically located habitats is protected by Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 

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. 

3.2.2.3 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-36 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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. 

3.2.2.4 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 

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. 

3.2.2.5 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-37 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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 

Conservation Sites and SCUs are listed in Table 3-11. 

Table 3-11: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas 

Conservation 

Site/SCU 

Alternative 

Area/Location 

VDCR 

Biodiversity 

Ranking* 

Description 

Pohick Seeps 

Conservation Site 

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 just east of the fall line in 

Maryland and Northern Virginia 

Brent Marsh 

Conservation Site 

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 

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 

Lower Aquia Creek 

Conservation Site 

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 Northern Virginia and 

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 Fredericksburg 

Route 1 to Route 2, 

crossed by the tracks 

B3 

High significance 

Aquatic natural community 

Little Falls Run SCU Fredericksburg 

East of the existing tracks; 

however, does not drain 

the existing track vicinity 

B4 

Moderate 

significance 

Aquatic natural community 

South Fredericksburg 

Conservation Site 

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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-38 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-11: Natural Heritage Conservation Areas 

Conservation 

Site/SCU 

Alternative 

Area/Location 

VDCR 

Biodiversity 

Ranking* 

Description 

White Oak Run SCU Fredericksburg 

Crossed by the proposed 

bypass 

B3 

High significance 

Snow Creek Ravine 

Conservation Site 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

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, 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-39 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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 3-12 lists the wildlife corridors identified within 

the DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 3-12: Wildlife Corridors 

Corridor Alternative 

Area 

Corridor Description 

Marine Corps Base 

Quantico (MCBQ) to 

Widewater State Park 

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 

Fredericksburg The corridor is a minimum of 2,000 feet wide and connects C5 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 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 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 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 

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. 

3.2.3 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-40 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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 3-13 lists the invasive species noted 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 3-13: 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 

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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-41 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-13: Invasive Species Observed in the Study Area 

Scientific Name Common Name Invasiveness Rank 

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. 

3.2.4 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. 

3.2.4.1 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 in the 

study area (Table 3-14); no other waterbird colonies are known to be present. 

Table 3-14: Colonial Waterbird Colonies 

Location Distance from 

Existing Tracks 

Closest 

Area 

Species Colony ID Year 

Observed 

South of Mason Neck Park on 

Occoquan Bay 

~ 3 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

210,199.00 2003 

South of Mason Neck Park on 

Occoquan Bay 

< 3 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

201,198.00 2003 

South of Mason Neck Park on 

Occoquan Bay 

< 3 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

211,455.00 1984 

South side of Chopawamsic Creek 

upstream of tracks 

~2.5 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

210,513.00 2003 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-42 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-14: Colonial Waterbird Colonies 

Location Distance from 

Existing Tracks 

Closest 

Area 

Species Colony ID Year 

Observed 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, 

north side of creek 

~1.25 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

211,358.00 1993 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, 

north side of creek 

~ 1.3 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

210,514.00 2003 

Potomac Creek downstream of tracks, 

south side of creek 

~2.2 miles Northern 

Virginia 

Great Blue 

Heron 

211,751.00 1988 

East of James river on the north side 

between Cornelius Creek and Coles 

Run (Henrico County) 

~1.3 miles Richmond Great Blue 

Heron 

210,229.00 2003 

Source: CEDAR-VDGIF, 2014. 

3.2.4.2 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. 

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 (Figure 3-7), 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). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-43 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-7: North American Flyways 

3.2.5 Aquatic and Marine Life 

3.2.5.1 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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-44 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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 (Figure 3-8). Table 3-15 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). 

 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. 

 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-45 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-8: Anadromous Fish Waters Potentially Impacted 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-46 Natural Resources Technical Report 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-47 Natural Resources Technical Report 

 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. 

Table 3-15: 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 Rd 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch Northern 

Virginia 

Cameron Run CSX railroad crossing in Alexandria City Potential anadromous fish use waters Northern 

Virginia 

Accotink Creek Road crossing 2,600 feet above Field 

Lark Branch 

Alewife, Yellow Perch 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 Northern 

Virginia 

Occoquan River Lower Occoquan Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Northern 

Virginia 

Neabsco Creek Approximately 2,300 feet below Route 1 Striped Bass Northern 

Virginia 

Powells Creek Approximately 5,600 feet below Route 1 Striped Bass, Yellow Perch Northern 

Virginia 

Potomac River Great Falls Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Northern 

Virginia 

Quantico Creek No upstream boundary listed Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Northern 

Virginia 

Chopawamsic 

Creek 

Approximately 9,000 feet below Route 1 Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch Northern 

Virginia 

Aquia Creek Aquia Creek Dam, confluence with 

Beaverdam Run 

American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Northern 

Virginia 

Claiborne Run Raised culvert at Route 218 Potential anadromous fish use waters Fredericksburg 

Rappahannock 

River 

Embrey Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

Fredericksburg 

Hazel Run Business U.S. Route 1/Route 208 Alewife, Blueback Herring Fredericksburg 

Mattaponi River Route 301 American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Central Virginia 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-48 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-15: Confirmed and Potential Anadromous Fish Use Waters 

Water Upstream Boundary Confirmed Species Alternative 

Area 

North Anna 

River 

Approximately 2.5 miles above Route 1 

at ‘fall hole’ 

American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow 

Perch 

Central Virginia 

Little River Route 685 crossing Yellow Perch Central Virginia 

South Anna 

River 

Ashland Mill Dam Alewife, American Shad, Blueback 

Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass 

Ashland 

James River Boshers Passage American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

Richmond 

Falling Creek Falling Creek Reservoir Dam Potential anadromous fish use waters Richmond 

Source: CEDAR-VDGIF, 2014. 

3.2.5.2 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 3-9. 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 3-16). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-49 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 3-9: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-50 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-16: 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 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. 

3.2.6 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. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services is the regulatory authority for the conservation and preservation of threatened and 

endangered plant and insect species. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has legal 

authority for preservation of vertebrate and other invertebrate endangered and threatened 

species. The Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage produces 

an inventory of the Commonwealth's natural resources, and maintains a database of ecologically 

significant sights. 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. 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-51 Natural Resources Technical Report 

3.2.6.1 Methods 

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. 

3.2.6.2 Existing Conditions 

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 

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 3-17 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 3-17: Federal and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that may occur 

within the Vicinity of the Study Area 

Species / 

Resource Name RTE 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 Y 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) FE Y Y 

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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-52 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-17: Federal and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species that may occur 

within the Vicinity of the Study Area 

Species / 

Resource Name RTE 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) 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) FT/SE Y Y 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) FT/SE Y Y 

Appalachian Springsnail 

(Fontigens bottimeri) SE Y Y 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) ST Y 

Brook Floater

(Alasmidonta varicosa) SE Y 

Green Floater

(Lasmigona subviridis) ST Y Y Y 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis) ST Y Y 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) ST Y Y 

Tiger Salamander

(Ambystoma tigrinum) SE Y Y 

Virginia Piedmont Water 

Boatman (Sigara depressa) SE Y Y 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) ST Y 

** River bulrush 

(Bolboschoenus fluviatilis) S2 Y 

Critical Habitat -- 

No Critical Habitat is Present 

Project does not occur within Bland, Lee, Scott, Smyth, Russell, Tazewell, 

Washington, Wise, or Wythe counties in Virginia. 

Source: USFWS, 2015 & 2016.

* FE=Federal Endangered; PFE=Proposed Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; 

S2=Imperiled (not listed state threatened or endangered) 

**State-listed species identified during field surveys 

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).

Federally Endangered (FE) 

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 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-53 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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, 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. 

Federally Threatened (FT) 

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 North Carolina, sensitive joint-vetch 

has been found in a few ditches and wet fields, but these are not considered stable populations. 

Associated species include Zizania aquatica, Petlandra virginica, Pontederia cordata, Bidens laevis, 

Polygonum arifolium, P. saggitatum, and Leersia oryzoides (NatureServe, 2014). 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 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-54 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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). Many professionals have noted a prevalence of 

decaying logs and a well-developed detritus layer on the forest floor, although the exact 

mechanisms associated with this affinity is not understood (Ware, 1991). During the field surveys, 

DRPT utilized previous experience with approximately 10 known small whorled pogonia sites, 

six of which were in Virginia, to supplement the published data of the species and its likely 

habitat preference. The list of certain indicator species was slightly modified/expanded based on 

previous survey experience. Potential habitat was noted in several locations in the Northern 

Virginia area and the Fredericksburg area while conducting field surveys for natural resources, 

and specific mileposts for likely small whorled pogonia habitat are presented below in Section 

4.2.3 and the associated summary tables.

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 lthreatened, 

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). 

State Endangered (SE) 

Appalachian springsnail (Fontigens bottimeri) is a freshwater mussel found under small stones in 

riffle areas of caves. They can be found anywhere from the entrance of caves, to very deep 

underground. This species is known to occur in the Potomac River Basin in the District of 

Columbia and Maryland and the Shenandoah River basin in northwest Virginia (NatureServe, 

2014). 

The brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) is a medium sized (approximately 3 inches) freshwater 

mussel found in the gravel and sandy shoals of clean perennial creeks and small rivers. It is more 

commonly found in the upper portions of large watersheds with intact upland forest 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-55 Natural Resources Technical Report 

(NatureServe, 2014). This species is not federally listed in the United States; however, it is listed 

as endangered in Virginia and vulnerable globally. 

The tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) is the largest mole salamander in Virginia reaching a 

maximum total length of 13 to 14 inches. It is a robust species with a broad head and relatively 

small eyes. The back is dark brown to black with olive-yellow to brownish-yellow spots or 

blotches on the back, sides, and belly. The blotches continue laterally and blend into the oliveyellow center creating a jagged-edged lateral line. This species breeds from December to February 

in temporary or permanent aquatic habitats, including ditches, vernal ponds, and rarely, sluggish 

streams. Mating activities reach a peak during rain, and the adults remain in the breeding pond 

for about three weeks. The eggs average 52 per mass. The adults are terrestrial, and the larvae are 

aquatic. Larvae consume a variety of aquatic invertebrates. Adults are voracious predators of 

both terrestrial and aquatic insects and occasionally eggs or young of amphibians and reptiles. 

Four Virginia sites are known—two from York and Mathews Counties, one from Hanover 

County, and one from Augusta County. The Hanover County site was known to have a large fish 

population and is probably extirpated. Therefore, this species can be considered extant in only 

two sites in Virginia. Breeding habitats include limestone sinkhole ponds and coastal plain vernal 

pools associated with wetlands. The terrestrial habitat may be bottomland hardwood forest, 

conifer forests, or open fields. In Virginia this species is listed as endangered (VDGIF, 2015) 

The Virginia Piedmont water boatman (Sigara depressa) is a freshwater insect that lives in ponds 

streams and lakes with aquatic plants. It is approximately 1⁄2-inch long with two oar-shaped legs 

that help it to swim and occasionally leap out of the water. They are mostly herbivores. This 

species is listed as endangered in Virginia and critically imperiled globally. The Virginia 

Piedmont water boatman is historically known to occur in only 3 sites in northeastern Virginia 

and is thought to have been eliminated from all but the Rivanna watershed in Fluvanna County 

(NatureServe, 2014). It is only known or likely to occur in the Ballinger Creek (JR21) subwatershed 

in Virginia (VDGIF, 2014b). 

State Threatened (ST) 

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 

seepages along the coastal plain (NatureServe, 2014). New Jersey rush is not federally listed; 

however, it is state threatened and globally ranked as “imperiled.” 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-56 Natural Resources Technical Report 

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). 

Although not listed in database searches for the project area, river bulrush (Bolboschoenus 

fluviatilis), a species ranked S2 (imperiled), was identified in a cattail marsh wetland (02-WTL-46) 

in the Neabsco Creek embayment in the Northern Virginia area by a botanist during the natural 

resources field surveys (Parsons, 2016). The species can be found in freshwater tidal marshes in 

the Coastal Plain and riverside gravel bars in the mountains. It is known from intertidal zones on 

the Potomac, Rappahannock, Piankatank, and James rivers (VBA, 2016). River bulrush is typically 

found in marshes, openings in swamps, edges of ponds and streams, fresh tidal marshes, and 

inland salt marshes and ponds. It is often in large extensive marshes and mostly not associated 

with saline or brackish water, and it sometimes occurs in large stands but more frequently occurs 

as small patches. The patches are often comprised predominantly of vegetative individuals with 

only a few or no reproductive culms present (VBA, 2016). 

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 (Table 3-18). 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 3-57 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 3-18: Known Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) Nest Locations 

*Nest Code Year Last Occupied Year Last Checked Area Within 660’ of Existing Rail 

PW1301 2015 2015 Northern Virginia Yes 

PW1402 2015 2015 Northern Virginia 

PW0701 2015 2015 Northern Virginia Yes 

PW0602 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

PW0601 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

PW0902 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

FF1602 2016 2016 Northern Virginia 

PW0801 2011 2011 Northern Virginia Yes 

PW0903 2011 2011 Northern Virginia Yes 

PW0201 2015 2015 Northern Virginia 

PW1501 2015 2015 Northern Virginia 

PW1101 2015 2015 Northern Virginia Yes 

PW1103 2015 2015 Northern Virginia 

PW1102 unknown 2011 Northern Virginia 

PW1001 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

PW1104 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

ST0801 2009 2011 Northern Virginia 

ST1001 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

ST0001 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

ST1002 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

ST1003 2011 2011 Northern Virginia Yes 

ST0501 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

ST1101 2011 2011 Northern Virginia 

RM1001 2015 2015 Richmond 

HE0802 2015 2015 Richmond 

Source: Mapping Portal-VaEagles Nest Locater. http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/#eagles. Last Updated 2016. Accessed 5/2016. 

Notes: * Nest surveys are completed during the breeding season and updated yearly. 

 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines (40 CFR Section 1500-1508), 

the determination of a significant impact is a function of both context and intensity. Significance 

of an action is analyzed within the setting of an action, or context, including regional, local, or 

site-specific. Intensity refers to severity of an impact which is analyzed in terms of type, quality, 

and sensitivity of particular resource. The appropriate class of environmental documentation is 

determined by level of significance, which is established through impact analysis of each 

resource. This “Environmental Consequences” chapter addresses the potential impacts to each 

of the resource areas (i.e., impact topics) discussed under the “Affected Environment” chapter for 

the No Action, Preferred Action, and Candidate Build Alternatives 

As stated in 40 CFR 1508.27(a), the analysis of significance as used in NEPA requires both the 

context and intensity of an action. 

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts 

such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the 

locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a 

site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than 

in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. 

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that 

more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following 

should be considered in evaluating intensity: 

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the 

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas. 

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be 

highly controversial. 

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain 

or involve unique or unknown risks. 

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a 

4 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-2 Natural Resources Technical Report 

cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by 

terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. 

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, 

or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. 

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment. 

4.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Several federal laws protect water resources, which include the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). These laws protect water 

resources from pollutants, discharges, fill materials, dredging, and encroachments. Water 

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

States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and state 

departments of environment. 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSX Transportation (CSXT) would continue maintenance and 

repairs of the existing infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned 

for the DC2RVA corridor would move forward. Anticipated effects of the No Build Alternatives 

are discussed below in comparison with the Build Alternatives, including potential permits 

required. Existing factors that affect water quality, such as impervious surfaces and pollutants 

washed from the existing surfaces into receiving water bodies, would continue with the No Build 

Alternative. No changes to floodplains or hydraulic conditions are anticipated with the No Build 

Alternative. 

Due to the linear nature and length of the DC2RVA corridor, each Build Alternative would 

include unavoidable effects to water resources. Effects were calculated in Geographic Information 

system (GIS) based on the limits of disturbance (LOD) developed for each Build Alternative. 

Permanent effects include all areas where infrastructure would physically replace existing 

conditions. Temporary effects are areas required for construction of the Build Alternatives, such 

as for movement, access, or storage of equipment, that would be regraded and seeded with an 

approved seed mixture by the contractor and allowed to renaturalize after completion of the 

Project. Water resources potentially affected by the Build Alternatives are shown in (Appendices 

A through F). 

4.1.1 Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Floodplains 

Effects to surface waters resulting from construction of the proposed improvements are similar 

between the Build Alternatives. Typical effects would include: 

Temporary 

 Increased erosion from disturbed areas, resulting in increased sedimentation and 

decreased water clarity 

 Disturbance of in-stream habitat and aquatic species from in-stream construction 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-3 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Long-Term Temporary 

 Clearing and grubbing of stream banks, resulting in increased erosion, decreased bank 

stabilization, and potential slope failure 

 Removal of riparian canopy, resulting in increased water temperatures 

Permanent 

 Decreased groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces 

 Increased nutrient loading from increased runoff and fertilizer application during the 

replanting process 

 Increased potential for toxic compounds entering the water system from construction 

equipment, increased train traffic, application of snow and ice removal chemicals, and 

application of herbicides to keep tracks clear of vegetation 

 Altered stream locations (including intentional stream relocations), flow patterns, and 

morphology 

 Use of resource (culverted streams and filled wetlands) for infrastructure placement 

The extent of effects is generally related to the length or area of the resource affected. The extent 

of potentially permanent and temporary encroachments on the water resources identified in the 

DC2RVA corridor are listed in Table 4-1. The more severe impacts are associated with new or 

rehabilitated structures spanning major waterways. These types of crossings would require 

several spans and new piers or substructure to be constructed in the waterway itself. For smaller 

waterway crossings, single-span bridges or bottomless or properly embedded culverts are 

recommended. In most cases, the short-term or temporary nature of the effects caused by 

construction would allow renaturalization of the resource. The locations of all water crossings 

and the approximate LOD associated with each are presented in detail in Appendices A through 

F. Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, between 152 and 191 streams would be 

permanently affected by the proposed improvements. Linear and parallel encroachments to these 

streams are estimated between 26,377 and 35,422 linear feet. 

