APPENDIX B3

RESPONSES TO LOCAL AGENCY COMMENTS
 B-217 

RESPONSES TO LOCAL AGENCY COMMENTS

This Appendix Section B3 provides detailed responses to Local agency letters, presented in the 

below order: 

 Arlington County .................................................................................................................. B-218 

 Arlington County – Department of Parks and Recreation .............................................. B-223 

 City of Alexandria ................................................................................................................. B-226 

 Fairfax County ....................................................................................................................... B-251 

 Prince William County ......................................................................................................... B-255 

 City of Fredericksburg .......................................................................................................... B-262 

 Spotsylvania County ............................................................................................................ B-270 

 Hanover County .................................................................................................................... B-272 

 Henrico County ..................................................................................................................... B-284 

 City of Richmond .................................................................................................................. B-288 

Appendix B3 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-218 

ARLINGTON COUNTY 

(No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

ARLINGTON COUNTY (continued) 

1. As stated in the Final Section 4(f) E

(Chapter 6 of the Final EIS), the Prefencroach upon the Roaches Run Conceptual designs include retaininencroachment (temporary or permariparian fringe of Roaches Run. BaInformation for Planning and Consuno federally or state-listed threateneanimal species were identified as pothe vicinity of the study area for the Arlington County, as indicated in Discussions and review between Department of Parks and RecreaCounty’s submission of these comindicate that the noted champion proposed Limits of Disturbance (LO
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-220 

ARLINGTON COUNTY (continued) 

2. No lands will need to be acquired 

Waterfowl Sanctuary. As stated iEvaluation for the Project (Chapter Preferred Alternative will not encroaWaterfowl Sanctuary and therefore wwithin the Sanctuary. Alternative 1BWest was selected as the Preferred align with the two alternatives that walternatives report for the Long Bridthe DC2RVA Project). Preferred Alleast amount of disturbance on the CSXT right-of-way adjacent to the Sanctuary, with all proposed improvthe railroad right-of-way. 

3. Final EIS Section 5.1.6.2 addresses 

impacts for the Preferred AlternativSection 3.1.5, DRPT used floodplain mFederal Emergency Management Aassessment of potential impacts to flUS Department of TransportatiProcedures for Considering EAdditional floodplain mapping fincluding Arlington County, will be idesign of the Project, as appropriate. 

4. Final EIS Section 5.1.1.1 addr

Preservation Act applicability and coAlternative. 

5. DRPT will continue to coordinate w

final design and preparation of consof which will occur after fundispecifically related to construction aparks. Temporary impacts to lands oof-way will be minimized where praand construction management plaavailable and incremental improvem

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

ARLINGTON COUNTY (continued) 

6. Final EIS Section 5.10.3.2 discuss

minimization, and mitigation measube deployed, as required; final demitigation for threatened and endangwill be made during final design available and incremental improvecoordination with regulatory agencie

7. and 8. DRPT has reviewed updated inf

County and refined the conceptuafurther minimize impacts to Long publication of the Draft EIS. Alternaon the West was selected as the Pref1, to align with the two alternatives in the alternatives report for the Lonfrom the DC2RVA Project). Preferrethe installation of two new tracks adPark; however, all proposed improvexisting railroad right-of-way in thland will need to be acquired from Preferred Alternative 1B and no eproposed plans will be disturbed. will require temporary impacts to Lothe west of the existing CSXT right-oFinal Section 4(f) Evaluation (Chaphowever, these will be temporary cexisting or proposed park activitieDRPT will continue to coordinate wpotential impacts to Long Bridge Parconstruction, once funding is avimprovements are scheduled. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-222 

ARLINGTON COUNTY (continued) 

(Response to comment 8 on previous page) 9. FRA and DRPT appreciate the Coun

As stated previously, Preferred Apermanently impact Long Bridge Paresult in a Section 4(f) use for this rthe Final EIS. DRPT will continue County regarding the potential tempwith the Preferred Alternative 1B, as 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

ARLINGTON COUNTY, DEP

ARTMENT 

RECREATION 1. These County comments are primar

request for the County’s concurrenSection 4(f) determination as part oprior to the publication of the Draft E1B: Add Two Tracks on the West waAlternative in Area 1, to align with were recommended in the alternatBridge project (separate from the DCAlternative 1B includes the least amoeast side of the existing CSXT rightDraft EIS Build Alternatives. Althocoordination letter dated June 16, 20that Build Alternative 1B would havPark, since that time DRPT has had Arlington County on additional planand elevation changes that have elipermanent impacts to park lands to CSXT right-of-way. There would be of Long Bridge Park lands with the PPreferred Alternative would require impacts to the west of the existing Ctemporary construction impacts do Plan development and would not proposed park activities. DRPT will cothe County regarding the potenassociated with the Preferred AlterDecember 18, 2018, Arlington County Recreation concurred with the ProjecPark (see Appendix E of the Final EIS

