20081100 Ver 1_More Info Received_20120402

Strickland, Bev
From: Homewood, Sue
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:09 PM
To: Dennison, Laurie; Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: NAO- 2008 -1100 Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre Public Notice Comments
from USACE. (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: NAO- 2008 -1100 USACE PN Comments.pdf; CCBC VDHR File No 2008 -0993 and
2009- 1616.pdf; CCBC DCR .pdf; CCBC NOA NMFS No -EFH .pdf; CCBC USFWS
Comments.pdf
Importance: High
For file 11 -0999 please
Sue Home-wood
NC DENR Winston -Salem Regional Office
Division of Water Quality-
585 Waughto,,Nn Street
Winston - Salem, NC 27107
Voice: (336) 771 -4964
FAX: [phone]
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records La-,N- and may be disclosed
to third parties.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Courtois, Danielle R NAO [mailto: Danielle. R.Courtois ;ciusace.army.mill
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:13 AM
To: Tim Pace, Rick Thomas, t«- aaner ,-r; «- ile -,- «- ilson.com, Roberts, Jesse (DEQ), Kimberly Smith aifws.Qoiv Mark Douglas,
Bro-, n, Thomas L SAW, Home-wood, Sue
Cc: Kube, Peter R NAO, Walker, Tom NAO
Subject: NAO- 2008 -1100 Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre Public Notice Comments from USACE.
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Importance: High
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Mr Pace, et al
Please find attached the public notice comments summary- and response from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk
District, regarding the Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre.
I have also attached the 4 comments letters received during the public notice comment period (-which are referenced -within our
letter) from the following agencies: VDHR, DCR, NCNOA, USFWS.
Please let me kno-w if you have any questions or concerns, as our letter states, N e are -willing to N ork through the intricate
aspects of this project and /or are available to meet in the future.
Sincerer -,
Danielle R. Courtois
Environmental Scientist
US Arm-,- Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Blue Ridge Field Office P.O. Box 143 Floyd, VA 24138
Office: 540 - 651 -2088

Danielle.R.Courtois cnusace.armN -.mil
Norfolk USACE N ebpage: http : / / «- ,N- «- .nao.usace.arm -,-.mil/
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 -5505
(727) 824 -5317; FAX [phone]
http: / /sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/
March 5, 2012
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
Colonel Steven A. Baker District Engineer, Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 -1890
Dear Colonel Baker:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the
public notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed project(s) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council or NMFS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed activities and
no further action is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to
authorization of the proposed work.
NOTICE NO. APPLICANT NOTICE DATE DUE DATE
2008 -1100 Henry County Engineering and February 2, 2012 March 5, 2012
Mapping
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or
critical habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our
Protected Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber (for)
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