Table 4-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach)

1A – – – – – P: 4.0 

T: 1.2 

P: 0.3 

T: 1.0 

1B – – – – – P: 4.8 

T: 1.5 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.3 

1C – – – – – P: 6.0 

T: 0.6 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.4 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur)

2A P: 52 

T: 68 

P: 7,198 

T: 4,022 

P: 205.7 

T: 232.9 

P: 44.4 

T: 50.2 

– P: 67.9 

T: 50.2 

P: 15.1 

T: 18.1 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-4 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads)

3A P: 16 

T: 21 

P: 1,101 

T: 1,771 

– – – P: 36.9 

T: 17.7 

P: 7.7 

T: 5.7 

3B P: 20 

T: 26 

P: 1,506 

T: 1,894 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

– P: 41.0 

T: 17.9 

P: 10.5 

T: 6.4 

3C P: 43 

T: 45 

P: 4,597 

T: 1,693 

P: 44.5 

T: 102.7 

P: 44.5 

T: 102.7 

– P: 57.9 

T: 18.6 

P: 8.0 

T: 3.8 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell)

4A P: 32 

T: 43 

P: 3,627 

T: 2,798 

P: 64.8 

T: 265.9 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 69.7 

T: 31.9 

P:17.2 

T: 17.3 

Area 5: 

Ashland (Doswell 

to I-295)

5A P: 23 

T: 25 

P: 6,928 

T: 1,623 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 16.6 

T: 12.9 

P: 5.9 

T: 2.5 

5A−Ashcake P: 22 

T: 25 

P: 6,928 

T: 1,623 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 17.7 

T: 12.8 

P: 7.1 

T: 2.4 

5B P: 24 

T: 27 

P: 9,114 

T: 2,151 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 19.4 

T: 14.4 

P: 6.5 

T:3.3 

5B−Ashcake P: 23 

T: 28 

P: 9,101 

T: 2,132 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 23.4 

T: 14.7 

P: 10.7 

T:3.8 

5C P: 26 

T: 26 

P: 9,005 

T: 1,410 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 31.6 

T: 13.9 

P:9.2 

T: 2.4 

5C−Ashcake P: 26 

T: 26 

P: 9,005 

T: 1,410 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 32.6 

T: 13.9 

P: 10.4 

T: 2.4 

5D−Ashcake P: 28 

T: 31 

P: 8,163 

T: 2,958 

– P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 25.7 

T: 15.4 

P: 11.5 

T: 4.0 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to 

Centralia)

6A P: 30 

T: 30 

P: 7,523 

T: 3,384 

– – – P: 53.5 

T: 15.5 

P: 8.1 

T: 3.5 

6B−A-Line P: 34 

T: 34 

P: 9,650 

T: 3,609 

– – – P: 59.3 

T: 17.4 

P: 11.3 

T: 6.1 

6B−S-Line P: 36 

T: 30 

P: 8,819 

T: 2,333 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.7 

– P: 55.1 

T: 11.5 

P: 48.6 

T: 12.4 

6C P: 35 

T: 34 

P: 10,886 

T: 3,349 

– – – P: 63.3 

T: 17.0 

P: 16.1 

T: 5.8 

6D P: 36 

T: 30 

P: 8,819 

T: 2,333 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

P: 31.7 

T: 49.5 

– P: 55.0 

T: 11.5 

P: 51.9 

T: 13.0 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-5 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-1: Stream Resource Effects 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative 

Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) Floodplains (Acres) 

6E P: 30 

T: 30 

P: 7,952 

T: 3,169 

– – – P: 55.3 

T: 15.4 

P: 22.2 

T:20.2 

6F P: 36 

T: 31 

P: 8,869 

T: 2,333 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

– P: 57.2 

T: 11.3 

P: 50.7 

T: 13.1 

6G P: 34 

T: 29 

P: 8,235 

T: 2,288 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.9 

P: 29.2 

T: 51.2 

– P: 57.8 

T: 11.1 

P: 48.1 

T: 13.1 

Notes: P = Permanent Effect; T=Temporary Effect. 

4.1.1.1 Designated Waters 

Navigable Waters. Although construction of the proposed project would not have any effect 

on this designation, work in navigable waters requires special consideration under Section 9 and 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (see Permits 4.1.5). Depending on the Build Alternative, 

the LOD would cross five to seven of the eight navigable waters within the study area: 

 Occoquan River 

 Neabsco Creek 

 Powells Creek 

 Aquia Creek 

 Rappahannock River 

 Mattaponi River 

 James River 

State Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory. The existing rail corridor was in 

place long before much of the surrounding development in the DC2RVA corridor; as such, new 

construction would be consistent with existing land uses and controlling regulations for 

designated waters. The most notable changes due to the proposed improvements would be the 

construction of new bridges built adjacent to and/or replacing existing bridges. However, the 

new bridges would generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of existing structures; 

therefore, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) anticipates that the 

landscape and viewsheds from designated waters will be similar in context to existing conditions. 

The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) would require a new bridge over the 

Rappahannock River in a new location; however, the new bridge would not be in an area where 

the Rappahannock River is designated a State Scenic River. The State Scenic River designation 

ends north of the proposed bypass near Ferry Farm. Consistent with the guidelines for protecting 

designated waters, the use of best management practices (BMPs) would ensure the preservation 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-6 Natural Resources Technical Report 

of the ecological resources within the waterways and their local watersheds. The DC2RVA Project 

is not expected to affect river designations. 

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA). Transportation projects, including rail lines, are 

conditionally exempt from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management 

Regulations. By constructing improvements in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and 

Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), the Stormwater Management 

Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), and the terms and conditions of water quality 

permits required by USACE, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (Virginia DEQ), and 

Virginia Marines Resources Commission (VMRC), and an erosion and sediment control plan and 

a stormwater management plan approved by Virginia DEQ, all of the Build Alternatives would 

be consistent with the CBPA and its implementing regulations. 

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Each Build Alternative would be consistent 

with the established Virginia Coastal Zone Enforceable Policies as related to fisheries 

management, subaqueous lands management, wetlands management, dunes management, 

nonpoint source pollution control, point source pollution control, shoreline sanitation, air 

pollution control, and coastal lands management. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

would submit a Federal Consistency Determination for the recommended Preferred Alternative 

that analyzes the coastal effects of the Project in light of the enforceable policies of the Virginia 

CZMA program and provides commitment to comply with those policies. The recommended 

Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Erosion 

and Sediment Control Law and the terms and conditions of water quality permits required by 

USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC, and an erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater 

management plan approved by by Virginia DEQ. Implementation of proposed mitigation 

measures and any required permits would ensure consistency with the enforceable policies of the 

Virginia CZMA program. 

Fisheries Management

Any construction in and around wetlands and water bodies would reasonably be expected to 

have an effect on commercial and recreational fishing resources and their associated habitats as 

discussed in Section 4.2.2.3 Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters and 4.2.1.3 Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation (SAV). According to Virginia DEQ’s online Geospatial and Educational 

Mapping System (GEMS) and Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 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. 

Subaqueous Lands Management

The Project would be constructed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state, and 

local water regulations. See Section 4.1.1.1 Navigable Waters for more information. 

Wetlands Management

The Virginia Water Protection Permit program includes protection of wetlands, both tidal and 

non-tidal. The Project would be constructed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, 

state, and local wetland regulations. See Section 4.1.2 Wetlands for more information. 

Non-point Source Pollution Control

Soil-disturbing activities associated with construction would reasonably be expected to have an 

effect on nonpoint source pollution. Increased train activity and potential chemicals associated 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-7 Natural Resources Technical Report 

with trains, their maintenance, and maintenance of the infrastructure could also have an effect on 

nonpoint source pollution. 

Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soil-disturbing projects to be designed to 

reduce soil erosion and to decrease inputs of chemical nutrients and sediments to the Chesapeake 

Bay, its tributaries, and other rivers and waters of the Commonwealth. BMPs will be followed 

which could include design to avoid riparian and wetland zones to the fullest possible, 

maintenance plan to reduce potential contamination, sediment traps located down-gradient from 

construction areas, proper maintenance of construction equipment, materials stockpiles, and 

storage of equipment located outside of floodplain, wetland, and riparian areas. Section 3.1.7 

Water Quality and Section 4.1.3 Water Quality provide additional information.. 

Point Source Pollution Control

Construction activity could have a temporary effect on point source pollution due to soil 

disturbance. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soil-disturbing projects to be 

designed to reduce soil erosion during and after construction. Typical BMPs will be followed, 

including design to avoid riparian and wetland zones to the fullest extent possible, maintenance 

plan to reduce potential contamination, sediment traps located down-gradient from construction 

areas, proper maintenance of construction equipment, materials stockpiles and storage of 

equipment located outside of floodplain, wetland, and riparian areas. Section 3.1.7 Water Quality 

and Section 4.1.3 Water Quality provide additional information. 

Shoreline Sanitation

If relocation or removal of existing systems is required during construction of the Project, there is 

an increased potential for release and contamination. 

Air Pollution Control

During construction, the Project would reasonably be expected to have an effect on air pollution 

through vehicle emissions, fugitive dust, and construction emissions. All construction activities 

would be performed in accordance with federal and state regulations. While the proposed Project 

would increase diesel locomotive emissions, these increases would be offset by decreases in 

regional mobile source auto VMT. The Project-generated net increases in predicted annual 

pollutant emissions, from high speed rail passenger service, in nonattainment areas would all be 

below general conformity de minimis threshold values. Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, 

EPA considers project-generated emissions below these de minimis values to be minimal. Such 

projects do not require formal conformity determinations. With regard to GHG emissions, the 

build alternatives would reduce CO2 emissions versus the No Build Alternative. As a result, the 

program is not anticipated to result in significant adverse effects to public health related to air 

pollutants and air toxics or contributions to GHG emissions (See Air Quality Sections in the EIS 

for further detail). 

Coastal Lands Management

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. Activities within RPAs are further 

restricted to water dependent or redevelopment related activities. This Project is conditionally 

exempt from regulation because it will be constructed in accordance with the Erosion and 

Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia) and the Stormwater Management 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-8 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). In addition, if a build alternative is selected, the 

Project would be constructed according to an approved erosion and sediment control plan and a 

stormwater management plan. 

Dunes Management 

This Project is not anticipated to have any reasonably foreseeable effect on jurisdictional dunes. 

No jurisdictional dunes are listed in the study area. Shoreline protection measures and storm 

surge protection measures would be taken along the Potomac River. 

4.1.1.2 Floodplains and Floodways 

As indicated in Table 4-1, each Build Alternative would potentially affect Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplains. There is considerable variation in the acres 

of encroachments (both longitudinal and parallel) among the various combinations of the Build 

Alternatives—ranging from 62.4 to 124.8 acres. None of the floodplain encroachments would 

represent a “significant encroachment” (as defined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

650.105[q]) because of the following reasons: 

 It would pose no significant potential for interruption or termination of a 

transportation facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's 

only evacuation route. These rail lines are not considered the only emergency evacuation 

route, nor do they support emergency vehicles. 

 It would not pose a significant flooding risk. The Build Alternatives would be designed 

consistent with procedures for the location and hydraulic design of encroachments on 

floodplains contained in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Accordingly, the Build Alternatives are 

not expected to increase flood height elevations, the probability of flooding, or the 

potential for property loss and hazard to life. 

 It would not have significant adverse effects on natural and beneficial floodplain 

values. Avoidance and minimization efforts, including spanning floodplains where 

practicable and minimizing wetland impacts, would be made during design to avoid or 

minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Portions of the study area are also vulnerable to tidal flooding from major storms, such as 

hurricanes and northeasters. Both types of storms produce winds that push large volumes of 

water against the shore. Hurricanes, with their high winds and heavy rainfall, are the most severe 

storms to which the study area is subjected and can produce local to widespread flooding in the 

study area. The study area also contains numerous tidally influenced waters that are subject to 

tidal flooding in their lower reaches and fluvial flooding on the upper reaches 

Each Build Alternative is consistent with the transportation elements of local comprehensive 

plans and are not projected to either encourage or accelerate any growth or changes in land use 

that are not already expected. The Project would not encourage, induce, allow, serve, support, or 

otherwise facilitate incompatible base floodplain development. 

4.1.1.3 Stormwater/Drainage 

Increased stormwater runoff from construction of the Project improvements can impact receiving 

streams and associated land surfaces in two forms: long-term impacts caused by runoff from 

increased impervious surfaces and short-term impacts caused by land disturbance during 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-9 Natural Resources Technical Report 

construction. Stormwater from railroad corridors can potentially carry increased quantities of 

silt; heavy metals; petroleum products from railroad equipment; chemicals associated with snow 

and ice removal; herbicides associated with vegetation maintenance; and other chemicals 

associated with railroad cars and machinery. The proposed Build Alternatives would increase 

impervious surfaces by constructing additional rail bed and track, as well as ancillary facilities 

associated with stations, grade crossings, and bridges. The increase in stormwater runoff could 

increase erosion, silt, and chemicals entering the waterways. These materials can potentially 

degrade water quality and aquatic habitat integrity. The effects on water quality depend on the 

size of the receiving waterways crossed and the number of such crossings (see Table 4-1). Streams 

with low flow are more severely affected because they have less volume to dilute the runoff. 

Additional runoff as a result of the Build Alternatives would be minimal because the increases in 

impervious surface are small. Stormwater runoff from railways is generally less pronounced than 

that from roadways, because much of the rail bed is permeable to rainfall (i.e., ballast and side 

slopes). Impervious surfaces have a runoff coefficient of 0.80, or about 80 percent runoff and about 

20 percent infiltration. Roadways have runoff coefficients of 0.85 to 0.95, while the runoff 

coefficient for ballasted track is calculated between 0.50 to 0.55. Although ballast is considered to 

be permeable, some runoff would collect in adjacent drainage ditches and may carry similar 

pollutants to and have similar effects to surface waters as runoff associated with paved roadways. 

Short-term adverse impacts on water quality within the study area may result from soil erosion 

and sedimentation because of land-disturbing activities during construction. Land-disturbing 

activities include construction of the rail bed, tracks, bridges, signal and communication facilities, 

and other related structures and facilities of the railroad, including grade crossings, clearing of 

right-of-way, staging areas, access roads, and borrow/spoil areas. Construction-related effects 

are likely to be similar for road and rail. Uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation can affect 

aquatic algae and submerged aquatic vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrate habitat, and fish 

spawning habitat, and it can remove food resources for some stream species. 

The recommended Preferred Alternative would be designed and constructed in accordance with 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law (§10.1-560 et seq. of the Code of Virginia), the 

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

conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC. By upgrading 

older stormwater facilities along the DC2RVA corridor, the Project could improve drainage in the 

study area. 

4.1.2 Wetlands 

Various wetland systems are located along extensive stretches throughout the 123-mile railroad 

corridor. Many of these systems pre-date the rail corridor and are bisected by the rail line itself. 

Existing drainage facilities beneath the rail bed have maintained hydraulic connections between the 

systems and, in many cases, allowed the persistence of these systems on both sides of the rail line. 

Preliminary designs to widen the rail bed attempted to minimize encroachments on these resources 

by widening on sides opposite of wetlands when practicable. However, complete avoidance could 

not be achieved, and DRPT anticipates permanent impacts to wetlands, where direct fill reduces 

the wetland size, with any of the Build Alternatives. Permanent impacts resulting from such 

encroachments range from 22.14 to 49.64 acres depending on the combination of Build Alternatives 

(see Table 4-2). Temporary impacts during construction would be similar between the Build 

Alternatives, ranging from 25.25 to 30.86 acres. The most measurable difference in effects among 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-10 Natural Resources Technical Report 

the alternatives is found in the effects associated with construction of the Fredericksburg and 

Ashland bypasses on green-field alignments that cross rural areas less altered by human activities 

(Alternatives 3C and 5C, respectively). The approximate limits of disturbance and locations of 

potential wetlands effects for each alternative are shown in detail in Appendices A through F. 