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

B-224 

ARLINGTON COUNTY, DEPARTMENT 

RECREATION (continued) 2. Alternative 1B: Add Two Tracks on 

the Preferred Alternative in Area alternatives that were recommended for the Long Bridge project (sepaProject). Preferred Alternative 1B incdisturbance on the east side of the CSto the Roaches Run Waterfowimprovements contained within thDRPT recognizes that Build Alternaproximity to Roaches Run WaterfoDRPT has dismissed this alternativimpacts to the sanctuary. Build Altemporary impacts to Long Bridge side of the existing CSXT right-oconstruction impacts will not impact activities. Removal of trees and temporary construction area will bfeasible. The area will be restored anvegetation similar to prior conditiconstruction. DRPT will continue County regarding the potential tempwith Build Alternative 1B, as require
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

ARLINGTON COUNTY, DEPARTMENT 

RECREATION (continued) (Response to comment 2 on previous page) 3. DRPT anticipates that approximate

Vernon Trail owned by the Natiotemporarily impacted during conMount Vernon Trail will remain concurrent levels of service, for all construction of the Project. The 20 ftemporarily impacted is located on th

rail right-of-way on GWMP land opPark and near Ronald Reagan Nregarding maintaining access will be design, after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-226 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

(No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

[Note that the City provided comments on 

revised comments on January 26th, 2018. responses provided herein reflect the more rprovided by the City.] 

1. Future planned developments are 

throughout the Project process. Secdiscusses the potential indirect anplanned developments, and has beePotomac Yard Metrorail Station aincluded in the City of Alexandria’s 

2. The existing land uses within 500 fee

summarized in Table 3.11-4 of the existing land uses by acreage Industrial, and Transportation. The within the Eisenhower West Small Ain Table 3.11-4 of the Draft EIS and during the Project process. 

3. DRPT has continued to review i

boundary data and conceptual engdetermined there will be no permane(or portions of parcels) in the City oimprovements are designed to occuright-of-way within the City; where placed at the boundary of the right-ofProject grading effects from adjacent impact limits at the Alexandimprovements to the City-owned parstation planning by the City and dacquisition or impacts by the Projectemporary impacts to several City-oconstruction as identified in Table 5.

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

B-228 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

4. A new chapter (Chapter 7) has bee

since the publication of the Draft EISof the Project, including fundiconstruction. As described more fuDC2RVA Project is not funded beyostudy, with the exception of two setrack funded through the Atlantiremainder of the DC2RVA Project wincrements as funding becomes avaare scheduled. 

5. The DC2RVA Project construction a

within the CSXT right-of-way/corriNorth Potomac Yard Metrorail statithe Atlantic Gateway suite of projecnumbered statement #4), construcperformed as part of the final desigavailable and incremental improvemDC2RVA Project will add a fourth side of the CSX right-of-way/corridotracks and the proposed North Pstation). DRPT does not anticipatoperations on the new fourth tracPotomac Yard Metro Station construincludes the information provided iMetrorail Station EIS and (https://www.alexandriava.gov/po

?id=101657), which define the statiobe located east of the CSXT right-of-Potomac Yard Metro Station called and south, with each entrance linked bridge over the rail corridor. Due to entrance and pedestrian bridge waplans in the September 2018 constrwith the announcement in Novembheadquarters facility to be located Alexandria has announced the south bridge will again be part of the PotoThere will be two pedestrian bridcorridor to a roadway and station aCSXT right-of-way. 

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

6. There are no new overpasses propose

within the City of Alexandria. The Commonwealth Avenue underpass width to construct the proposed foustructures. Final design, after fuincremental improvements are sdetailed survey of existing railrincluding those spanning King StrAvenue. Should additional improvemtime, DRPT will coordinate with the preparation of a traffic management 

7. Temporary minor impacts to priva

construction may result from materiaof materials from the construction rehabilitation of underpasses or ovegrade-separations proposed in the CDetailed traffic control plans to minimwill be developed as part of the finbecomes available and incremenscheduled; refer to DRPT-numbconstruction / funding details. 