A
4
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Historic Resources
Douglas N-. Domenech 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221
S'ecrerori� oi'-v riwol Resoiwces
March 2, 2012
Danielle R. Courtois, Environmental Scientist/Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Norfolk District
Blue Ridge Field Office
P.O. Box 143
Floyd, Virginia 24091
Re: Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre ((NAO- 2008 -1100)
Henry County, Virginia
DHR File No. 2008 -0993 and 2009 -1616
Dear Ms. Courtois:
Thank you for requesting our comments on the Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre.
Kathleen S. Kilpatrick
Drrecror
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TDD: (804) 367 -2386
N ww.dhr.virginia.goy
As you know cultural resource surveys of the Roma and Sharpe tracts were conducted by Circa— Cultural
Resource Management, LLC. at the request of Henry County and reports were submitted to us as technical
assistance. We received from Brian Breissinger of the Timmons Group on February 21, 2012 an updated map
showing the location of the cultural resources identified in relation to the proposed industrial park. Of the 11
resources identified during the smi evs, only one property is considered eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the Watkins House (DHR ID# 044 - 5454), as you see from the attached Table (?fRonza Tract
acrd Sharpe Tract Resmirces dated February 14, 2012. However, the Watkins House is located on private
property and will not be affected by the proposed development.
Four cemeteries were also identified. One of these, the Pavne Cemetery (DHR ID #044 -5184) has alreadv been
removed under a permit for the archaeological removal of human remains issued by our department and the
burials reinterred within the Watkins Cemetery (f)HR #044 - 5188). The other two cemeteries, the Patterson
(044 -5182) and the Price (044 -5183) Cemeteries are located on out parcels. We would like to take this
opportunity to clarify the intent our letter to the County dated September 20, 2011. While ive do not consider
that the requirements of Criterion Consideration D have been demonstrated in the March 2009 report titled
Phase I Architecoiral ,;w -vey of the Ronza Tract, Hurry County, i irginia prepared by Aaron Levinthal et al. ive
do concur with the consultant's recommendations as summarized in Table 11 on page 43 of the report. The
Watkins, Patterson and Price cemeteries are likely eligible under criterion D for their potential ability to
provide information important in history. Through the excavation and analysis of the human remains, the
Payne Cemetery has already demonstrated that potential. We also agree that the Watkins, Patterson and Price
Cemeteries should be avoided.
Based upon the documentation provided by the Timmons Group and by the March 2009 report, lve
recommend a finding of No Adverse Effect on historic properties for the referenced project. The Price
Cemetery (DHR ID #044 - 5183), located in an out parcel but bordering the project area, is not likely to be
affected by construction. The Patterson Cemetery (f)HR ID# 044 -5182) is also located within an out parcel.
AdministratiN -c Scrs -ices Capital Region Office Tidewater Region Office NVestcrn Region Office Northern Region Office
10 Courthouse AN e. 2801 Kensington Office 14415 Old Courthouse NVay 2`1 962 Kimc Lane 3337 Main Street
Petersburg, VA 23803 Richmond, VA 23221 Floor Salem, VA 24153 Po Box 319
Tel: [phone] Tel: [phone] Newport Nevis, VA 23608 Tel: [phone] Stephens Cits, VA 22633
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]

While the March 2009 report states the `limits of this cemetery were marked in the field, surveyed in by
surveyors with Henry County and the cemetery is retained within a one -acre outparcel ", the February 21 map
depicts a larger protective buffer that appears to provide adequate protection. We suggest that this be
confirmed with the consultant. The Watkins Cemetery (DHR ID# 044 -5188) is located within the project area.
The consultant recommends and ive agree that the protective measures for this cemetery include surrounding it
with highly visible orange fencing during all construction activities. We also recommend that the area marked
off with orange fencing include a fifty foot buffer around the cemetery.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, or if ive may provide any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (804)482 -6088; fax [phone]; e -mail ethel.eaton u dlu.virainia. ,jov
Sincerely,
Ethel R. Eaton, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst
Division of Resource Ser ices and Review
AdminishatiN -e Serf -ices Capital Region Office Tidewater Region Office
10 Courthouse AN e. 2801 hensington Office 14413 Old Courthouse fvay 2°1
Petersburg, FA 23803 Richmond, FA 23221 Floor
Tel: [phone] Tel: [phone] Newport Nevis, VA 23608
Fax: [phone] Fax: [phone] Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
western Region Office
962 Dime Lane
Salem, VA 24133
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Northern Region Office
3337 Main Street
PO Box 319
Stephens City, VA 22633
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