Table 4-2: Wetland Effects (acres) 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative PEM1 PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ 

PSS/ 

PFO 

PSS2 PSS/ 

PFO 

PFO3 Total 

Area 1: 

Arlington (Long 

Bridge 

Approach)

1A – – – – P: 0.02 

T: 0.67 

– – P: 0.02 

T: 0.66 

1B – – – – P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

– – – 

T: 0.01 

1C – – – – P: 0.01 

T: 0.11 

– – P: 0.01 

T: 0.11 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia (Long 

Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur)

2A P: 1.36 

T: 0.62 

P: 0.15 

T: 0.19 

P: 1.71 

T: 1.53 

P: 0.67 

T: 0.37 

– – P: 1.31 

T: 0.83 

P: 5.19 

T: 3.54 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

3A P: 1.57 

T: 1.11 

P: 0.42 

T: 0.21 

P: 2.40 

T: 1.30 

– P: 0.13 

T: 0.34 

P: 0.04 

– 

P: 0.70 

T: 1.49 

P: 5.24 

T: 4.45 

3B P: 1.61 

T: 1.16 

P: 0.42 

T: 0.21 

P: 2.39 

T: 1.29 

– P: 0.13 

T: 0.34 

P: 0.04 

– 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.52 

P: 5.29 

T: 4.52 

3C P: 1.92 

T: 0.92 

P: 0.54 

T: 0.10 

P: 3.92 

T: 0.90 

– P: 0.42 

T: 0.36 

– P: 17.03 

T: 4.24 

P: 23.82 

T: 6.53 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell)

4A P: 2.51 

T: 1.66 

P: 0.78 

T: 0.17 

P: 2.67 

T: 7.55 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.15 

P: 0.04 

– 

P: 0.25 

T: 0.90 

P: 1.43 

T: 3.31 

P: 8.39 

T: 14.74 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to 

I-295)

5A P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.48 

5A−Ashcake P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

-- – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.48 

5B P: 0.16 

T: 0.08 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.51 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.41 

T: 1.53 

5B−Ashcake P: 0.20 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.51 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.86 

P: 0.45 

T: 1.50 

5C P: 2.66 

T: 0.78 

– P: 2.10 

T: 0.92 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 3.69 

T: 1.70 

P: 8.44 

T: 3.47 

5C−Ashcake P: 2.70 

T: 0.78 

– P: 2.10 

T: 0.92 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 3.69 

T: 1.70 

P: 8.48 

T: 3.47 

5D−Ashcake P: 0.20 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.21 

T: 0.46 

– – P: ––– 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04 

T: 0.93 

P: 0.45 

T: 1.51 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-11 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-2: Wetland Effects (acres) 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative PEM1 PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ 

PSS/ 

PFO 

PSS2 PSS/ 

PFO 

PFO3 Total 

Area 6: 

Richmond (I-295 

to Centralia)

6A P: 1.59 

T: 0.29 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 3.21 

T: 1.89 

6B−A-Line P: 1.30 

T: 0.31 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 2.91 

T: 1.91 

6B−S-Line P: 2.48 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.47 

T: 1.03 

6C P: 1.37 

T: 0.30 

– P: 1.07 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 2.99 

T: 1.90 

6D P: 2.48 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.47 

T: 1.03 

6E P: 1.59 

T: 0.29 

– P: 1.18 

T: 0.33 

P: 0.36 

T: 0.10 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.40 

– P: 0.18 

T: 0.77 

P: 3.31 

T: 1.89 

6F P: 2.53 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.52 

T: 1.03 

6G P: 2.75 

T: 0.64 

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.28 

T: 0.05 

P: 0.13 

T: 0.06 

P: 0.08 

T: 0.05 

– P: 0.30 

T: 0.22 

P: 3.74 

T: 1.03 

Notes: 1. PEM=Palustrine Emergent (freshwater emergent wetland); 2. PSS=Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (freshwater shrub wetland); 3. PFO = 

Palustrine Forested (freshwater forested wetland); P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect. 

Typical adverse impacts to wetlands from construction projects such as this include: 

Temporary 

 Increased erosion from disturbed areas, resulting in increased sedimentation and 

decreased water filtering abilities 

 Increased nutrient loading from increased runoff and fertilizer application (during the 

replanting process) 

 Disturbance of habitat and aquatic species 

Long-Term Temporary 

 Clearing and grubbing of vegetated wetland buffers 

 Introduction of invasive species 

 Decreased groundwater recharge due to increased impervious surfaces 

 Increased potential for toxic compounds entering the wetland system from construction 

equipment, increased train traffic, application of snow and ice removal chemicals, and 

application of herbicides to keep tracks clear of vegetation 

 Altered hydrologic patterns. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-12 Natural Resources Technical Report 

A small portion of the wetlands in the northern section of the alignment are tidally influenced. 

These wetlands mostly occur along larger waterways. Impacts to these waters would be 

minimized by designing water crossings to span waterways, placing as little infrastructure in the 

waters as practicable. All tidal wetlands crossed in the DC2RVA corridor are along Build 

Alternatives 1 and 2A. 

4.1.3 Water Quality 

Under the CWA, a permit is necessary to discharge any pollutant from a point source into Waters 

of the U.S. through EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, 

including pollutants carried by stormwater discharges. The permits contain industry-specific, 

technology-based, and/or water quality-based limits and establish pollutant monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Water quality-based limits and monitoring and reporting requirements 

could be stricter for those streams that do not meet water quality standards (on the Section 303[d] 

list) and already have regulated total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollutants. Impaired 

waters crossed by the DC2RVA Project are listed in Table 3-9 and shown in Figure 3-4. 

4.1.3.1 Temporary Effects 

Despite protective measures, the Project could potentially result in short-term adverse effects 

such as increased sedimentation; increase in turbidity from in-stream work; increased likelihood 

of potential spills; and non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface water from 

stormwater runoff. Construction activities that could affect stormwater runoff include excavation 

to widen ‘cut’ sections and to remove unsuitable (organic) material from ‘fill’ sections; filling and 

placing ballast to support new track; relocating access roads; relocating or creating new trackside 

swales; and any substructure work required for the signal and communication equipment 

foundations, bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction-phase staging 

areas and haul roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion and 

sedimentation. 

4.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects 

All Build Alternatives cross impaired waters, and DRPT assumes that the Project would have 

some effect on water quality. Minor long-term adverse water quality impacts could occur as a 

result of increases in impervious surfaces and consequent increases in pollutants washed from 

the railroad surface into receiving water bodies; leaking fluids from trains; and an increase in 

non-point source pollutants from infrastructure, grease, oil, metals, maintenance chemicals, 

vegetation management chemicals, and suspended solids and other elements associated with 

railways. The greatest effect would occur with the Fredericksburg and Ashland bypasses, which 

would convert green space to railroad facilities and put impervious surfaces in locations where 

none currently exist. The remaining alternatives would be located adjacent to existing facilities 

and incorporate BMPs and improved stormwater facilities, which would mitigate new conditions 

and may improve existing conditions. 

4.1.3.3 Impaired Waters 

The DC2RVA corridor includes 51 water crossings that have been assessed and found to have 

more contamination than allowed to support one or more of its designated uses. Most Build 

Alternatives cross the same water bodies; however, the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-13 Natural Resources Technical Report 

3C) would cross two fewer impaired water bodies than Build Alternatives 3A or 3B which pass 

through town. In the Richmond area, the S-Line crosses two more impaired water bodies than 

the A-Line. Table 4-3 lists impairments, probable causes, and the potential for the DC2RVA 

Project to add to these impairments. The potential for additional contaminants is similar for all 

waters; however, waters that are already impaired may have additional restrictions in the form 

of TMDLs in an effort to restore designated uses. 

Table 4-3: Potential Effects to 303[d] Impairment from the DC2RVA Project 

Impairment Potential Cause Potential Project Implications 

Aquatic Plants (Macrophytes) Noxious aquatic plants due to loss of 

riparian habitat, sewage discharges, 

sediment resuspension, excess 

nutrients 

Temporary resuspension of sediments may 

occur if instream work is required, minor 

temporary and in some cases permanent 

loss of riparian habitat will occur within the 

Limits of Disturbance (LOD) adjacent 

waters 

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate 

Bioassessments (low counts, 

variety, or quantity of sensitive 

aquatic, bottom-dwelling, 

invertebrate species) 

Pollutants in urban stormwater, postdevelopment erosion and 

sedimentation, streambank 

modifications/destabilization 

Construction of the DC2RVA project may 

potentially increase runoff and therefore 

erosion and sediment in the receiving water 

bodies, build alternatives with greater land 

disturbance and impacts to wetlands and 

streams have a greater chance of affecting 

water quality 

Benzo[k]fluoranthene Found in pesticides Use of pesticides is not required for the 

construction or operation of railroads; 

therefore, levels are not likely to increase 

due to the construction of the DC2RVA 

project 

Chlordane (a broad spectrum 

contact insecticide that has been 

used on agricultural crops, now 

banned)

Washed in from contaminated soils, 

existing levels in bottom sediments of 

water body 

This chemical has been banned and is not 

likely to increase due to the construction of 

the DC2RVA project 

Chlorophyll-a (high algae levels) Excess nutrients, often from 

lawn/agricultural fertilizers and 

nutrient-rich animal wastes, washed 

into the water cause algae blooms 

Railroads are not a known source of excess 

nutrients in the form of fertilizers, animal 

wastes, or sewage; therefore, levels are not 

likely to increase due to the construction of 

the DC2RVA project 

Copper Urban-related runoff/stormwater, 

abandoned mine lands (inactive), 

antifouling paints, chromated copper 

arsenate (CCA) treated timbers 

Construction of the DC2RVA project may 

potentially increase runoff and therefore 

erosion and sediment in the receiving water 

bodies, build alternatives with greater land 

disturbance and impacts to wetlands and 

streams have a greater chance of affecting 

water quality, the only build alternative with 

the potential to disturb inactive mine land is 

the Fredericksburg Bypass which crosses a 

former sand and gravel pit 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-14 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Dissolved Oxygen (low levels 

of) 

Excess nutrients, often from 

lawn/agricultural fertilizers and 

nutrient-rich animal wastes, washed 

into the water cause algae blooms 

which in turn kill vegetation which 

decays depleting oxygen 

Railroads are not a known source of excess 

nutrients in the form of fertilizers, animal 

wastes, or sewage; therefore, levels are not 

likely to increase due to the construction of 

the DC2RVA project 

Escherichia coli (bacteria) Fecal matter washed into the water 

from domestic animals, livestock, or 

failing or overburdened sewage systems 

Railroads are not a known source of fecal 

matter in the form of animal wastes or 

sewage; therefore, levels are not likely to 

increase due to the construction of the 

DC2RVA project 

Estuarine Bioassessments

(Impaired Biota) 

Unknown, combination of total toxins 

in water supply 

Construction of the DC2RVA project may 

potentially increase runoff and therefore 

undesirable elements in the receiving water 

bodies 

Mercury in Fish Tissue (heavy 

metal) 

Often entering the water through 

airborne particles some sources 

include: coal combustion, waste 

incineration, and metal processing 

Construction of the DC2RVA project is not 

anticipated to increase the amount of 

airborne mercury 

PCB in Fish Tissue and/or 

Water Column (used mainly in 

coolants and insulating fluids, 

banned in the US in the late 

1970s) 

Washed from contaminated soils often 

where they were historically used in 

the industrial process 

This chemical has been banned and is not 

likely to increase due to the construction of 

the DC2RVA project 

pH (acidity) Landfills, waste sites, tanks, abandoned 

mine lands (inactive), naturally 

occurring 

Construction of the DC2RVA project may 

disturb some HAZMAT sites. Section 4.5 of 

the EIS contains for more details. The only 

build alternative with the potential to disturb 

inactive mine land is the Fredericksburg 

Bypass which crosses a former sand and 

gravel pit 

Zinc Abandoned mine lands (inactive), 

sewage, road surface runoff, corrosion 

of zinc alloys and galvanized surfaces 

The only build alternative with the potential 

to disturb inactive mine land is the 

Fredericksburg Bypass which crosses a 

former sand and gravel pit, corrosion of 

galvanized surfaces associated with the 

railroad may contribute to zinc in runoff 

4.1.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Contamination of groundwater resources occurs when man-made chemicals, such as gasoline, 

oil, and road salts enter aquifers and render their water unsafe and unfit for human use. Some of 

the major sources of these contaminants include storage tanks, septic systems, hazardous waste 

sites, landfills, and the widespread use of road salts and chemicals. Release of chemicals during 

construction, release of transported chemicals, salts and chemicals used for snow and ice removal, 

and chemicals used for the maintenance of vegetation are the main sources of contamination to 

public water supplies along rail lines. These chemicals can leach through the soil and into the 

water table from which public water supplies are drawn. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-15 Natural Resources Technical Report 

In accordance with 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments, Virginia adopted a 

protection zone around all groundwater public sources. Virginia Department of Health (VDH) 

recommends that private wells not be located within 100 feet of known contamination sources 

such as, but not limited to, sewage disposal systems, dump stations, abandoned wells, pesticide 

treated soils, underground storage tanks (USTs), and other sources of physical, chemical or 

biological contamination; any potential contamination sources within 200 feet should be 

investigated (VDH, 2012). The LOD for the Build Alternatives fall within the following 

prescribed protection zones: 

 Zone 1 (5-mile radius) of 3 public surface water supply intakes: Fairfax County Water 

Authority, Hanover County Suburban Water System, and City of Richmond. Fairfax 

County Water Authority and City of Richmond water supplies are located upstream of 

the existing tracks. 

 Zone 2 (1-mile wellhead protection zone) of 14 public groundwater sources. 

 Zone 1 (1,000-foot radius in which land use activities should be assessed for their potential 

to contaminate water supplies) of three public groundwater sources. 

 Within 100 feet of 14 private wells. 

Although the existing railroad facilities that fall within the wellhead protection zones are exempt, 

work required for the DC2RVA Project would include new permanent and temporary impacts 

within the wellhead protection zones for public and private wells. Construction of the new 

facilities and subsequent operation within these protection zones have the potential to introduce 

contamination to existing wells. Before construction, DRPT will evaluate the potential for 

contamination. The area of each Build Alternative within these drinking water protection zones 

is shown in Table 4-4. 

Table 4-4: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area 

Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2

Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2

Zone 13

Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 1: Arlington (Long 

Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – – – – – 

1B – – – – – – – 

1C – – – – – – – 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: 32.75 

T: 31.05 

– – – P: 26.37 

T: 15.94 

P: 7,822 

T: 8,726 

P: 72,243 

T: 23,146 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-16 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-4: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area 

Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2

Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2

Zone 13

Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg (Dahlgren 

Spur to Crossroads) 

3A – – – – P: 16.91 

T: 6.39 

P: 3,343 

T: 6,406 

P: 57,106 

T: 13,279 

3B – – – – P: 16.91 

T: 6.39 

P: 16,365 

T: 8,397 

P:105,610 

T: 16,996 

3C – – – – P: 13.98 

T: 9.72 

P: 279 

T: 414 

P: 41,238 

T: 3,762 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – P: 42.48 

T: 23.36 

– P: 0.81 

T: 1.07 

P: 37.55 

T: 27.73 

P: 4,117 

T: 25,446 

P: 18,088 

T: 45,750 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 9.25 

T: 5.52 

– P: 13,688 

T: ––––– 

5A−Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 11.59 

T: 5.32 

– – 

5B – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 9.33 

T: 6.04 

P: 609 

– 

P: 26,018 

T: 138 

5B−Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 15.21 

T: 6.65 

P: 609 

– 

P: 15,411 

T: 2,727 

5C – P: 31.06 

T: 9.59 

– P: 4.70 

T: 1.51 

P: 44.09 

T: 11.24 

P: 4,205 

T: 1,693 

P: 19,098 

T: 2,181 

5C−Ashcake – P: 31.06 

T: 9.59 

– P: 4.70 

T: 1.51 

P: 46.53 

T: 11.24 

P: 4,205 

T: 1,693 

P: 5,410 

T: 2,181 

5D−Ashcake – P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

– – P: 16.12 

T: 7.07 

– P: 17,321 

T: 251 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-17 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-4: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative Area 

Alternative 

Public Surface Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Fairfax County*2

Hanover Count

y2

City of Richmond*2

Zone 13

Zone 24100-foot radius (31,416 square feet) 200-foot radius (125,664 square feet) 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – P: 51.70 

T: 17.53 

– – – P: 21,701 

T: 3,275 

6B−A-Line – – P: 121.10 

T: 46.69 

– – – P: 16,364 

T: 2,932 

6B−S-Line – – P: 125.26 

T: 31.24 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6C – – P: 153.22 

T: 47.50 

– – P: 23,773 

T: 1,938 

P: 55,761 

T: 7,887 

6D – – P: 119.50 

T: 31.96 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6E – – P: 80.04 

T: 40.18 

– – – P: 21,701 

T: 3,275 

6F – – P: 129.47 

T: 32.53 

– – P: 3.73 

– 

P: 28,214 

T: 10,324 

6G – – P: 129.84 

T: 30.76 

– – – P: 31,558 

T: 13,595 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2014; DMME, 2016. 

Notes: *These public water supplies are located upstream from the study area; 1. 5-mile radius; 2. Fairfax County Water Authority, Hanover 

Suburban Water System, and City of Richmond; 3. Zone 1 includes a 1,000-foot radius (~72 acres) in which land use activities should be assessed 

for their potential to contaminate water supplies; 4. Zone 2 Virginia adopted a 1-mile wellhead protection zone around all groundwater public 

sources. P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect. 

4.1.5 Permits 

Wetland and water quality permits would be required for construction of any of the Build 

Alternatives. The controlling regulations and permits required at the local, state, and federal level 

are addressed below. 

4.1.5.1 Section 401–Certification (Water Quality Certification [WQC]) 

Section 401 of the CWA states that “any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or 

operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-18 Natural Resources Technical Report 

the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the state in which the discharge originates 

or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will 

originate.” Section 401 of the CWA requires any applicant for a federal license or permit for any 

activity that may result in a discharge into waters to obtain a certification that discharge will not 

adversely affect water quality from the state in which the discharge will occur. Section 401 

requires certification by Virginia that prospective permits comply with the state’s applicable 

effluent limitations and water quality standards. Impacts to water resources would require a Joint 

Permit Application (JPA) to regulatory agencies. The JPA is submitted to VMRC who then 

distributes it to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and Local Wetlands Boards. 

4.1.5.2 Section 402–National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permits for the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants into navigable waters are 

regulated by Virginia DEQ. 

4.1.5.3 Section 404–Dredge and Fill Materials 

Section 404 of the CWA regulates activities that may affect the chemical, physical, or biological 

integrity of Waters of the U.S. Permits for activities that result in the discharge of dredged 

materials or fill into jurisdictional waters are administered by USACE. Permits issued under 

Section 404 of the CWA must comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines developed by EPA. 

4.1.5.4 Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom 

Subaqueous land is defined in Virginia as ungranted beds of the bays, rivers, creeks, and shores 

of the sea owned by the state. Through this regulatory framework, activities requiring permits 

include building, dumping, or otherwise trespassing upon or over, encroach upon, take or use 

any material from the beds of the bays, oceans, and jurisdictional rivers, streams, or creeks. VMRC 

issues permits for activities in, on, or over subaqueous lands in Virginia (Code of Virginia Chapter 

2, Title 62.1). 