8. The DC2RVA Project does not plan 

of any rail spurs within the City of Aincluding the use of temporary or pethe City of Alexandria, will be devedesign, after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. 

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

B-230 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

9. and 10. In the vicinity of Alexandria Un

Project proposes to add a fourth track right-of-way where a track previocoordinated closely with VRE througthe Draft EIS. The design and pedestrian tunnel project are indepfrom the DC2RVA Project, and impacts will vary based on which referenced VRE pedestrian tunneCurrently, DRPT anticipates that the tunnel will be in place before DRPT part of the Atlantic Gateway projeDRPT does not anticipate any impatunnel. However, DRPT recogcoordination with VRE and the City minimize the potential for the constrto impact the VRE improvements. Tcommitted to working with VRE, adesign and construction of the Pnumbered statement #4 for detailscheduling). 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

(Response to comment 10 on previous page) 11. DRPT used the state-approved Weldon 

projection data for the Draft EIS pavailable at that time of analysis, which 2017. DRPT has reviewed the updated 2projections, which show greater growtbetween 2015 and 2045 as compared to time of the Draft EIS. While the updated City’s assertion, it does not affect any Draft EIS regarding population increase

12. DRPT evaluated noise and vibration 

intercity passenger train using land uavailable and reasonably obtainable at performed. This included digital aerial rail corridor and surrounding land usPotomac Yard. The noise and vibration cP of the Draft EIS show where Project-impacts (as defined by FRA) are projectenear the North Potomac Yard. Category defined by FRA, may be experienced wnew main track along the corridor, conditions and land use; refer to the noiAppendix P of the Draft EIS for additiono changes to the vibration impact contours since the publication of exception of two areas for noise odetailed in Final EIS Section 5.7 provided in Appendix M of the Fina5.20 of the Final EIS discusses the poteneffects of planned developments, incMetrorail Station and other major projAlexandria’s Master Plan. 

 DRPT considered local Project-related a

EIS. Any increases in pollutant emissionalong the DC2RVA corridor at this and to be minor. Additionally, construction term increases in fugitive dust and equemissions. 

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

B-232 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

 The potential air quality effects from c

short-term, occurring only while constand local conditions are appropriaManagement Practices will be identifminimize air quality effects. 

13. DRPT evaluated noise and vibration 

intercity passenger trains using lpublicly available and reasonably oanalyses were performed. This photographs and land use data for noise and vibration contour figures iEIS show where Project-related noi(as defined by FRA) are projected tCity of Alexandria. Category Sevdefined by FRA, may be experienced the new main track along the corrspecific conditions and land use; vibration contours in Appendix additional information. There are impact contours since the publication exception of two areas; these two aEIS Section 5.7 and updated maps aM of the Final EIS. 

14. FRA noise impact assessment 

methodology for determining if passenger trains are projected to cnoise impacts (as defined by FRA)phase of the Project, which will occavailable and incremental improvemnoise assessment will be revised to noise impacts are projected to measures will be evaluated and srequired. While sound barrier walls measure for major highway projectsintercity passenger rail projects and or FTA. Further, CSXT policy generbarrier walls within their right-ofsound barrier walls as future mitignoise would require additional prop

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

 It is important to note that freight tr

for more noise than passenger independently of the DC2RVA Proje

15. The Alexandria Union Station is an 

station that was designed and coexposure to train-induced ground-bbasis. Therefore, it is not considered vthe building may have historic charatrain-induced ground-borne vibphenomenon at the station by virtue train station. It is important to note thcommuter trains and CSXT freight more noise and vibration than paAlexandria Union Station will increDC2RVA Project. 

16. Appendix P of the Draft EIS inclu

contour figures that identify wheimpacts (as defined by FRA) are proof the proposed intercity passengchanges to the vibration impact ccontours since the publication of exception of two areas for noise odetailed in Final EIS Section 5.7 provided in Appendix M of the Fina

Mitigation measures will be evaluat

the final design phase of the Projecfunding becomes available and increscheduled. FRA noise and vibraguidelines include guidelines implementing mitigation measures. will be determined by FRA, witpermitting, as required, from Federal

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

B-234 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

17. Refer to the noise and vibration conto

of the Draft EIS for the locations wimpacts are projected to occur aalternative for the proposed intercitare no changes to the vibration imimpact contours since the publication exception of two areas for noise odetailed in Final EIS Section 5.7 provided in Appendix M of the Fina

18. Existing operations for Amtrak, V

maintained during construction to DRPT anticipates that track outages maximum extent possible, to periods VRE have a reduced number of trains prior and during construction with will identify day, time of day, and loutage may occur. 