"T of rHF w
4� United States Department of the Interior
Vl
a _
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 4 Ecological Services
6669 Short Lane
Gloucester, Virginia 23061
MAR 01 2012
Colonel Andrew W. Backus
District Engineer
Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers
803 Front Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23510 -1096
Attn: Danielle Courtois, Regulatory Branch
Re: Commonwealth Crossing Business
Centre, Henry County Engineering
and Mapping, Henry County, Virginia,
NAO- 2008 -1100, Consultation No.
2012 -I -0330
Dear Colonel Backus:
We have reviewed the referenced project information. The stated purpose of the proposed
Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre is to provide pre - developed infrastructure,
transportation, and pad site improvements of a size necessary to attract a large industrial user to
Martinsville /Henry County, Virginia. The following comments are provided under provisions of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 -1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended (ESA),
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 -667e, 48 Stat. 401) as amended, section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 86 Stat. 816), and National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91 -190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 -4347, 83 Stat. 852) as amended.
Based on the project description and location, the project area and proposed compensation site
may support suitable habitat for the federally listed endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema
collina), Roanoke Iogperch (Percina rex), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and small -
anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera). Additional information about these species may
be found in fact sheets that are available on our web site at
http:// www. fws. gov/ northeast /virginiafield /endspecies /fact sheets.html.
We recommend that a detailed habitat assessment be conducted for each species by an approved
surveyor in the action area, including the proposed compensation site, to identify suitable habitat,
and that a survey for the species be conducted within all suitable habitat identified in the action
area. Surveys are not needed if the approved surveyor determines that no suitable habitat is
present. A list of qualified surveyors can be found on our website at
http: / /www.fws. gov / northeast / virginiafield /endspecies /surveyors.httnl. These lists do not include
all individuals qualified or authorized to survey for these species. If you select someone not on

Colonel Backus Page 2
the pre - approved surveyor list, provide the proposed surveyor's qualifications and proposed
survey design to this office for review and approval prior to initiating the survey. Send copies of
all survey results to this office or inform this office if a survey will not be conducted. if the
habitat assessment and/or survey determines that suitable habitat or listed species are present,
this office will work with you to ensure that the project avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to
listed species and their habitats.
In December 2006, Martinsville/Henry County conducted an industrial site feasibility study.
This study evaluated and ranked five sites (ROMA, Airport, Route 58 east, Patriot Centre II, and
Magna Vista) based on weighted site selection factors specified in the study. The ROMA site
was selected by the applicant, primarily because it ranked high based on the selected factors and
because it was the only site with rail access. The proposed site layout of Phase 1 (249 acres) on
the 739 -acre ROMA site will result in 12,301 linear feet of stream impacts and 0.67 acres of
wetland impacts. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is concerned about the significant
impacts to stream channel. While the feasibility study may have provided a selection analysis
that met the needs of the applicant, it does not provide enough information to determine
compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act. The 404(b)(1)
guidelines assumes that, if a project is non -water dependent, alternative sites that do not involve
disturbance of special aquatic sites (including wetlands) are available unless clearly
demonstrated otherwise (40 CFR Section 230. 1 0(a)(3)). The Service recommends that the
applicant provide a detailed explanation for each alternative as to whether the site was
determined to be feasible and met the basic project purpose. The applicant should provide
sufficient details on the estimated wetland /stream impacts for each alternative and provide
documentation that demonstrates that the selected alternative is the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative.
The applicant has indicated that additional impacts on the ROMA tract will be proposed in the
future. We recommend that the applicant provide conceptual plans on the development of the
entire parcel. These plans are necessary to inform the analysis of what avoidance and
minimization measures were implemented at the project site. Based on the current application,
few avoidance or minimization measures were implemented at the project site, thus resulting in
significant impacts to streams. Additional alternative designs at the ROMA site should be
explored that meet the basic project purpose which is to provide a developed site for an industrial
user. Similarly, information on the intended use of the site is needed to complete section 7
consultation under the ESA to ensure consideration of additional effects that result from the
selection and development of this site, such as potential industrial pollution discharge, water
withdrawal needs, or any additional interrelated and interdependent actions that may affect listed
species.
The information provided does not adequately support the ROMA site as the least
environmentally damaging practical alternative that meets the basic project purpose. Due to the
lack of specific details and supporting documentation in the alternatives analysis and lack of
avoidance and minimization measures implemented at the ROMA site, the Service recommends
denial of the project as proposed. The Service would like the opportunity to review any
additional information that is provided in support of the selection of this site and its intended

Colonel Backus
Page 3
future uses. Based on the additional information received, a site visit may be requested in the
future.
If you have any questions, please contact Kimberly Smith of this office at (804) 693 -6694,
extension 124, or via email at Kimberly_Smith @fws.gov.
Sincerely,
Cindy Schulz
Supervisor
Virginia Field Office