4.1.5.5 Section 9–United States Coast Guard 

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits construction of any dam, dike, bridge, or 

causeway across navigable waters without approval of the USCG. 

4.1.5.6 Section 10–USACE 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates dredging and filling activities related to 

construction of any structure or type of obstruction in navigable waters of the United States. 

Permits for these activities are administrated by USACE. 

4.1.5.7 Virginia Water Protection Permit 

The Virginia Water Protection Permit Program was designed to protect surface waters including 

tidal and non-tidal water bodies and wetlands. Virginia DEQ has regulatory authority over most 

activities affecting these waters. Virginia’s authority to protect water resources is independent of 

other state and federal regulatory agencies. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-19 Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.1.5.8 MS4 Permit–Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

Discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated under the 

Virginia Stormwater Management Act, the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) 

Permit regulations, and the CWA as point source discharges. MS4 programs must be designed 

and implemented to control the discharge of pollutants from their storm sewer system to the 

maximum extent practicable in a manner that protects the water quality in nearby streams, rivers, 

wetlands, and bays. MS4 permits are administrated by Virginia DEQ. 

4.1.5.9 Joint Permit Application–USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, Local Wetlands Board 

In Virginia, for permitting involving water, wetlands, and dune/beach resources where fill, 

flooding, or alteration of flow occurs, USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, and Local Wetlands Boards 

(LWB) use a joint permitting process. Non-tidal resources use a Standard Joint Permit Application 

(JPA) form, while a Tidewater JPA form is used for most projects involving tidal waters, tidal 

wetlands, and coastal primary sand dunes and beaches. 

4.1.5.10 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 

Projects located within “Tidewater Virginia” are subject to requirements of the CBPA. Land 

disturbance or vegetation removal in Resources Protection Areas (RPAs) require approval from 

local government and completion of Appendix C in the JPA. Individual localities are responsible 

for enforcing CBPA requirements. Local permits are not issued through the JPA process. 

Transportation projects, including rail lines, are conditionally exempt from the Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations. 

4.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

4.1.6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Resources 

Efforts have been made throughout the planning and preliminary design process, and they will 

continue to be made in later designs to further avoid and minimize impacts to the extent 

practicable. Avoidance of impacts to water resources will be accomplished by selecting the 

alternative that best avoids such impacts and/or by routing a selected alignment around 

wetlands or by completely spanning streams rather than building through them. These measures 

will be made while also balancing potential impacts to other resources, such as residences and 

businesses. General minimization measures incorporated into the preliminary designs for the 

Build Alternatives include: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Reduction of construction footprint to the extent practicable in areas with water resources 

 Construction of bridges over wetland areas, substantially reducing impacts in comparison 

to causeways with culverts 

 Use of bridges and open bottom culverts designed to the proper hydraulic opening to 

maintain stream morphology and integrity, and that are wide enough to carry baseflow 

without altering stream depth, facilitate passage of wildlife and aquatic species, and 

decrease erosion 

 Use of stabilized side slopes and retaining walls to minimize encroachment 

 Temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-20 Natural Resources Technical Report 

 Use of natural stream design for unavoidable stream relocations, which means that the 

channel would mimic the characteristics of an appropriate reference stream 

 Prompt revegetation of disturbed area, in particular stream banks, immediately after 

construction to stabilize soil and reduce erosion 

Impacts to water resources would require submittal of a JPA to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and 

VMRC. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts would be developed in coordination with these 

agencies during the permitting process and incorporated into final design for both temporary and 

permanent impacts. Permanent impacts to wetlands and streams from construction activities will 

require compensatory mitigation. Guidance for compensatory mitigation from the regulatory 

agencies can be found in the July 2004 Joint USACE and Virginia DEQ Recommendations for 

Wetland Compensatory Mitigation: Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance Criteria, and 

Monitoring Criteria and associated Mitigation Checklist; the March 2008 Off-Site Mitigation Location 

Guidelines; and the USACE and EPA jointly issued Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic 

Resources; Final Rule from June 2008. The mitigation rule indicates the agencies’ preferred 

hierarchy for mitigation options as follows: 

1. Purchase of compensatory mitigation bank credits. 

2. Purchase of an approved in-lieu fee fund’s credits. 

3. Watershed approach-based mitigation by the permittee. 

4. Onsite mitigation/in-kind mitigation by the permittee. 

5. Offsite mitigation/out-of-kind mitigation by the permittee. 

Virginia DEQ has also adopted this preferred sequence. Factors to be considered in deviating 

from the preference for banks include: the likelihood for ecological success and sustainability, the 

location of the compensation site(s) relative to the impact site and their significance within the 

watershed, and the costs of the compensatory mitigation project. The final compensatory 

mitigation plan will be determined during the permitting process, in coordination with the 

regulatory agencies, and will likely include a combination of types of mitigation. Wetland 

mitigation requirements vary by wetland type. Typical replacement ratios of area disturbed are 

Palustrine Emergency Wetlands (PEM) (1:1), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS) (1.5:1), and 

Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO) (2:1). Compensation is approved on a case-by-case basis, and 

requirements may vary. 

Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts would be based on the Unified Stream 

Methodology (USM) form. Impacts greater than 300 linear feet typically require compensation; 

however, for projects with multiple stream impacts, compensation for all impacts is often required 

regardless of the length of individual crossings. Although compensatory mitigation is generally not 

required for impacts to jurisdictional ditches or open waters, impacts will be reviewed on a caseby-case basis, and compensation will be determined during the permitting process. 

4.1.6.2 Floodplains and Stormwater/Drainage 

The design of this Project would include the use of stormwater management practices to address 

issues such as post-development storm flows and downstream channel capacity. The Project 

would be constructed in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 11988−Floodplain Management, 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations, and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations and include an erosion and sediment control plan and a 

stormwater management plan approved by the Virginia DEQ, or local water quality protection 

criteria at least as stringent as the above state requirements. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-21 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Existing stormwater facilities would be upgraded and new stormwater facilities would be 

implemented to capture and treat run-off. Stormwater management measures, including 

detention basins, would be installed to reduce or detain discharge volumes, to compensate for 

increased impervious surfaces. Major bridge crossings built to accommodate the additional rail 

line are designed to match horizontal clearances of existing bridges and will be built in parallel 

to avoid altering hydraulics. Storm surge protection measures will be taken in areas along the 

Potomac River where practicable. During final design, a detailed hydraulic survey and study 

would evaluate specific impacts on stormwater discharges. This evaluation would adhere to the 

aforementioned specifications ensuring that no substantial increases to flooding would occur. 

4.1.6.3 Water Quality 

Minor long‐term adverse water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases in impervious 

surfaces, increases in train traffic, and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad 

and bridges into receiving water bodies. Stormwater management measures, including detention 

basins, vegetative controls, and other measures, would be implemented to minimize water quality 

impacts. These measures would reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus 

avoiding substantial further degradation of impaired water bodies in the study area vicinity. 

Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices would be implemented in accordance with 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soildisturbing projects to be designed to reduce soil erosion during and after construction. 

Implementation of BMPs would minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of 

construction activities. Pre-construction sediment quality assessments and water quality 

monitoring during construction may be conducted to address potential re-suspension of 

contaminants and nutrients into overlying water. Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize water 

quality impacts would be made during final design. 

Such efforts to prevent impacts could include: 

 Designing the project to minimize the LOD and subsequent impacts to water resources

 Silt fencing and measures to prevent soil erosion from earthwork entering water bodies

 Temporary and permanent stormwater management measures

 Conducting stream work in the dry

 Native revegetation of disturbed areas

 Taking practicable measures to prevent spills of fuels, lubricants, or other pollutants into 

water bodies

 Elimination of weep hole devices that allow runoff to drip directly into waterways from 

bridges 

 Use of vegetated buffers and vegetated swales to intercept runoff 

 Use of holding basins to reduce pollution content, temperature, and intensity of runoff 

entering the water supply 

These laws have specifications that also prohibit contractors from discharging any contaminant 

that may impact water quality. If accidental spills occur, the contractor is required to immediately 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-22 Natural Resources Technical Report 

notify all appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and to take immediate action to contain 

and remove the contaminant. Additionally, the requirements and special conditions of any 

required permits for work in and around surface waters would be incorporated into construction 

contract documents, so that the contractor would be required to comply with such conditions. 

The number, locations, and abatement capacities of stormwater management facilities will be 

determined during later phases of Project design. Pollutant removal efficiencies will be used as a 

factor in determining the location and design of stormwater management facilities. 

Impaired Waters. DRPT will ensure that BMPs and other stormwater techniques would be 

employed to minimize further impacts on impaired waters. Construction techniques designed to 

reduce water quality impacts will be employed. Clearing practices should be limited to the 

greatest extent practicable around impaired waters to limit further degradation. The DC2RVA 

Project will adhere to additional restrictions in accordance with any TMDLs developed for 

impaired waters. 

4.1.6.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Efforts would be made throughout the final design process to avoid and minimize impacts to 

drinking waters to the extent practicable. Minimization measures could involve modifications, 

such as further alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts; the use of BMPs; the use of 

retaining walls; and temporary and permanent stormwater management measures to reduce 

transportation of chemicals by stormwater, and they should include limited or avoidance of snow 

removal and vegetation maintenance chemicals near Source Protection Areas and well locations. 

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Under the No Build Alternative, CSXT would continue maintenance and repairs of the existing 

infrastructure, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned for the DC2RVA 

corridor would move forward. Anticipated effects of the No Build Alternative are discussed 

below in comparison with the Build Alternatives. All practicable measures would be taken to 

avoid and minimize impacts; however, due to the length and linear nature of the DC2RVA 

Project, impacts to habitats would be unavoidable. For this EIS, estimated impacts to habitats and 

natural communities are calculated using a conservative assumption and are categorized as 

permanent or temporary. 

4.2.1 Habitat and Natural Communities 

Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would result in effects to the general ecology of its 

surroundings. The Build Alternatives would affect terrestrial natural communities and associated 

wildlife habitat through conversion of existing land coverage to railroad structures and 

maintained right-of-way. Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, between 31 and 

264 acres of habitat are estimated to be permanently converted by the proposed improvements 

within and outside of the existing railroad right-of-way. This conversion would result in the loss 

of wildlife habitat. Permanent (converted to use by the railroad) and temporary (able to 

renaturalize after construction completion) impacts to general habitat types within the LOD of 

each Build Alternative are summarized in Table 4-5. Most of the area affected by the Build 

Alternatives, aside from the bypasses, is already developed. Habitats that would be affected are 

directly adjacent to the existing rail line and are already altered by local activities, including 

operation of the railroad, with the exception of the bypass alternatives (i.e., Build Alternatives 3B, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-23 Natural Resources Technical Report 

5C, and 5C—Ashcake). Disturbance or loss of these upland habitats adjacent to the existing 

railroad would not result in substantial impacts to wildlife due to their location and widespread 

availability of such habitats within the study area and the region. 

Due to the new area crossed by the Build Alternatives that includes new bypasses, more habitat not 

already affected by human activities would be affected. A greater amount of all habitat types would 

be permanently converted, and larger areas of intact forested habitat would be bisected, removing 

a large portion of interior forest and fragmenting habitat. Interior forest habitats are located 300 feet 

or farther from the forest edge and are commonly composed of mature trees. These areas are 

important to forest interior dwelling species (FIDS), especially Neotropical migrant songbirds that 

utilize these habitats for foraging, breeding, and nesting. FIDS can also include certain mammals, 

especially certain species of bats, reptiles, and amphibians that prefer unbroken forested tracts. 

The Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) crosses crosses an area of 1,200+ acres of 

continuous forest southwest of the Rappahannock. This area includes Virginia Outdoors Fund 

Easements and the Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary, discussed in Section 3.2.2.4. This area 

also includes at least 750 acres of interior habitat defined as ‘high’ by the VDCR Ecological Core 

model that is connected to a very large area of ‘outstanding’ habitat associated with Fort A. P. 

Hill. The Virginia Outdoors Fund Easements and the Alexander Berger Memorial Sanctuary, 

including the majority of the forest mentioned above, would be cut off from the Fort A. P. Hill 

habitat by the construction of the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), and a large 

portion of the interior habitat would be lost and/or degraded due to the introduction of the 

railroad through the habitat. 

The Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) cross several smaller wildlife 

corridors associated with waterways, and three larger tracts of forested habitats (approximately 

140, 380, and 180 acres) with interior habitat that would be bisected by the proposed alignment 

resulting in a decrease of interior habitat. 

Station upgrades would occur in urban areas. Although the LODs are wider in these locations, 

only small additional amounts of urban tree canopy would be affected. 

Table 4-5: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Alternative Agriculture 

(pasture/row crop/ 

grassland)Aqueous Habitat 

(wetlands/streams/ o

pen water)

Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – – – No – – – 

T: 0.6 

– 

T: 0.6 

1B – – – No – – P: 1.5 

T: 0.9 

P: 1.5 

T: 0.9 

1C – – – No – – P: 0.4 

T: 0.7 

P: 0.4 

T: 0.7 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-24 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-5: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Alternative Agriculture 

(pasture/row crop/ 

grassland)Aqueous Habitat 

(wetlands/streams/ o

pen water)

Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren 

Spur) 

2A P: 2.1 

T: 1.6 

P: 1.1 

T: 2.0 

P: 15.0 

T: 7.2 

No P: 0.2 

T: 0.1 

P: 1.3 

T: 0.9 

P: 13.2 

T: 11.8 

P: 32.9 

T: 23.6 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A P: 0.1 

T: 1.1 

P: 0.1 

T: 0.4 

P: 0.4 

T: 3.2 

No – P: 0.1 

T: 1.4 

P: 1.5 

T: 3.4 

P: 2.2 

T: 9.5 

3B P: 2.3 

T: 1.4 

P: 1.9 

T: 0.9 

P: 2.1 

T: 3.5 

No – P: 0.1 

T: 1.4 

P: 13.4 

T: 5.2 

P: 19.8 

T: 12.4 

3C P: 32.7 

T: 8.2 

P: 8.5 

T: 3.1 

P: 66.9 

T: 17.4 

Yes – P: 

13.2 

T: 4.0 

P: 19.3 

T: 5.4 

P: 140.6 

T: 38.1 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A P: 0.9 

T: 7.4 

P: 0.3 

T: 5.1 

P: 0.5 

T: 10.1 

No P: 0.1 

T: 1.0 

P: 0.1 

T: 9.4 

P: 0.7 

T: 7.6 

P: 2.6 

T: 40.6 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No – 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.6 

P: 18.1 

T: 6.7 

P: 21.9 

T: 12.9 

5A−Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No – 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.6 

P: 16.4 

T: 6.7 

P: 20.2 

T: 12.9 

5B P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.7 

No – 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.6 

T: 0.9 

P: 25.6 

T: 7.6 

P: 29.4 

T: 14.1 

5B−Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.4 

T: 4.8 

No – 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.6 

T: 0.9 

P: 25.9 

T: 8.7 

P: 29.7 

T: 15.3 

5C P: 29.3 

T: 5.7 

P: 2.3 

T: 0.3 

P: 64.0 

T: 20.7 

Yes P: 11.0 

T: 2.4 

P: 4.7 

T: 0.9 

P: 36.5 

T: 8.9 

P: 147.8 

T: 38.9 

5C−Ashcake P: 29.3 

T: 5.7 

P: 2.3 

T: 0.3 

P: 64.0 

T: 20.7 

Yes P: 11.0 

T: 2.4 

P: 4.7 

T: 0.9 

P: 34.8 

T: 8.9 

P: 146.1 

T: 38.9 

5D−Ashcake P: 1.2 

T: 0.5 

– 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.0 

T: 4.9 

No – 

T: 0.2 

P: 0.2 

T: 0.9 

P: 32.3 

T: 9.1 

P: 36.1 

T: 15.8 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-25 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-5: Habitat Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Alternative Agriculture 

(pasture/row crop/ 

grassland)Aqueous Habitat 

(wetlands/streams/ o

pen water)

Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat* Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 

6A – – P: 3.7 

T: 2.7 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 70.8 

T: 35.5 

P: 76.0 

T: 38.9 

6B−A-Line – – P: 3.9 

T: 2.8 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 95.6 

T: 48.3 

P: 101.0 

T: 51.8 

6B−S-Line – P: 0.7 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 68.9 

T: 17.6 

P: 78.6 

T: 22.2 

6C – – P: 4.4 

T: 2.8 

No – P: 1.5 

T: 0.7 

P: 122.1 

T: 48.6 

P: 128.0 

T: 52.1 

6D – P: 0.7 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.5 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 63.9 

T: 17.7 

P: 73.6 

T: 22.3 

6E – – P: 6.4 

T: 3.5 

No – P: 2.2 

T: 0.8 

P: 80.5 

T: 57.1 

P: 89.1 

T: 61.4 

6F – P: 0.6 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.7 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 73.1 

T: 18.3 

P: 82.9 

T: 22.9 

6G – P: 0.6 

T: 0.7 

P: 6.3 

T: 3.3 

No – P: 2.5 

T: 0.6 

P: 71.5 

T: 17.6 

P: 80.9 

T: 22.2 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

*Areas of internal forest that are a minimum of 300 feet from the edge of the forested area. 

4.2.1.1 Conservation Areas 

DRPT have made efforts, to the extent practicable, to avoid impacts to existing conservation areas 

(federal and state) and priority conservation areas (areas of habitat designated as worthy of 

conservation). Aside from temporary impacts to Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area, the 

alternatives avoid existing conservation areas. Due to the linear nature of the Project and the 

location of the existing tracks through rural areas, some of the habitat areas adjacent to the 

DC2RVA corridor have been determined worthy of conservation for a variety of qualities. 