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT NORFOLK, 803 FRONT STREET
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510 -1096
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: CENOA -WR -RW
Western Virginia Regulatory Section
NAO- 2008 -1100 (Roanoke River)
March 27, 2012
Mr. Tim Pace
Henry County Industrial Development Authority
P.O. Box 7
Collinsville, VA 24078
Dear Mr. Pace:
I am writing in reference to your application for a Department of the Army individual permit
for the 739 acre parcel known as the Commonwealth Crossing Business Center (CCBC) in
Henry County, Virginia. The public notice comment period for this application ended March 1,
2012. A public notice was also advertised on the Wilmington USACE website with a comment
period ending March 5, 2012. The following comments were received. Additional information
required to evaluate this proposal are in bold.
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation sent a letter dated February 23,
2012 (attached). Their letter indicated that no natural heritage resources have been documented
for the project area.
The Virginia Department of Historic Resources sent a letter dated March 2, 2012 (attached).
Their letter indicated there would be no affect on documented historic resources. They did
recommend that based on the cultural reports submitted, the protective measures recommended
by Circa Cultural Resource Management LLC be in place prior to the commencement of
construction.
Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) received a comment from
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service; letter dated March 5, 2012, attached. The letter
indicated that the project will not occur within essential fish habitat. This review was limited to
the area of the project that occurs within Rockingham County, North Carolina. No further
comments were received by the Wilmington District.
The Blue Ridge Field Office, USACE, received one phone call comment from an adjacent
property owner located in Rockingham, NC. The caller expressed concern that the project could
impact the spring water to the homes in the area. Her house was constructed in the late 1940's
and the spring is the only source of water.
Preliminary discussions with and correspondence received from other agencies that provide
permit application comments, such as US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), have indicated that they are likely to have concerns about the project
as proposed. The EPA requested an extension, in writing, for their submittal of comments; the
extension ends March 31, 2012.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) sent a letter to the Norfolk District Commander
on March 1, 2012 (letter attached). The Service recommends that a detailed habitat assessment
be conducted for the federally listed endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina),
Roanoke logperch (Percina rex), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and small- anthered
bittercress (Cardamine micranthera). Suitable habitat for these species is located at the proposed
Roma/Sharpe project site and proposed compensation site (known as the Bryant property). The
Service also indicated that the project, as proposed, demonstrates minimal avoidance and
minimization measures. Future proposed impacts at the site were indicated with the application
but no conceptual plans were included. A complete picture of the current and future intended
use of the site is needed to complete the section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Please provide the habitat assessments for the species mentioned.
Before any permit for work in waters of the US can be issued, the applicant must
demonstrate and the Corps must affirm that the proposed work complies with certain guidelines
as prescribed in the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(1). The 404 (b)(1) guidelines (Guidelines),
described at (40 CFR part 230) are mandatory criteria used for evaluating discharges of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States. The Guidelines require, in part that no discharge
of dredged or fill material be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed
discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR part
230.10(a)). The Guidelines also require that no discharge of dredged or fill material be permitted
unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse
impacts (40 CFR 230.10(d)). The alternatives analysis therefore, must included review of both
off -site and on -site options that may avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the extent practicable.
Please note that compensatory mitigation is not considered during the evaluation of potentially
practicable alternatives and mitigation may not be considered in lieu of impact avoidance and
minimization. Also, since the project is not water dependant, you must clearly demonstrate that
alternatives that do not involve discharges into wetlands, stream pool riffle complexes or other
special aquatic sites are not available (40 CFR Sec 230.10(a)(3).
Off -Site Alternatives Analysis
The application materials provided do not clearly demonstrate that the applicant preferred
site has the least potential for environmentally adverse impacts. The 2006 Wiley Wilson
Preliminary Findings Report included in the application concludes that the Roma parcel is the
only property in Henry County that can provide the space and meet the criteria needed for a
mega -site development project with a constructed pad ready site. It appears that the extent of
waters and wetlands was a criteria used in the evaluations. However, no quantitative data on the
amounts of waters and wetlands on the alternative sites are given. The site selection Matrix in
Appendix F, cited as the Alternative Site Analysis Table, only shows "Wetlands Potential" in
terms of a percentage of the overall site. Additionally, it does not appear to include any
information on extent of streams. Based on a review of the report, it appears that the opportunity
CCBC NAO- 2008 -1100 Public Notice Comments

to avoid jurisdictional areas would be greater at the much larger Airport and Magna Vista sites
which support the same wetland percentage as the smaller Roma site.
The application materials provided do not clearly demonstrate that other identified sites are
impracticable. The Guidelines define a practicable alternative as one that is available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in
light of the overall project purpose. We realize that there are certain logistical considerations
that are important in the site selection process. However, we do not agree that absence of certain
features, for example onsite rail access, necessarily renders a site impracticable, especially if
opportunity exists to develop this feature. In reviewing the Wiley Wilson Report, it is not readily
obvious which of the alternative site locations are practicable. In fact, according to the report the
Patriot Centre site was ranked #1 in meeting the selection criteria identified. However, the
Roma/Sharp site ( #2) was ultimately chosen as the preferred site. We understand that the Roma
property was purchased by the County for this project but ownership of a property does not
negate the requirement to look at all alternative sites in order to find the least environmentally,
damaging practicable alternative.
Therefore, please provide sufficient details to demonstrate that practicable alternatives
having less environmental impact do not exist. Please keep in mind that satisfactorily
demonstrating that a site is either not practicable or would result in greater impact to the
aquatic environment will satisfy this requirement. Additionally, the VTC Feasibility Study
from December 2005 (cited but not included in the submittal) evaluated 19 sites located
throughout the state of Virginia, with four sites having the major focus. The ranking that
was allocated to the sites is not discussed in the application. Please provide the VTC
Feasibility Study.
On -Site Alternatives Analysis
Once you have demonstrated that the applicant preferred site is the least damaging
practicable site, the Guidelines require that an on -site alternatives' analysis be undertaken to
locate any development in such a way to avoid and/or minimize impacts on the selected site.
This step requires you demonstrate that there is no lesser environmentally damaging, practicable
site plan than the one proposed. In your particular case, meeting this requirement is complicated
by the fact that the proposed development is largely speculative in that there is no identified or
even specific target user for the site. Without knowing the specific requirements of a user, it is
not clear how you can demonstrate that site plans involving less fill in waters of the US are not
practicable. In fact, the goal of the Wilson and Wiley report was to evaluate sites for industrial
manufactures seeking to develop sites with a minimum of four, "fifty acre" pad sites. This seems
to indicate that some end -users may not require a full 200 acre contiguous pad. While there may
be certain infrastructure needs required to open the site for any potential user, it seems the end -
user's specific space and design needs will ultimately be the determining factor in the need for
the majority of the onsite impacts.
CCBC NAO- 2008 -1100 Public Notice Comments

Therefore, please provide an on -site alternatives analysis that sufficiently identifies all
appropriate and practicable efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
This may require a letter of intent from a potential user for this proposed development and
specific site requirements for that user.
To issue a permit we must also find that such issuance is not contrary to the public interest
under 33 CFR 320.4. Permit decisions are based on probable impacts associated with the
proposed project, including cumulative impacts, on the public interest. So that we may more
fully evaluate the relevant public interest factors, please provide information on the following:
1. Fish and wildlife values, wetlands and water quality. The USFWS has indicated that
suitable habitat exists at the Roma/Sharpe and Bryant properties for two aquatic and two
terrestrial federally listed species. The proposed project will permanently impact 0.66 acres of
wetlands and 12,300.99 linear feet (LF) of streams. Other fish and wildlife species currently
utilize the site. Changes in land use will impact aquatic species and their habitats. The changes
in land use lead to increased sedimentation and can deliver more stormwater pollutants to the
system, reduce the stability of stream banks, and cause other channel modifications that affect
aquatic wildlife.
Also, The project as proposed will directly impact 0.29 acres of palustrine forested wetland
(PFO) wetlands, 0.18 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM) 0.19 acres of palustrine
scrub -shrub (PSS) wetlands 3,113 LF of perennial stream and 9,188 LF of intermittent and
ephemeral streams. This will change the nutrient cycling, by changing the physical functions of
the present wetlands system. Loss of current wetlands communities may increase sediment and
nutrient loads into the aquatic system. Typical urban stormwater pollutants include sediment,
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), bacteria (fecal coliform as indicators), and potential toxicants
(metals, oil and grease, hydrocarbons, and pesticides). The increase in runoff may increase
pollutant load, which will cause a decline in water quality and create subsequent impacts on
aquatic habitat, wetlands, and sensitive aquatic and amphibian species in the area. The
construction of sewer lines, water lines, and roads may also impact water quality, particularly
where they cross streams. There are sediment impacts from construction although the use of
proper erosion and sediment controls help minimize this impact. In general, these impacts are
direct impacts, but there is also a cumulative direct impact from previous crossings and other
future crossings.
Therefore, please provide information regarding how impacts to remaining and
downstream offsite aquatic resources will be avoided or mitigated.
2. Water supply and conservation. Increases in impervious surface areas will increase
the rate of runoff, which also may impact fluvial system stability, stream channel sinuosity,
streambank slopes, floodplain dynamics, and hydrologic flow rates. The water in Patterson
Branch ultimately flows into Marrowbone Reservoir, which is utilized by the Henry County
Public Service Authority for public water withdrawal.
CCBC NAO- 2008 -1100 Public Notice Comments 4