Unavoidable impacts to these areas are outlined below (Table 4-6). As previously mentioned, 

impacts listed are the total area of predicted temporary and permanent impacts within the 

proposed LOD, unless otherwise noted. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-26 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-6: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) 

Alternative 

Area 

Alternative USFWS 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuges 

State 

Wildlife 

Lands 

County 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Private 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Priority 

Conservation 

Areas 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1B – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1C – n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to 

Dahlgren Spur) 

2A – – –

T: 0.55 

n/a P: 0.01 

T: 0.78 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur 

to Crossroads) 

3A n/a n/a n/a – P: 0.03 

T: 1.52 

3B n/a n/a n/a – P: 0.10 

T: 1.61 

3C n/a n/a n/a P: 22.31 

T: 5.69 

P: 83.36 

T: 18.63 

Area 4: Central 

Virginia 

(Crossroads to 

Doswell) 

4A n/a –

T: 2.54 

n/a n/a –

T: 2.48 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I295) 

5A n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5A−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5B n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5B−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

5C n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 4.80 

T: 21.13 

5C−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 4.80 

T: 21.13 

5D−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.59 

T: 0.01 

Area 6: 

Richmond (I-295 

to Centralia) 

6A n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B−A-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B−S-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6C n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6D n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6E n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6F n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6G n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2015. 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact, n/a = no resources located in that Area 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-27 Natural Resources Technical Report 

State Wildlife Lands. DRPT anticipates that Build Alternatives 4A would result in unavoidable 

temporary impacts to Mattaponi State Wildlife Management Area are anticipated to occur with 

Build Alternative 4A. Approximately 2.54 acres adjacent to existing railroad right-of-way would 

be disturbed for construction and then replanted and encouraged to renaturalize. Coordination 

with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) would be necessary. 

County Wildlife Lands. DRPT anticipates that Build Alternative 2A would result in 

approximately 0.55 acre of temporary impacts to Pohick Seeps Conservation Area are anticipated 

to occur with Build Alternative 2A. The site is located on parcels owned by Fairfax County that 

have a Permanent Wildlife Conservation Easement. Depending on the type of impacts proposed, 

temporary impacts could potentially be considered permanent for the rare habitat located there. 

Proposed work in this area will require coordination with Fairfax County. 

Private Wildlife Lands. Two parcels containing open-space easements managed by the Virginia 

Outdoors Foundation (VOF) are crossed by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C). 

DRPT anticipates that VOF conservation area CLN-VOF-3804 would have 1.22 acres of 

permanent impacts and 0.32 acre of temporary impacts, and area CLN-VOF-03850 would have 

21.09 acres of permanent impact and 5.37 acres of temporary impact. The Fredericksburg Bypass 

(Build Alternative 3C) would bisect intact interior forested habitat in these locations. 

Coordination with VOF may be necessary. 

Priority Conservation Areas including Wildlife Corridors. Unavoidable impacts to Priority 

Conservation Areas are listed in Table 4-7. These areas are recommended for preservation. 

Temporary impacts may be permanent depending on the type of impact and the potential to 

disrupt sensitive resources that may not have the ability to recover (e.g., clearing and grubbing 

of an area with a rare plant community). 

Table 4-7: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Alternative Arkendale 

Flatwoods Claiborne Run South Fredericksburg Summit Railroad Tracks White Oak Run Snow Creek Ravine South Anna River–Falling 

Cree

k

Centralia 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

1C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia (Long Bridge 

to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: – 

T: 0.06 

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to 

Crossroads) 

3A n/a P: 0.01 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.25 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.39 

– – n/a n/a 

3B n/a P: 0.08 

T: 0.02 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.25 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.39 

– – n/a n/a 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-28 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-7: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Alternative Arkendale 

Flatwoods Claiborne Run South Fredericksburg Summit Railroad Tracks White Oak Run Snow Creek Ravine South Anna River–Falling 

Cree

k

Centralia 

3C n/a P: 0.06 

T: 0.02 

– P: 0.09 

T: 0.36 

P: 0.10 

T: 0.02 

P: 4.61 

T: 1.21 

n/a n/a 

 Area 4: Central 

Virginia (Crossroads 

to Doswell) 

4A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 

5A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a – n/a 

5A−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a – n/a 

5B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a – n/a 

5B−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a – n/a 

5C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.34 

T: 0.05 

n/a 

5C−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.34 

T: 0.05 

n/a 

5D−Ashcake n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a – n/a 

Area 6: Richmond (I295 to Centralia) 6A n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B−A-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6B−S-Line n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6F n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

6G n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact, n/a = no resources located in that Area 

Aside from the proposed Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C), which bisects a large 

forested area and wildlife corridor, all impacts to wildlife corridors would result from widening 

the existing railroad. In some of these areas, wildlife are able to use areas under bridges that span 

waterways and dry culverts. Larger animals may be able to successfully cross existing tracks if 

no fencing or other additional barriers exist; however, an increased track area and increased train 

traffic would result in a decreased ability for wildlife to cross and increased mortality rates. Direct 

mortality from increased train/wildlife collisions would be anticipated; however, the long-term 

adverse impacts would not be considered substantial. Impacts to wildlife corridors are listed in 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-29 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-8. Figure 3-6 identifies the existing wildlife corridors. Overall, DRPT does not anticipate a 

substantial amount of wildlife crossing. 

Table 4-8: Impacts to Wildlife Corridors (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative Permanent Temporary 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A – – 

1B – – 

1C – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long 

Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 0.01 0.72 

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren 

Spur to Crossroads) 

3A – 0.87 

3B – 0.95 

3C 78.50 17.02 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A – 2.48 

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 5A 0.01 0.59 

5A−Ashcake 0.01 0.59 

5B 0.01 0.59 

5B−Ashcake 0.01 0.59 

5C 20.79 4.75 

5C−Ashcake 20.79 4.75 

5D−Ashcake 0.01 0.59 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A – – 

6B−A-Line – – 

6B−S-Line – – 

6C – – 

6D – – 

6E – – 

6F – – 

6G – – 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-30 Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.2.1.2 Invasive Species 

The Build Alternatives could increase the spread of invasive species. Construction equipment 

used could carry seeds or propagative plant parts from other construction projects or infested 

areas. Removal of sediment and soil to offsite locations could spread invasive species, and 

placement of fill from borrow sites could introduce invasive species to the study area. Exposed 

soil also allows invasive species to spread, which could contribute to encroachment of invasive 

species on vegetation communities adjacent to the LOD. 

In accordance with EO 13112, Invasive Species, the potential for the establishment of invasive 

plant species during construction of any Build Alternative would be minimized by prompt 

seeding of disturbed areas with seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to 

ensure that seed mixes are free of noxious species. To prevent the introduction of new invasive 

species and to prevent the spread of existing populations, BMPs would also be followed and 

could include washing machinery before it enters the area, minimizing ground disturbance, and 

reseeding disturbed areas. While the LOD is vulnerable to colonization by invasive plant species 

from adjacent properties, implementation of the stated provisions would reduce the potential for 

the establishment and proliferation of invasive species. 

4.2.1.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Due to the need to expand existing bridge crossings of major waterways where submerged aquatic 

vegetation (SAV) exists, the proposed Project would have unavoidable impacts on these plant 

species. Permanent impacts would include areas converted for the use of piers or infrastructure, 

while temporary impacts would include disturbed areas with the ability to support SAV again after 

construction completion. Impacts to SAV are only anticipated to occur with Build Alternative 2A 

(Figure 4-1). No SAV beds occur in the DC2RVA corridor south of Aquia Creek, and proposed 

improvements included with Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would not require work in waters 

containing SAV. Estimated acres of impacts to SAV are presented in Table 4-9. A request to remove 

SAV from or plant SAV on state-administered benthic surfaces would be submitted with a JPA to 

VMRC. In determining whether to grant approval for SAV removal or planting, VMRC shall be 

guided by §28.2-1205 of the Code of Virginia and the SAV Transplantation Guidelines, or any new 

and improved methodologies as approved by VMRC (VMRC, 2000). 

Table 4-9: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts (acres) 

Alternative Area Alternative Existing Historic Total 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge 

Approach) 

1A P: ––– 

T: 0.03 

– P: ––– 

T: 0.03 

1B P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

– P: ––– 

T: 0.01 

1C – – – 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A P: 1.33 

T: 1.91 

P: 0.37 

T: 0.35 

P: 1.70 

T: 2.26 

P=Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

There is no SAV south of Aquia Creek; therefore, there are no impacts listed for the Build Alternatives in Alternative Areas 3, 4, 5, and 6. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-31 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 4-1: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts – Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-32 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-33 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-34 Natural Resources Technical Report 

 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-35 Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Minimization measures to protect natural habitats and communities could involve modifications 

to later designs such as: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing, in particular in riparian areas 

 Development of a mitigation plan that includes landscaping and planting detail for onsite 

replacement of any trees removed 

 Native revegetation, including native shrub plantings, native reseeding of disturbed areas 

to prevent the spread of invasive species, and additional erosion controls during storm 

events due to exposed soil prevent 

 Using bridges or open bottom culverts in streams to minimize the disruption of natural 

stream bottoms 

Invasive Species. To avoid the introduction of new invasive species and prevent the spread of 

existing populations, BMPs should be followed, including washing machinery before it enters the 

area to prevent the spread of seeds and minimizing ground disturbance. Prompt seeding of 

disturbed areas with native seeds or seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed 

Law to ensure that seed mixes are free of noxious species will decrease the ability for invasive 

species to take root and out competing native species. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Mitigation for areas of temporary disturbance to SAV would 

be coordinated with VMRC. The following procedures are suggested by the Chesapeake Bay 

Program (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1995) for the protection of SAV areas: 

 Protect existing, historic, and potential SAV areas from physical disruption 

 Avoid or minimize dredging within SAV areas 

 Avoid nearby construction activities that create additional turbidity 

 Avoid reduction in Secchi depths (measure of water clarity) compared to predisturbance 

levels 

 Establish an undisturbed buffer around SAV beds 

 If construction must occur near or in beds, avoid activities during the growing season 

(April–October for most species) 

 Preserve natural shorelines through stabilization with marsh plantings 

Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize disturbance and removal of SAV would be made during 

final design design as part of obtaining the VMRC permit. Erosion and sediment control measures 

would minimize potential impacts to water quality within adjacent SAV areas. Construction within 

or adjacent to SAV areas would avoid the growing season for representative plant species to the 

extent practicable. Mitigation for SAV loss would be developed in coordination with VMRC and 

may include enhancement (increase aerial coverage of SAV beds or improvement in habitat quality) 

or restoration (return SAV to unvegetated bottom, which historically supported SAV) of SAV beds. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-36 Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.2.2 Wildlife 

Construction activities associated with the build alternatives, including clearing and grubbing and 

direct use of adjacent habitat, could result in the disturbance of local wildlife species such as birds, 

reptiles and amphibians, deer, foxes, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, groundhogs, and other common 

mammals associated with these areas. Mobile species, such as adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles, 

would be displaced during construction. Loss of less mobile animals may result from construction. 

These species would return and repopulate the area once construction has been completed. 

Additional loss of wildlife may occur due to mortality from collisions with trains, increased 

habitat fragmentation (discussed further in Section 4.2.1 Habitat and Natural Communities), 

impacts to aqueous habitats due to decreased water quality (discussed further in Section 4.1.3 

Water Quality), and habitat loss through the introduction of invasive species (discussed further 

in Section 4.2.1.2 Invasive Species). As noted in Section 4.2.1.1, DRPT does not anticipate a 

substantial amount of wildlife crossing. 

4.2.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds 

All mapped colonial waterbird colonies are located more than 1 mile from the proposed Project. 

Due to the distance of the rail corridor from known colonies, DRPT does not anticipate that any 

activities associated with the build alternatives would have any impact on colonial waterbirds. 

4.2.2.2 Migratory Birds 

The migratory birds of primary concern in the study area are migratory songbirds, commonly 

referred to as Neotropical migrants. Short-term adverse impacts from construction noise and 

disturbance may mask territorial vocalizations of birds andbreeding calls, and they may 

temporarily disturb breeding pairs. Important stopover habitat for migratory songbirds includes 

forested areas with dense undergrowth that provides cover from predators. Migratory birds 

could be affected through habitat degradation and loss associated with this Project. Most of the 

lost habitat associated with this Project, aside from proposed bypasses, would be directly adjacent 

to the existing rail line and is lower quality edge habitat already impacted by local activities. 

Nearby conservation areas such as federal, state, and private wildlife lands are more likely to 

provide optimal habitat for these species. 

The proposed Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build 

Alternative 5C and 5C–Ashcake) would use larger areas of habitat, each affecting approximately 

80 acres of forested areas, and would bisect a large area of interior forested habitat (located 300 

feet or farther from the forest edge and commonly composed of mature trees). These areas 

provide important habitat to many migratory species and protect them from predators that prefer 

the forest edge. The Fredericksburg Bypass would cut through two VOF easements, a large 

forested area including wildlife corridors, and may represent important sites for FIDS which need 

large, relatively unfragmented tracts of hardwood or mixed hardwood forest to successfully 

breed and maintain viable populations. FIDS prefer tracts in excess of 100 acres, or they require 

large contiguous linear tracts of hardwood or mixed hardwood forest that are a minimum of 600 

feet wide, as many of these species prefer nest sites to be located greater than 300 feet from the 

forest edge. This diverse group includes Neotropical migrant songbirds such as tanagers, 

warblers, and vireos that breed in North America and winter in the Caribbean, Central America, 

and South America, as well as residents and short-distance migrants such as woodpeckers, some 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-37 Natural Resources Technical Report 

raptors, and owls (Jones, et. al., 2001). Songbirds using these areas may be displaced and would 

disperse to nearby areas with suitable habitat, which may create greater competition. 

4.2.2.3 Aquatic and Marine Life 

Due to the number and type of water crossings involved, direct disturbance of aquatic 

communities would be unavoidable. In-stream work and use of wetland areas would result in 

the elimination of some aqueous habitat and species that would be unable to relocate. Additional 

impacts to aqueous habitats due to decreased water quality (discussed further in Section 4.1.3 

Water Quality) and habitat loss through the introduction of invasive species could occur 

(discussed further in Section 4.2.1.2 Invasive Species). 

Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters. Cook Lake in Cameron Run Regional Park, 

the only mapped trout water in the Project vicinity (VDGIF, 2015b), is not located near the LOD 

and is not expected to be affected. Anticipated impacts to waters containing anadromous fish are 

dependent on the size of the water body and the type of crossing required. Depending on the 

combination of build alternatives selected, DRPT estimates there would be between 8,235 and 

14,420 linear feet of permanent impacts to anadromous fish waters. Temporary and permanent 

impacts are detailed in Table 4-10. 

Table 4-10: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters 

Water Build Alternative Confirmed Species Anticipated Impacts 

(Linear Feet) 

Four Mile Run 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 189 

T: 692 

Cameron Run 2A Potential anadromous fish use waters – 

Accotink Creek 2A Alewife, Yellow Perch – 

Pohick Creek 2A Alewife, Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch – 

Occoquan River 2A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 1,161 

T: 1,275 

Neabsco Creek 2A Striped Bass P: 1,201 

T: 1,332 

Powells Creek 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 1,592 

T: 1,908 

Potomac River 2A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

– 

Quantico Creek 2A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

– 

Chopawamsic Creek 2A Blueback Herring, Yellow Perch – 

Aquia Creek 2A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 2,085 

T: 3,641 

Claiborne Run 3A Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 227 

T: 318 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-38 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-10: Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use Waters 

Water Build Alternative Confirmed Species Anticipated Impacts 

(Linear Feet) 

3B P: 1,231 

T: 682 

3C P: 362 

T: 507 

Rappahannock River 3B Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 914 

T: 922 

3C P: 1,034 

T: 2,094 

Hazel Run 3A, 3B, 3C Alewife, Blueback Herring – 

Mattaponi River 4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 715 

T: 1,167 

North Anna River 4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Hickory Shad, 

Striped Bass, Yellow Perch 

P: 252 

T: 386 

Little River 4A Yellow Perch P: 179 

T: 228 

South Anna River 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 

5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–

Ashcake, 5D–

Ashcake 

Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass 

P: 230 

T: 329 

James River 6B−S-Line American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped Bass, 

Yellow Perch 

P: 2,940 

T: 6,162 

6D P: 2,940 

T: 6,162 

6F P: 3,905 

T: 5,197 

6G P: 3,905 

T: 5,197 

Falling Creek 6A Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 242 

T: 174 

6B−A-Line P: 242 

T: 174 

6C P: 242 

T: 174 

6E P: 242 

T: 174 

P=Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-39 Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

Wildlife. DRPT will evaluate further minimization of impacts to wildlife during the final design 

process by decreasing LOD in habitat areas. This will include considering conservative use of 

staging areas and limiting access roads to reduce habitat loss. Wildlife passage can be facilitated 

through wildlife crossings. Wildlife crossings are man-made structures that allow animals to 

safely cross barriers. These crossings allow the connection or reconnection between habitats 

mitigating the impacts of habitat fragmentation, allow greater access to resources, and avoid 

wildlife/train collisions. DRPT will evaluate providing oversized culverts and extended bridges 

in areas where habitat fragmentation would occur. If pipes are used, they should be countersunk 

a minimum of 3 inches for pipes under 24 inches and a minimum of 6 inches for pipes 24 inches 

or greater. 

Migratory Birds. General time-of-year (TOY) restrictions on construction activities to avoid 

impacts on migratory and resident songbirds in Virginia are from mid-March through midAugust and for migrant passerines and non-passerines from the beginning of May through the 

end of July (VDGIF, 2016). To the maximum extent practicable, DRPT will avoid grading and 

construction during the breeding season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, 

DRPT will conduct nest surveys, if necessary, and will avoid activities within 100 feet of active 

nests, where possible. DRPT will not plant food sources within the right-of-way, which will make 

the right-of-way less attractive to birds, decreasing the likelihood of collisions with trains. 

Aquatic and Marine Life. DRPT will work with VDGIF, National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the design process to 

develop specific measures for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to aquatic 

wildlife. DRPT will implement BMPs, including use of silt curtains and limiting overflow from 

dredging equipment, which will minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of inwater activities. Erosion and sediment control measures will also minimize potential impacts to 

water quality during construction. 

Bottomless culverts and single-span bridges will be considered at smaller streams to maintain 

fish passage and channel morphology and to avoid instream work to the extent practicable. If 

pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of 3 inches for pipes under 24 inches and 

a minimum of 6 inches for pipes 24 inches or greater. Preconstruction sediment quality 

assessments and water quality monitoring during construction will be considered to address 

potential resuspension of contaminants and nutrients into overlying waters. 

TOY restrictions will be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on fish during early life stages. 

VDGIF typically recommends restrictions on all in-stream work within Anadromous Fish Use 

Areas and their tributaries between February 15 and June 30. Exact restrictions will vary 

depending on the species, type of work, and location location and will be developed with VDGIF. 

Stormwater management measures, including detention basins, vegetative controls, and other 

measures, will be implemented to minimize water quality impacts, if necessary. These measures 

will reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus avoiding substantial further 

degradation of impaired water bodies in and downstream of the study area. With implementation 

of these BMPs, DRPT anticipates the proposed Project will not adversely affect downstream 

species. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-40 Natural Resources Technical Report 

4.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential adverse impacts to federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species that may be 

present within the study area could occur for the build alternatives where planned improvements 

affect areas where species or their habitat may be found. 

Based on research through regulatory agency online databases, agency input regarding 

threatened and endangered species that may be present within the study area, and field surveys 

of potentially suitable habitat, DRPT determined that the build alternatives could potentially 

impact seven federally endangered and/or threatened species and eight state-listed endangered 

and/or threatened species (Table 4-11 and 4-12). Potential impacts depend on the species and 

range, including, but not limited to, elimination of the species from the area, removal or alteration 

of habitat, elimination of access to important life stage areas, disruption of breeding season, or 

disturbance resulting in a species leaving the area. The build alternatives for the Fredericksburg 

Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) and Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake), 

which would bisect forested habitat, wildlife corridors, and use rural areas with far less alteration 

would have the greatest chance of impacting wildlife, including threatened and endangered 

species. All other alternatives would be in mostly urban or already disturbed, although in some 

cases naturalized, areas adjacent to the existing tracks. 

Coordination with USFWS and NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA), as amended, for potential impacts to federally listed species would be conducted 

where required after the Draft EIS is published. Preliminary coordination with USFWS has 

consisted of obtaining the current list of federally listed threatened and endangered species that 

could potentially be found in the study area. DRPT anticipates that future coordination will cover 

the need for additional field surveys and discussion regarding the potential Project effects. 

Table 4-11: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the waterfowl sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted by a build alternative. 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) 

FT 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

One wetland (01-WTL-01) recommended for 

further sensitive joint-vetch survey 

Build Alternative 2A 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) 

FE 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Known or likely to occur within the Lower Aquia 

Creek subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014); streams 

recommended for further study include 02-STR70, 02-STR-69, 02-STR-68, 02-STR-66, and 02-

STR-117 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) 

FE 

Potential habitat does not 

appear to be present, and no 

suitable habitat was identified 

during field surveys; not likely 

to adversely affect. 

Known or likely to occur only in Stafford County 

(USFWS, 2014a) in the Lower Potomac 

(02070011) watershed (NatureServe, 2014) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-41 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-11: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Northern Long-eared 

Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout Virginia 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) 

FT 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Four wetlands recommended for further sensitive 

joint-vetch survey, including 02-WTL-32, 02-WTL47, 02-WTL-53, and 02-WTL-56 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

FT 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys at the 

following locations: MP 97.3–96.6; 85.6–85.5; 83.8–

83.6; 67.3–67.1; and 65.6–65.4 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) 

FE 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Existing populations in the Lower Rappahannock 

(02080104) watershed (NatureServe, 2014); 

additional streams recommended for survey 

include 03-STR-11, 03-STR-12, 03-STR-23, 03-

STR-25, 03-STR-26, 03-STR-26, 03-STR-28, 03-

STR-29, and 03-STR-29 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) 

FE 

Species not known to be 

present, and no suitable 

habitat was identified during 

field surveys; not likely to 

adversely affect. 

Not listed as occurring in the watershed crossed 

by this area (NatureServe, 2014) 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline County 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2016) 

Northern Long-eared 

Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout Virginia 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

FT 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys at the 

following locations: MP 59.8–59.7; 52.6–51.9; and 

51.1–50.9 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

FT 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

There are no records of this species occurring in 

any of the subwatersheds crossed by this area 

(VDCR, 2014) 

Build Alternative 4A 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) FE Species present; may affect 

Existing populations in the Mattaponi (02080105) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2014); Po River, 

upstream of this Project, has been listed by VDGIF 

as endangered waters for the dwarf wedgemussel; 

this species is known or likely to occur within the 

Poni River subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014); this 

species is known or likely to occur within the 

South Anna River–Cedar Creek subwatershed 

(VDGIF, 2014 and VDCR, 2014); additional 

streams recommended for survey include 04-STR01, 04-STR-09, 04-STR-10, 04-STR-11, 04-STR-18, 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-42 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-11: Potential for Federally Listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

04-STR-22, 04-STR-23, 04-STR-27, 04-STR-32, 04-

STR-35, and 04-STR-45 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline County 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2016) 

Northern Long-eared 

Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT 

Potential bat habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout Virginia 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

FT 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

There are historic records or the potential of this 

species occurring in the Campbell CreekMattaponi River subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in 

Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a) crossed crossed 

by this alternative area; there were 17 wetlands 

recommended for further survey, including 04-

WTL-11, 04-WTL-14, 04-WTL-15, 04-WTL-16, 

04-WTL-21, 04-WTL-22, 04-WTL-25, 04-WTL26, 04-WTL-32, 04-WTL-33, 04-WTL-39, 04-

WTL-40, 04-WTL-42, 04-WTL-43, 04-WTL-46, 

04-WTL-48, and 04-WTL-50 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) FE Species present; may affect 

South Anna River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the dwarf wedgemussel; 

this species is known or likely to occur within the 

South Anna River–Cedar Creek subwatershed 

(VDGIF, 2014 and VDCR, 2014); three streams 

were recommended for further survey/analysis 

including 05-STR-B-11, 05-STR-B-01, and 05-STR02 

Northern Long-eared 

Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT 

Potential bat habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

Bat habitat was noted during field surveys in 

Carter Park; it is generally agreed by the 

regulatory agencies that this species can be found 

throughout Virginia 

Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

Northern Long-eared 

Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT 

Potential habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; 

may affect 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory agencies 

that this species can be found throughout Virginia 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) 

FT Species unlikely to be present 

in the project area 

It is generally agreed by the different regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia, but no habitat in in the Richmond area 

would be affected 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

FT 

Species potentially present in 

region, but no suitable habitat 

identified; not likely to affect 

Species has historical occurrences in the region; 

however, no suitable habitat in the Richmond area 

was identified 

*FE – Federal Endangered; FT – Federal Threatened. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-43 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-12: Potential for State-listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C 

Appalachian Springsnail 

(Fontigens bottimeri) 

SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

There are no records of this species occurring in the 

subwatershed crossed by this area (VDCR, 2014) 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

One wetland (01-WTL-01) recommended for further 

sensitive joint-vetch survey 

Build Alternative 2A 

Appalachian Springsnail 

(Fontigens bottimeri) 

SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

There are no records of this species occurring in the 

subwatershed crossed by this area (VDCR, 2014) 

Brook Floater 

(Alasmidonta varicosa) 

SE 

Species not known to be 

present, not likely to 

adversely affect 

The brook floater is thought to be completely 

eliminated from the Middle Potomac - Anacostia–

Occoquan (02070010) watershed (NatureServe, 

2014) 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) 

ST 

Species potentially present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

This species has been recorded in Huntly Meadows 

Park (CEDER-VDGIF); the Project is separated from 

Huntly Meadows Park by more than 1.5 miles of 

urban development 

Virginia Piedmont Water 

Boatman 

(Sigara depressa) 

SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

This species in only known or likely to occur in one 

watershed in Virginia; not located near the proposed 

Project (VDGIF, 2014b) 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Four wetlands recommended for further sensitive 

joint-vetch survey, including 02-WTL-32, 02-WTL-47, 

02-WTL-53, and 02-WTL-56 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

SE 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys at the following 

locations: MP 97.3–96.6; 85.6–85.5; 83.8–83.6; 67.3–

67.1; and 65.6–65.4 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) 

ST 

Species potentially present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

Known or likely to occur in the Cameron Run 

(VDGIF, 2014b) subwatershed and the Accotink 

Creek-Gunston Cove subwatershed (VDGIF, 2014b 

and VDCR-NHD, 2014) 

River Bulrush 

(Bolboschoenus fluviatilis) 

S2 

Species present in wetland 

02-WTL-46 in Northern 

Virginia area; not likely to be 

impacted due to distance 

from alignment 

Previously unknown population in Neabsco Creek 

embayment identified during field surveys ; not likely 

to be impacted by Project 

Build Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) 

ST 

Species present; may affect; 

coordination with VDGIF 

required 

The Rappahannock River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the green floater; 

coordination with VDGIF is required 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis) 

ST 

Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records or the potential of this 

species occurring in the Poni River subwatershed 

(VDCR, 2014) in Caroline County (USFWS, 2014a 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-44 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-12: Potential for State-listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

and NatureServe, 2014) and the Lower 

Rappahannock (02080104) and Mattaponi (02080105) 

watersheds (NatureServe, 2014) 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

SE 

Habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; 

may affect 

Habitat recorded during field surveys at the following 

locations: MP 59.8–59.7; 52.6–51.9; and 51.1–50.9 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

There are no records of this species occurring in any 

of the subwatersheds crossed by this area (VDCR, 

2014) 

Build Alternative 4A 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) 

ST 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

Thought to be completely eliminated from Hanover 

County and Pamunkey (02080106) watersheds 

(NatureServe, 2014) 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis) 

ST 

Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records of the potential of this 

species occurring in the Poni River and Campbell 

Creek-Mattaponi River, Reedy Creek, and Polecat 

Creek subwatersheds (VDCR, 2014) in Caroline 

County (USFWS, 2014a and NatureServe, 2014) 

within the Mattaponi (02080105) watershed and the 

Lower Rappahannock (02080104) watershed 

(NatureServe, 2014) 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

SE 

Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

There are historic records or the potential of this 

species occurring in the Campbell Creek-Mattaponi 

River subwatershed (VDCR, 2014) in Caroline 

County (USFWS, 2014a) crossed by this this 

alternative area; there were 17 wetlands 

recommended for further survey, including 04-WTL11, 04-WTL-14, 04-WTL-15, 04-WTL-16, 04-WTL21, 04-WTL-22, 04-WTL-25, 04-WTL-26, 04-WTL32, 04-WTL-33, 04-WTL-39, 04-WTL-40, 04-WTL42, 04-WTL-43, 04-WTL-46, 04-WTL-48, and 04-

WTL-50 

Tiger Salamander 

(Ambystoma tigrinum) SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

Thought to be completely eliminated from Hanover 

County and Pamunkey (02080106) watersheds 

(NatureServe, 2014) 

Virginia Piedmont Water 

Boatman 

(Sigara depressa) 

SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

This species in only known or likely to occur in one 

watershed in Virginia; it is not located near the 

proposed Project (VDGIF, 2014b) 

Build Alternatives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, 5C, 5C–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) 

ST 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

Thought to be completely eliminated from Hanover 

County and Pamunkey (02080106) watersheds 

(NatureServe, 2014) 

Tiger Salamander 

(Ambystoma tigrinum) SE 

Species not known to be 

present; not likely to 

adversely affect 

Thought to be completely eliminated from Hanover 

County and Pamunkey (02080106) watersheds 

(NatureServe, 2014) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-45 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-12: Potential for State-listed Species to be Affected by Project 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status* Conclusion Notes 

Build Alternatives 6A, 6B–A-Line, 6B–S-Line, 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) 

ST 

Potential habitat present. 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect 

This species is known or likely to occur in the Falling 

Creek (VDCR, 2014 and VDGIF, 2014b) and 

Proctors Creek-James River (VDGIF, 2014b) 

subwatersheds in Chesterfield County (NatureServe, 

2014) 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) 

ST 

Species present; may affect; 

coordination with VDGIF 

required 

Several active nests were recorded in 2009 within 3 

miles of this alternative area near River Front Plaza in 

Richmond 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) 

ST Species unlikely to be 

present in the project area 

It is generally agreed by the different regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found throughout 

Virginia, but no habitat in in the Richmond area 

would be affected 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

SE 

Species potentially present 

in region, but no suitable 

habitat identified; not likely 

to affect 

Species has historical occurrences in the region; 

however, no suitable habitat in the Richmond area 

was identified 

*SE – State Endangered; ST – State Threatened. 

4.2.3.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

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. Table 4-13 lists bald 

eagles nests that would have their buffer zones encroached on by proposed construction of the 

Build Alternatives (Figure 4-2). Disturbance of nesting bald eagles is unlikely to occur if the 

following guidelines are followed: 

 Clearing, grubbing, and construction activities within 660 feet, but outside 330 feet, can 

be restricted to outside of the breeding season (mid-December to June), even if these 

activities are occurring within railroad right-of-way 

 A buffer of at least 660 feet can be maintained between all activities and the nest (including 

active and alternate nests) 

− If a similar activity is closer than 660 feet, then a distance buffer as close to the nest as 

the existing tolerated activity may be maintained 

 A buffer of at least 0.5 mile, or 1 mile in open areas, can be maintained for blasting and 

other activities that produce extremely loud noises, or restricted to outside the breeding 

season (USFWS, 2007) 

Construction activities in Bald Eagle Concentration Areas may also negatively affect bald eagles. 

Bald eagles congregate in these locations for feeding and sheltering (roosting) because of their 

proximity to food sources. Construction activities may prevent bald eagles from foraging and 

roosting in these locations, resulting in disturbance that may stress or relocate the species to less 

optimal habitat. Permanent alterations at these sites can eliminate or reduce essential feeding and 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-46 Natural Resources Technical Report 

sheltering habitat. Bald Eagle Concentration Areas are intersected near Aquia Creek, Potomac 

River, Quantico Creek, Powells Creek, Neabsco Creek, and Occoquan River. 

Table 4-13: Number of Bald Eagle Nests within Buffer Zones

Alternative Area Alternative 2,640 feet or up to 5,280 

feet in open areas1 

660 feet2 330 feet3 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 18 8 4 

Area 6: Richmond (I-295 to 

Centralia) 

6A 1 – – 

6B–A-Line 1 – – 

6B–S-Line 1 – – 

6C 1 – – 

6D – – – 

6E 1 – – 

6F – – – 

6G 1 – – 

Source: CCB, 2016. 

Notes: 

1. For projects that have blasting or other loud noise components 

2. Clearing, external construction, and landscaping between 330 and 660 feet should be done outside breeding season (PW1301, PW0701, FF1602, 

PW0801, PW0903, PW1501, PW1101, and ST1003) 

3. 330 feet, or as close as existing tolerated activity of similar scope (PW1301, PW0903, PW1101, FF1602) 

None of the Build Alternatives are within bald eagle nest buffer zones in Alternative Areas 1, 3, 4, or 5 

4.2.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation 

DRPT will coordinate with USFWS, EPA, VDCR, VDGIF, and other regulatory agencies will continue 

regarding habitat and wildlife—rare, threatened, and endangered species, bald eagles, migratory 

birds, anadromous fish, and SAV in particular—to ensure impacts are avoided to the extent practicable 

through the final design process and appropriate mitigation is developed where impacts are unavoidable. 