Please provide information as to the potential impacts the permanent loss of 65% of the
current drainage area may have on the amount of water available for the public, especially
in years of limited precipitation. Additionally, please provide information addressing the
potential impacts to local citizens depending on neighboring springs for water supply
including whether the Henry County PSA be able to provide water to affected residences.
We are willing to work with you through the intricacies of this project and are available to
meet in the future. If you have any questions, please contact me at 757 201 -7504 or
peter.r.kubegusace.army.mil or the Project Manager, Danielle Courtois at (540) 651 -2088 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Peter Kube
Chief, Western Virginia Regulatory Section
Attachments:
DCR Comments Letter
VDHR Comments Letter
NOAA NMFS Comments Letter
USFWS Comments Letter
Copies forwarded via email:
Jay Roberts, DEQ Roanoke
Tim Pace, Henry Co
Rick Thomas, Timmons Group
Tim Wagner, Wiley Wilson
Cindy Shultz, USFWS
Jeff Lapp, EPA
Thomas Brown, USACE Wilmington District
Sue Homewood, NC DWQ
CCBC NAO- 2008 -1100 Public Notice Comments

t
j-
Douatas W. Domenech
Secfetafy of Natural Resources
COMMONWEALTH V I
DEPAR l ME N1 OF (_'ON SE R'VATION AND RE C' A'T IO
Division of Natural Heritage
217 Governor street
Ri,:hmond. Virginia 23219 -2010
(804) 756 -7951
Danielle Courtois
USACOE -Blue Ridge Field Office
P.O. Box 143
Floyd, VA 24091
Re: NAO- 2008 -110, Commonwealth Crossing Business Centre
Dear Ms. Courtois:
David A. Johnson
Director
February 23, 2012
The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its
Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted
map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and
animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations.
According to the information currently in our files, natural heritage resources have not been documented
in the project area. The absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather
than confirm that the area lacks natural heritage resources.
There are no State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's jurisdiction in the project vicinity.
Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (VDACS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), DCR
represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state - listed threatened and endangered
plant and insect species. The current activity- will not affect any documented state -listed plants or insects.
Nesv and updated information is continually added to Biotics. Please contact DCR for an update on this
natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before it is utilized.
The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains a database of wildlife locations,
including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters that may contain
information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from http: / /vafiN-is.or(,, /fiN-is/ or
contact Shirl Dressler at (804) 367 -6913.
Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact meat 804 -371 -2708. Thank you for the
opportunity- to comment on this project.
State Parks m Stornnvater M nagement m Outdoor Recreation Planning
Natural Heritage m Ann Sufety and Flaadpka'n M nagement m Lund Conservation

Sincerely,
f
S. Rene' Hypes
Project RevieN -,- Coordinator