DRPT will reduce the likelihood of adverse effects through use of these measures: 

 Minimizing the LOD through design 

 Following appropriate BMPs for sediment and erosion control during construction 

 Using infiltration stormwater management 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing 

 Prompt reseeding of disturbed areas with native vegetation 

 TOY restrictions (Table 4-14) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-47 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Figure 4-2: Bald Eagle Nest Impacts – Alternative 2A 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-48 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-49 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-50 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-51 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-52 Natural Resources Technical Report 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-53 Natural Resources Technical Report 

 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-54 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 4-14: Potential Mitigation Measures for Threatened and Endangered Species with 

Potential to Occur in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Species Status Potential Mitigation Measures 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) 

FE 

Time-of-year restrictions; limit in-stream work to the extent practicable, limit 

removal of stream bank vegetation and prompt reestablishment of disturbed banks; 

stormwater management to limit sediment and pollution to receiving waters known 

or likely to support this species 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) 

FE 

Minimize construction LOD and avoid placing staging areas or entering areas of 

known or likely populations; prompt reestablishment of disturbed banks; 

transplanting or propagation of species; stormwater management to limit sediment 

and pollution to receiving waters known or likely to support this species 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE 

Time-of-year restrictions; implement applicable guidance in the 2007 Draft Recovery 

Plan and Habitat Conservation Plans; minimization of construction, staging areas, or 

human disturbance along riparian corridors where this species prefers to forage 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT 

Time-of-year restrictions; minimization of construction, staging areas, or human 

disturbance along riparian corridors where this species prefers to forage and rocky 

slopes used by this species for basking 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica) FT/ST 

Minimize of construction LOD and avoid placing staging areas or entering areas of 

known or likely populations; prompt reestablishment of native vegetation; 

transplanting or propagation of species; stormwater management to limit sediment 

and pollution to receiving waters known or likely to support this species 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) FT/SE 

Minimize of construction LOD and avoid placing staging areas or entering areas of 

known or likely populations; prompt reestablishment of native vegetation; 

transplanting or propagation of species; stormwater management to limit sediment 

and pollution to receiving waters known or likely to support this species 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) FT/SE 

Minimize of construction LOD and avoid placing staging areas or entering areas of 

known or likely populations; prompt reestablishment of native vegetation; 

transplanting or propagation of species; stormwater management to limit sediment 

and pollution to receiving waters known or likely to support this species 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ST Time-of-year restrictions; expanded discussion following this table 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) ST 

Time-of-year restrictions; avoidance or minimization of impacts to fishless wetlands 

in the areas where this species is known or likely to occur; installation of small 

wildlife culverts in areas where this species is known to occur 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) ST 

Time-of-year restrictions; limit in-stream work to the extent practicable; stormwater 

management to limit sediment and pollution to receiving waters known or likely to 

support this species 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis) ST 

Minimize of construction LOD and avoid placing staging areas or entering areas of 

known or likely populations; prompt reestablishment of native vegetation; 

transplanting or propagation of species; stormwater management to limit sediment 

and pollution to receiving waters known or likely to support this species 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) ST Time-of-year restrictions; monitoring of nests if work is required during the nesting 

season to ensure construction activities are not disrupting breeding pairs 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) ST Time-of-year restrictions; installation of small wildlife culverts in areas where this 

species is known to occur 

Source: VDGIF, 2016. 

Bald Eagle. According to the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to minimize 

disturbance, activities should be conducted outside of the breeding season, if possible, and kept as 

far away from nests as possible. Loud and disruptive activities should be limited to periods when 

eagles are not nesting, and activity between the nest and nearest foraging area should be avoided. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 4-55 Natural Resources Technical Report 

General guidance for Category A activities, such as constructing roads and other linear facilities, 

and Category H, such as blasting and other loud, intermittent noises, is outlined in Table 4-15 

(USFWS, 2007). It may be necessary to also obtain a permit issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended, for activities located in Bald 

Eagle Concentration Areas. This would be determined during the design process. Specific 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation would be developed in coordination with USFWS and 

VDGIF and may require development of an eagle conservation plan. 

Table 4-15: Bald Eagle Management Guidelines

If there is no similar activity 

within 1 mile of the nest 

If there is similar activity 

closer than 1 mile from the 

nest 

Category A activities, 

such as construction of 

roads and other linear 

facilities 

If the activity will 

be visible from 

the nest 

660 feet. Landscape buffers are 

recommended. 

660 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Landscape buffers are 

recommended. 

If the activity will 

not be visible 

from the nest 

330 feet. Clearing, external 

construction, and landscaping 

between 330 and 660 feet should be 

done outside breeding season. 

330 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Clearing, external construction, and 

landscaping within 660 feet should 

be done outside breeding season. 

Category H, such as 

blasting and other loud, 

intermittent noises 

Avoid blasting and other activities that produce extremely loud noises within 0.5 mile of active 

nests (or within 1 mile in open areas), unless greater tolerance to the activity (or similar activity) 

has been demonstrated by the eagles in the nesting area. 

Source: USFWS, 2007. 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

Table 5-1 summarizes environmental issues and their relevance to the project. Table 5-2 

summarizes the impacts of the build alternatives. The environmental data and findings 

presented herein were gathered from federal, state, and local agencies; previous area studies; 

existing literature and websites; aerial photography; geographic information system (GIS) 

databases; and field surveys in the study area. 

In Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, there is more than one Build Alternative considered. In 

Alternative Areas 2 and 4, there is a single Build Alternative considered. 

In Alternative Area 1 (Arlington), impacts to natural resources are limited and do not vary 

substantially between Build Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C. 

In Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg), impacts to natural resources are generally greater along 

the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C) than along the Build Alternatives through town 

(Build Alternatives 3A and 3B). Exceptions to this include drinking water and anadromous fish 

use waters. 

In Alternative Area 5 (Ashland), impacts to natural resources are generally greater along the 

Ashland Bypass (Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake) than along the Build Alternatives 

through town (Build Altenratives 5A, 5A–Ashcake, 5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake). 

In Alternative Area 6 (Richmond), Build Alternative 6C has the greatest impacts for many of the 

natural resources; however, the Build Alternatives that use the S-Line (Build Alternatives 6B–SLine, 6D, 6F, and 6G) have greater stream, aqueous habitat, and anadromous fish use waters 

impacts. 

Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Resources 

Resource Comment 

Waters of the U.S., 

Including Wetlands 

Water resources are regulated by the EPA, the USACE, the State Water Control Board, and 

the Virginia DEQ according to the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act), 

the Water Quality Act of 1987, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as 

amended in 1984. Approximately 490.2 acres of wetlands and 204,563 linear feet of streams 

are located within the DC2RVA survey area. See Section 3.1.3 Surface Waters, Rivers, 

and Streams and Section 3.1.5 Wetlands. 

Navigable Waters Work in or near navigable waters may require consultation with or permits from the USCG. 

According to the USACE, eight waters crossed by the DC2RVA alignment are navigable: 

Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, Powells Creek, Aquia Creek, Rappahannock River, Hazel 

Run, Mattaponi River, and James River. See Section 3.1.4.1 Navigable Waters.

5 
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-2 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Resources 

Resource Comment 

State Scenic Rivers State Scenic River designation constitutes official recognition of the natural, scenic, historic 

and recreational values of some of Virginia’s most valuable riverine resources. Qualities of 

state designated rivers are considered for federal projects on that river. The DC2RVA 

alignment crosses five State Scenic Rivers: Occoquan River, Rappahannock River, North Anna 

River, South Anna River, and James River. See Section 3.1.4.2 State Scenic Rivers.

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory 

Under a 1979 Presidential Directive, and related Council on Environmental Quality 

procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely 

affect one or more NRI segments. Two of the rivers crossed by the DC2RVA corridor are 

listed on the NRI: North Anna River and South Anna River. See Section 3.1.4.3 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory.

Chesapeake Bay 

Preservation Areas 

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

to protect and manage Virginia's “coastal zone.” The study area includes 1,760 acres of 

Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas (RPA). The remainder of the land located within 

the study location is considered to be Resource Management Area (RMA). The DC2RVA 

project is conditionally exempt from additional avoidance or minimization 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.) See Section 3.1.4.4 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.

Virginia Coastal Zone 

Management Areas 

Pursuant to Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 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 which 

is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Virginia Coastal Zone Management 

Program (VCP); and require submittal of a Consistency Determination. The entire project 

area is located within Virginia’s coastal zone. See Section 3.1.4.5 Virginia Coastal Zone 

Management Areas.

Floodplains and Floodways Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to avoid to the 

extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of flood plains. Approximately 3,574 acres of 100-year floodplains, as designated 

by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, are located within the planning level right of 

way limits. See Section 3.1.6 Floodplains and Floodways. 

Water Quality In compliance with Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, Virginia DEQ has developed a prioritized list of water bodies that 

currently do not meet water quality standards. According to the Virginia DEQ 2014 List of 

Impaired Waters, of the 62 assessed water bodies crossed by the DC2RVA alignment, 51 

have been found to be impaired for one or more uses. See Section 3.1.7 Water Quality. 

Drinking 

Water/Aquifers/Water 

Supply 

Public water supplies are regulated directly by the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

and indirectly by the same regulations governing surface waters. No Sole Source Aquifers 

(SSA) or Source Protection Areas (SPA) are located in the vicinity of the study area; however 

the Project falls within Zone 1 (greater than 5 miles into the watershed) of 3 public surface 

water supply intakes, within Zone 1 (1000 feet) of seven public wellheads, and within Zone 1 

(100 feet) of two public and eight private wells. See Section 3.1.8 Drinking 

Water/Aquifers/Water Supply. 

Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Habitat and Wildlife 

Impacts to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife would include the elimination of habitat within the 

limits of construction. Approximately 1,182 acres of aqueous habitat, 1,822 acres of 

agricultural habitat, 247 acres of shrub area/old field, 6,741 acres of upland forest, 1,646 acres 

of riparian/bottomland forest/PFO, and 9,016 acres of urban/developed lands are located in 

the DC2RVA study corridor. See Section 3.2 Biological Resources. 
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-3 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Resources 

Resource Comment 

Preservation Areas Communities intended for the preservation of habitat, plants, or wildlife. They are maintained 

to different degrees by the regulatory agencies and can be publically or privately owned. The 

DC2RVA study corridor includes three United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

National Wildlife Refuges, two State Wildlife Lands, one County Wildlife Land, four private 

wildlife lands, 14 VDCR-DNH - Natural Heritage Conservation Areas, and multiple wildlife 

corridors and ecological cores. See Section 3.2.2 Natural Communities.

Invasive Species Invasive species are non-native plant, animal, or microbial species that cause, or have the 

potential to cause, economic or ecological harm or harm to human health (Executive Order 

13112, Invasive Species). 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. Twenty-two (22) species ranked 

by Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) as being highly invasive 

were observed along the corridor, in addition to 10 medium invasive and 5 low invasive 

species. See Section 3.2.3 Invasive Species.

Colonial Waterbirds Coordination with Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) is required for 

waterbird colonies documented in the project vicinity. There are eight recorded Great Blue 

Heron colonies located within three miles of the DC2RVA corridor. All colonies are located 

greater than 1.3 miles from existing tracks. See Section 3.2.4.1 Colonial Waterbirds. 

Migratory Birds The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 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. Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds, requires federal agencies to take action to implement the MBTA. 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 and could disturb migratory species. A permit would be 

required from the local USFWS jurisdiction for the potential take, and it would include 

avoidance and minimization measures. See Section 3.2.4.2 Migratory Birds. 

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)). No Essential Fish Habitat is 

mapped by NOAA within the project vicinity. 

Coordination with VDGIF is required any time a Stocked Trout Water is documented within 

a project area. Only one stocked trout water is located in the project vicinity: Cook Lake in 

Cameron Run Regional Park. 

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. Twenty (20) Confirmed Anadromous Fish Use waters are 

crossed by the DC2RVA alignment. See Section 3.2.5.1 Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, 

and Trout Waters. 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation (SAV) 

SAV are widely regarded as keystone species and primary indicators of water quality 

conditions in the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay. According to the Virginia Administrative 

Code (VAC), 4 VAC 20‐337‐10 et seq. SAV Transplantation Guidelines, any removal of SAV 

from State bottom would require prior approval by VMRC. Ten of the waters crossed by the 

DC2RVA project alignment contain SAV beds. See Section 3.2.5.2 Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation (SAV). 
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-4 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Table 5-1: Summary of Environmental Resources 

Resource Comment 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

An online search of records from the VDCR, the USFWS, and the VDGIF of potential species 

that may occur in the project vicinity, revealed seven federally-listed and an additional eight 

state-listed species with the potential of occurring in the DC2RVA project corridor. See 

Section 3.2.6 Threatened and Endangered Species. 

 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-5 

Table 5-2: Summary of Environmental Impacts within Planning Level Right-of-Way Limits 

Area Alternative 

Water Resources Drinking Water Habitat 

Number of Streams 

Stream Length (linera Feet) 

Stream Area (Acres) 

Navigable Waters (linear Feet) 

State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (linear feet) 

Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) 

Floodplains (Acres) Total Wetlands (acres) 

Public Surface Water -Zone 1

1 (Acres) 

Public Ground Water -Zone 1 (Acres) 

Public Ground Water -Zone 2 (Acres) 

Private Wells 100-foot radius (ft

2) 

Private Wells 200-foot radius (ft

2) 

Agricultural Habitat (Acres) Aqueous Habitat (Acres) 

Upland Forest (Acres) 

Sh

rub Area/Old Field (Acres) 

Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO (Acres) 

Urban/Developed Lands (Acres) 

Area 1: Arlington (Long Bridge Approach) 

1A – –– –– –– –– –– 4.0 0.3 0.02 – – – – – – – – – – – – 

1B – – – – – – 4.8 0.1 – – – – – – – – – – – 1.5 1

1C – – – – – – 6.0 0.1 0.01 – – – – – – – – – – 0.4 0

Area 2: Northern Virginia (Long Bridge to Dahlgren Spur) 

2A 52 7,198 3.0 205.

7 

44.4 – 67.9 15.1 5.19 32.75 – 26.37 7,822 72,243 2.1 1.1 15.0 0.2 1.3 13.2 3

Area 3: Fredericksburg (Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 

3A 16 1,101 – – – – 36.9 7.7 5.24 – – 16.91 3,343 57,106 0.1 0.1 0.4 – 0.1 1.5 2

3B 20 1,506 0.4 45.0 45.0 – 41.0 10.5 5.29 – – 16.91 16,365 105,610 2.3 1.9 2.1 – 0.1 13.4 1

3C 43 4,597 0.5 44.5 44.5 – 57.9 8.0 23.82 – – 13.98 279 41,238 32.7 8.5 66.9 – 13.2 19.3 1

Area 4: Central Virginia (Crossroads to Doswell) 

4A 32 3,627 0.2 64.8 40.5 40.5 69.7 17.2 8.39 42.48 0.81 37.55 4,117 18,088 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.7 2

Area 5: Ashland (Doswell to I-295) 

5A 23 6,928 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 16.6 5.9 0.41 8.36 – 9.25 – 13,688 1.2 – 2.4 – 0.2 18.1 2

5A−Ashcake 22 6,928 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 17.7 7.1 0.41 8.36 – 11.59 – – 1.2 – 2.4 – 0.2 16.4 2

5B 24 9,114 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 19.4 6.5 0.41 8.36 – 9.33 609 26,018 1.2 – 2.4 – 0.6 25.6 2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 5-6 

5B−Ashcake 23 9,101 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 23.4 10.7 0.45 8.36 – 15.21 609 15,411 1.2 – 2.4 – 0.6 25.9 2

5C 26 9,005 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 31.6 9.2 8.44 31.06 4.70 44.09 4,205 19,098 29.3 2.3 64.0 11.0 4.7 36.5 1

5C−Ashcake 26 9,005 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 32.6 10.4 8.48 31.06 4.70 46.53 4,205 5,410 29.3 2.3 64.0 11.0 4.7 34.8 1

5D−Ashcake 28 8,163 0.1 – 40.1 40.1 25.7 11.5 0.45 8.36 – 16.12 – 17,321 1.2 – 2.0 – 0.2 32.3 3

Area 6: Richmond (I295 to Centralia) 

6A 30 7,523 0.1 – – – 53.5 8.1 3.21 51.70 – – – 21,701 – – 3.7 – 1.5 70.8 7

6B−A-Line 34 9,650 0.1 – – – 59.3 11.3 2.91 121.10 – – – 16,364 – – 3.9 – 1.5 95.6 1

6B−S-Line 36 8,819 0.8 31.7 31.7 – 55.1 48.6 3.47 125.26 – – 3.73 28,214 – 0.7 6.5 – 2.5 68.9 7

6C 35 10,886 0.1 – – – 63.3 16.1 2.99 153.22 – – 23,773 55,761 – – 4.4 – 1.5 122.1 1

6D 36 8,819 0.8 31.7 31.7 – 55.0 51.9 3.47 119.50 – – 3.73 28,214 – 0.7 6.5 – 2.5 63.9 7

6E 30 7,952 0.1 – – – 55.3 22.2 3.31 80.04 – – – 21,701 – – 6.4 – 2.2 80.5 8

6F 36 8,869 0.8 29.2 29.2 – 57.2 50.7 3.52 129.47 – – 3.73 28,214 – 0.6 6.7 – 2.5 73.1 8

6G 34 8,235 0.8 29.2 29.2 – 57.8 48.1 3.74 129.84 – – – 31,558 – 0.6 6.3 – 2.5 71.5 8
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

REFERENCES 

Bird Nature. 

2015. Spring and Fall Migration Timetable. http://www.birdnature.com/timetable.html. 

Accessed March 25, 2015. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 

1995. Guidance for Protecting Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay from 

Physical Disruption. Prepared by: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Workgroup of the 

Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program. EPA 903-R-95-013 

CBP/TRS139/95. Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. August 1995. 

Comstock, Jeffrey A., Sandra H. Azevedo, M. Frances Faure, and Suzanne M. Pierson. 

2003. Level III and IV Ecoregions of EPA Region 3 Map. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm. 

May 28, 2003. 

CCB (The Center for Conservation Biology). 

2016. Mapping Portal-VaEagles Nest Locater. http://www.ccbbirds.org/maps/#eagles. Last 

updated 2016. Accessed May 2016. 

City of Richmond, VA. 

2001. Wetlands digitized by the City of Richmond. GIS format. Received March 20, 2011. 

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 

1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. United States 

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services, 

Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 

04DEC1998). 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

Nd. GIS mapping layers. https://www.fema.gov. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, Revised. Washington, D.C. 

6 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-2 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

2002. Record of Decision for the Tier I Southeast High Speed Rail Project. Washington, D.C. 

November 20, 2002. 20 pages. 

Jones, et al. (Jones, Claudia; Jim McCann and Susan McConville) 

2001. A Guide to Conservation of Forest Interior Dwelling Birds in the Chesapeake Bay 

Critical Area. DNR – Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal 

Bays. Annapolis, Maryland. 

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/education/Documents/tweetyjune_2000.pdf. Published: 

May 2001. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

2009. Species of Concern–River Herring (Alewife & Blueback Herring). NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/concern/. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Endangered Species Act Listing. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/alewife.htm and 78 FR 48943– 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/08/12/2013-19380/endangered-andthreatened-wildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-act-listing-determination-for. 

2015. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0. http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/ 

efh/efhmapper/index.html. Accessed March 2015. 

National Park Service (NPS). 

2009. Nationwide Rivers Inventory–Virginia Segments. http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/ 

programs/rtca/nri/states/va.html. Accessed November 12, 2014. Last updated 

February 27, 2009. 

NatureServe Explorer. 

2014. Online Encyclopedia of Life–species search: Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Appalachian 

Springsnail (Fontigens bottimeri), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa), Blue back Herring (Alosa aestivalis), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), 

Dwarf Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis),

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), New Jersey Rush (Juncus caesariensis), Northern Longeared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica), Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata), Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), Virginia Piedmont Water 

Boatman (Sigara depressa), Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta).

http://explorer.natureserve.org/. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 

http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed October 2014–January 2015. Last updated 

March 2014. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-3 Natural Resources Technical Report 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division, Virginia Department of 

Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT). 

2002. SEHSR Washington, D.C. to Charlotte, NC, Tier I Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Executive Summary. Raleigh, NC, and Richmond, VA. 142 pages. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 

2014. Northeastern Terrestrial Habitat Classification System (NETHCS) Regional Habitat 

Cover Maps. http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/ 

NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/terrestrial/habitatmap/Pages/default.as

px. November 16, 2014. 

2015. Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization. Online mapping of anadromous fish locations 

and dams blocking passage. http://maps.tnc.org/EROF_ChesapeakeFPP/. Accessed 

February 2015. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

2010. Navigable Waters of the United States (Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act). 

Norfolk District, VA. 2010. http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/technical%20services/ 

Regulatory %20branch/Guidance/section_10_determinations.pdf. Accessed October 30, 

2014. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

2004. About the Lower Rappahannock Watershed. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/VA/ 

Programs/CSP/CSP05_Mattaponi_Facts.pdf. No date. Accessed March 2015. Posted 

December 9, 2004. 

2004. About the Mattaponi Watershed. ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/VA/Programs/ 

CSP/CSP05_Mattaponi_Facts.pdf. No date. Accessed March 2015. Posted 

December 9, 2004. 

United States Department of the Interior (DOI). 

2014. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service (NPS), United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Forest Service. National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. http://www.rivers.gov/map.php. Accessed November 6, 2014. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

2014. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ 

index.cfm. Accessed March 18, 2015. Last updated on Wednesday, July 30, 2014. 

Nd. Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region III–District of Columbia, Delaware, 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia. http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/ 

sourcewater/sourcewater.cfm?action=Publications&view=all. Accessed 

November 14, 2014. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-4 Natural Resources Technical Report 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

1991. Harperella Recovery Plan. March 5, 1991. Maryland Natural Heritage for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 5. Newton Corner, MA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/910305b.pdf. 

1991. Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata) Recovery Plan. September 30, 1991. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 5. Newton Corner, MA. 

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0719/ML071980107.pdf. 

1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan–First Revision. November 13, 

1992. New England Field Office, Concord, NH. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/921113b.pdf. 

1993. Dwarf Wedge Mussel Recovery Plan. February 8, 1993. Annapolis Field Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/dwm%20recovery%20plan.pdf. 

2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ 

ecologicalservices/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. May 2007. 

2010. Wild and Scenic Study Rivers. http://www.rivers.gov/study.html. Last updated 

May 16, 2010. 

2011. Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). July 26, 2011. Raleigh Ecological Field 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_sensitive_joint-vetch.html. 

2013. Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/featherstone/. 

Accessed December 10, 2014. Last updated June 21, 2013. 

2013. Virginia Ecological Services, Project Reviews in Virginia–Step 6B–Eagle Concentration 

Areas. http://www.arcgis.com/explorer/?open=8fa548ea54f543a2b2dbe9c9853a81d1. 

Last updated February 12, 2013. Accessed October 16, 2014. 

2014. ECOS (Environmental Conservation Online System)–Species Profile: Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon), Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Harperella (Ptilimnium 

nodosum), New Jersey Rush (Juncus caesariensis), Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Sensitive Joint-vetch (Aeschynome 

virginica), Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), Swamp-pink (Helonias bullata),

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta). http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action#. Accessed 

December 2014 and January 2015. 

2014. Virginia Ecological Services, Project Reviews in Virginia–Step 5–Critical Habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/endangered/projectreviews_step5.html. 

Last updated July 8, 2014. Accessed October 16, 2014. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-5 Natural Resources Technical Report 

2014. Occoquan Bay National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/occoquan_bay/. 

Accessed December 10, 2014. Last updated October 23, 2014. 

2014. Trust Resource List. Online Endangered Species Act species list for your project area, 

represented by the Virginia Ecological Services Field Office, Gloucester, VA. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/trustResourceList!prepare.action. Accessed 

October 14, 2014. 

2015. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS mapping. 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/NWI/Index.html. Last updated May 25, 2016. 

2015. Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Fact Sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/ 

NLBAFactSheetJanuary2015.pdf. 

2016. Official Species List. Consultation Codes: Seg 01: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0203 (10-19-2015), 

Seg 02: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0204 (10-19-2015), Seg 03: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0111 (10-08-

2015), Seg 04: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0108 (10-08-2015), Seg 05: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-1199 

(03-10-2015), Seg 06: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0112 (10-08-2015), Seg 07: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI0415 (11-5-2015), Seg 08: 05E2VA00-2015-SLI-1202 (03-10-2015), Seg 09: 05E2VA00-2015-

SLI-1203(03-10-2015), Seg 10: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0416 (11-5-2015), Seg 11: 05E2VA00-

2016-SLI-0417 (11-5-2015), Seg 12: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-0418 (11-5-2015), Seg 13: 

05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1004 (01-04-2016), Seg 14: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1009 (01-04-2016), Seg 

15: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1416 (02-11-2016), Seg 16: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1417 (02-11-2016), 

Seg 17: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1960 (03-22-2016), Seg 18: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1961 (03-22-

2016), Seg 19: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1962 (03-22-2016), Seg 20: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-1963 

(03-22-2016), Seg 21: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI-2750 (05-24-2016), Seg 22: 05E2VA00-2016-SLI2752 (05-24-2016). Virginia Ecological Services Field Office 6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, 

VA 23061. March 03, 2015–May 24, 2016. 

2016. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)–Species Profile: Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalist). http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action#. Accessed September 5, 2016. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 

2015. The National Map–Hydrography (Hydrography Viewer). United States Department of 

the Interior. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd. Accessed 

March 2015. 

Van Gosen, Bradley S. 

2006. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Natural Asbestos 

Occurrences in the Eastern United States (map). U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1189, 1 plate. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1189/. Accessed November 3, 2016. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-6 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Virginia Botanical Associates 

2016. Digital Atlas of the Virginia Flora – Bolboschoenus fluviatilis (Torry) Sojak. Virginia 

Botanical Associates. http://vaplantatlas.org/index.php?do=plant&plant=210.Virginia 

Coastal Zone Management Program (VCZMP). 

Virginia Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System (GEMS) 

2015. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/

CoastalGEMSGeosCoastalGEM.aspx. Accessed May 2015. 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR). 

2011. Virginia Scenic Rivers and Desirable and Potential River Components, 2011. 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/srfaq.shtml. Accessed 

November 6, 2014. 2011. 

2013. Virginia’s Scenic Rivers. http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/recreational_planning/ 

srfaq.shtml. Accessed November 6, 2014. November 7, 2014. 

2014. Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Natural Heritage Commission. Letter 

from Alli Baird to Emily Stock, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. 

Re: Southeast High Speed Rail Project Tier II EIS Scoping Notice. Letter dated 

December 4, 2014. 

2014. Natural Heritage Database Search–Subwatershed Query–020700100103-Potomac River 

(MD)-Pimmit Run-PL24, 020700100301-Potomac River (MD)-Fourmile Run-PL25, 

020700100302-Cameron Run-PL26 , 020400100402-Accotink Creek-Gunston Cove-PL30, 

020700100401-PohickCreek-PL29, 020700100803- Potomac River-Occoquan Bay-PL50, 

020700100805- (Lower) Occoquan River-Belmont Bay-PL48, 020700100804-Neabsco 

Creek-PL49, 020700110103-Powells Creek-PL51, 020700110106-Potomac River-Tank 

Creek-PL54, 020700110104-Quantico Creek-PL52, 020700110105-Chopawamsic Creek -

PL53, 020700110203-(Lower) Aquia Creek-Austin Run-PL57, 020700110204-Accokeek 

Creek-PL58, 020700110206-Potomac Creek-Beaverdam-Creek PL60, 020801040102-

Rappahannock River-Hazel Run-Claiborne Run-RA46, 020801040103-Massaponax 

Creek-RA47, 020801050105-Poni River-YO42, 020801050205-Campbell Creek-Mattaponi 

River-YO47, 020801050301-Polecat Creek-YO48, 020801050302-Reedy Creek-YO49, 

020801060803-Long Creek-North Anna River-YO26, 020801060702-Lower LittleRiverYO25, 020801060304-Cedar Creek-South Anna River-YO11, 020801060901-Mechumps 

Creek-Pamunkey River-YO27, 020802060402-Stony Run-Chickahominy River-JL17, 

020802060403-Upham Brook-JL18, 020802060101-Almond Creek-James River-JL01, 

020802060102-Falling Creek-JL02, 020802060103-Proctors Creek-James River-JL03, 

020802050607-Little Westham Creek-James River-JM86, 020802060101-Almond CreekJames River-JL01, 020802060102-Falling Creek-JL02, 020802060503-White Oak SwampJL21, 020801060902-Crump Creek-YO28, 020801060904-Totopotomoy Creek-YO30, 

020802060501-Powhite Creek-Chickahominy River-JL19. 

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/dbsearchtool.shtml. Online search 

conducted October 23, 2014. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-7 Natural Resources Technical Report 

2014. Virginia Wetlands Catalog: An Inventory of Wetlands and Potential Wetlands with 

Prioritization Summaries for Conservation and Restoration Purposes by Parcel, 

Subwatershed, and Wetland Boundaries. Natural Heritage Technical Report 14-4 Weber, 

J. T. and J. F. Bulluck. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of 

Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. 

2015. Department of Conservation and Recreation's Virginia Conservation Lands Database 

Map. https://vanhde.org/content/map. Accessed March 2015. 

Nd. Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Virginia Outdoors Plan. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

2005. Wellhead Protection Plan. April 15, 2005. 

2010. Get the Facts - Exceptional State Waters. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/ 

Resources/Factsheets/ExceptionalWaters2010.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2011. 

April 2010. 

2014. Exceptional State Waters (Tier III). http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/ 

WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityStandards/ExceptionalStateWaters(Tier

III).aspx. Accessed November 13, 2014. 

2015. Virginia Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System (GEMS). 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/CoastalGEMSGeos

patialData.aspx. Accessed November 2015. 

2015. Virginia Environmental Geographic Information Systems (VEGIS). Waters identified as 

impaired 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment–Draft 2014. GIS Layer: 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/mapper_ext/default.aspx?service=public/draft_2014_ad

b_anyuse#. Accessed March 2015. 

2016. Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program website. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/ 

Programs/CoastalZoneManagement.aspx. Accessed February 2016. 

Nd. Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program website. 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/CoastalZoneManagement/DescriptionBound

ary.aspx. Accessed November 4, 2016. 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 

2014. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Google Earth .KMZ Files: Navigable Waters. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/gis/google-earth-files.asp. Accessed November 13, 2014. 

2014. VDGIF TE Species. Dataset Layer from VDGIF of known locations of Virginia's listed 

wildlife species. Data last updated June 2014. Integrator update 14.07. 

2014. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Services (VaFWIS) Geographic Search (3-miles).

http://vafwis.org/fwis/?Title=VaFWIS+Geographic+Search. Accessed July 30, 2014. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-8 Natural Resources Technical Report 

2014. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Services (VaFWIS) Species Information Report 

(Occurrence, Habitat)–Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Appalachian Springsnail 

(Fontigens bottimeri), Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Barking Treefrog (Hyla 

gratiosa), Blue back Herring (Alosa aestivalis), Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Dwarf 

Wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis), Indiana Bat 

(Myotis sodalis), Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), Peregrine Falcon (Falco 

Peregrinus), Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), Virginia Piedmont Water Boatman 

(Sigara depressa), Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta).

http://www.vafwis.org/fwis/?Menu=Home.__By+Name. Accessed October 22, 2014. 

2015. Virginia Migratory Waterfowl. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/ 

waterfowl/. Accessed March 26, 2015. 

2015. Webless Migratory Gamebirds. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/webless-migratory-gamebirds.asp. 

Accessed March 26, 2015. 

2016. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Google Earth .KMZ Files: Trout Waters. 

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/gis/google-earth-files.asp. Accessed March 8, 2016. 

2016. VDGIF Time of Year Restrictions (TOYR) Table. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/ 

environmental-programs/files/VDGIF-Time-of-Year-Restrictions-Table.pdf. Last 

updated April 1, 2016. Accessed April 20, 2016. 

Virginia Department of Health (VDH). 

2012. Private Well Regulations 12 VAC 5-630-10 et seq. August 16, 2012. 

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy (DMME). 

2016. Water Well Geodatabase–a database of water well information for the state of 

information. Layer downloaded 2016. 

2016. Online GIS–Abandoned Coal Mine Lands and Reclamation, Division of Energy, Division 

of Oil and Gas, Department of Mines, Division of Mines Land Reclamation, Division of 

Geology and Mineral Resources, Division of Mineral Mining, Virginia Gas and Oil 

Board. https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/webmaps/. Accessed January 6, 2016. 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 

Nd. Comprehensive Environmental Data and Reporting System (CEDAR). VDOT GIS 

database including input from regulatory agencies. Dataset received from VDOT 

October 10, 2014. 

Virginia Geospatial Extension Program (VGEP). 

2008. Urban Tree Canopy Landcover (UTC). Virginia Department of Forestry in collaboration 

with the participating localities and funded by the Chesapeake Bay Program, the USDA 

Forest Service, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Virginia 

Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental Quality and 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-9 Natural Resources Technical Report 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University. http://gep.frec.vt.edu/va_utc.html. Accessed 2014. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 

2013. 2012 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake and Coastal Bays. Orth, R.J., 

D.J. Wilcox, J.R. Whiting, L. Nagey, A.K. Kenne, and E.R. Smith. VIMS Special Scientific 

Report Number 155. Final Report to EPA Grant No. CB96314501-0, 

http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/sav12/index.html. Accessed May 2015. 

2015. SAV in Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays Monitoring - Interactive Map. GIS files. College of 

William and Mary. 1971-2011. Gloucester Point, VA. http://web.vims.edu/bio/sav/ 

maps. html?svr=www. Accessed May 2016. 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). 

2000. Regulation 4 Vac 20-337-10 et seq.: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) 

Transplantation Guidelines. http://www.mrc.state.va.us/regulations/fr337.shtm. 

Effective date: November 1, 2000. Accessed November 28, 2011. 

2012. GIS Polygon of Baylor Public Oyster Grounds as of May 14, 2012. Layer name: 

Baylor2008_05-14-12. Received from the Marine Resources Commission May 14, 2012. 

2012. GIS Polygon of MRC Leases–Private Shellfishing Grounds. Layer name: 

MRC_Leases_05-11-12. Received from the Marine Resources Commission May 11, 2012. 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). 

2011. Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties, 

Virginia–October 2011–Virginia Household Water Quality Program. 

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/BSE/BSE-36/BSE-36_pdf.pdf. October 2011. 

Virginia Rivers Defense Fund. 

2010. Navigable Waters of the United States. 

http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/NavigableWater.pdf. Uploaded July 2011. Accessed March 11, 2015. Revised March 5, 2010. 

Virginia State Water Control Board. 

2011. 9 VAC 25-260 Virginia Water Quality Standards. Statutory Authority: § 62.1-44.15 3a of 

the Code of Virginia. With amendments effective January 6, 2011. 
REFERENCES 

D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 6-10 Natural Resources Technical Report 

Virginia Water Control Board 

2013. Eastern Virginia Ground Water Management Area (9 VAC 25-600). 

http://register.dls.virginia.gov/details.aspx?id=3873. Accessed June 2015. Groundwater 

Withdrawal Regulations (9 VAC 25-610-10 et seq.) 

Ware, D.M.E. 

1991. Small Whorled Pogonia, Isotria medeoloides (Pursh) Rafinesque. In Virginia’s 

Endangered Species, K. Terwilliger, ed. McDonald and Woodward, Blacksburg, 

Virginia. 

Weber, J. T. and J. F. Bulluck. 

2014. Virginia Wetlands Catalog: An Inventory of Wetlands and Potential Wetlands with 

Prioritization Summaries for Conservation and Restoration Purposes by Parcel, Subwatershed, 

and Wetland Boundaries. Natural Heritage Technical Report 14-4. Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond, VA. 

Woods, Alan J., James M. Omernik, Douglas D. Brown. 

1999. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects 

Research Laboratory with Dynamac Corporation U.S. EPA National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Map preparation and development of 

digital files were provided by Jeffrey A. Comstock, Sandra H. Azevedo, M. Frances 

Faure, and Suzanne M. Pierson (OAO Corp). Corvallis, OR. July 1999.
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail A-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS A 

Area 1: Arlington 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail B-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS B 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail C-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS C 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail D-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS D 

Area 4: Central Virginia
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail E-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS 

Area 5: Ashland

E 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail F-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS 

Area 6: Richmond

F 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail G-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

G FIELD SURVEY DATA SHEETS 
D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail H-1 Natural Resources Technical Report 

SOILS WITH POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION H LIMITATIONS