19. There are no proposed changes to th

Commonwealth Avenue rail bridgeand construction impacts will be idedesign after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled; restatement #4 for construction / fundafter funding is secured and increm

scheduled, will include detailed subridge structures, including those sCommonwealth Avenue. Should addidentified at that time, DRPT will coAlexandria for the preparation of a during final design. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

20. The referenced text is in a section o

summary of Table 4.15-3, the first columalternatives in Richmond; these alternin ridership projections for Build cDC2RVA corridor. The referenced text intended to indicate daily vehicle tripstation alternatives (not each Build Acorridor), and is not intended to be a rAlexandria station; this text is clarifieFinal EIS, as well as in the errata table Appendix A of the Final EIS. As shown EIS, the annual ridership at Alexandrincrease 11% in 2025, as compared to ttrips are a separate estimate from annone-to-one correlation (refer to DRPTfor mode-split assumptions at Alexand

21. Table 4.15-1 of the Draft EIS provide

annual boardings and alightings at Aof the alternatives. This comment citboardings/alightings, resulting witAlternative 6A in Richmondboardings/alightings at Alexandria Build to 2025 Alternative 6A is aannually (a 12 percent annual increasbe an increase of just under 69 boaracross 365 days per year, it is imridership is not consistent acroAlternative 6F: Full Service (StapleMain Street Station) was selected as for the Richmond Area (refer to Fdetails); from this same tabboardings/alightings at Alexandria Build to 2025 Alternative 6F is aannually (an 11 percent annual incre

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

B-236 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

 Reported ridership at the Alexa

customers boarding all trains servthose traveling in the DC2RVA coconsistent with Amtrak’s publicly-av

and avoids disclosure of proprinformation. These total numberdestinations not affected by the PCharlottesville, Atlanta, New Orleservice to these other destinations are Project and are a significant share of change in total ridership is less sensiridership. The Project forecasts were model parameters were adjusted experience with the effect of service iin ridership. 

22. Mode split assumptions are inclu

Transportation Technical Report (ApStations in the DC2RVA corridor wsuburban or urban based on the adjacStation was categorized as an urassumptions for arriving and deparstations are as follows (Mode / Modtotal person-trips): Drive and Park (2Taxi / Car Service (29%); Public Trand Bicycles / Other (2%). 

23. The DC2RVA Project proposes no im

existing tracks at this location and haor the area immediately surrounding 

24. Construction and operation of a 

Telegraph Road Tunnel is not expecimpacts to the tunnel. 

25. Based on updated Potomac Yard Pa

received from the City of Alexandria, 2A will have temporary impacts to treported in Section 5.14 of the Finimpacts have been minimized to thconceptual level of design. 

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

26. The temporary right-of-way eas

construction is along the edge of associated with access, erosion placement. The referenced tennis coand not a public park. As such, restoration of the area and tennis cowith the private landowner. 

27. Impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

Table 5.14-1 of the Final EIS. DRPpermanent impact to Dog Run Park avegetation will need to be removed wright-of-way adjacent to the Park. A easement will be necessary where thright-of-way; however, the adjacent courts will not be impacted (see Chadetails). Within the temporary constrof trees will be avoided to the maxithe area restored at the end of use. 

28. through 40. DRPT received updated 

City of Alexandria. Draft EIS Table 3referenced by the City, have been uto the errata table for the Draft EIS, wFinal EIS. DRPT does note that the r/ Landbay E was not added to the Fistudy area (500 feet on either side of 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-238 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

(Response to comments 30 to 40 on previous 41. In the Draft EIS, Traffic Circle Park w

the southwest corner of East RosemVernon Avenue. However, based on and input from the City of Alexandnot considered a public park and Premoved; refer to the errata table foAppendix A of the Final EIS. 

42. and 43. Draft EIS Table 3.14-3 has be

by the City; refer to the errata table fAppendix A of the Final EIS. 

44. Draft EIS Table 3.14-6 has been up

Simpson Stadium Park and Joseph HResources since they received Land funds; refer to the errata table for Appendix A of the Final EIS. 

45. The left column in Table 3.14-7 of the 

the park is located, not ownershipclarified to indicate that Daingerfield the National Park Service. Refer to thEIS, which is Appendix A of the Fina

46. to 52. Draft EIS Table 3.14-7 has been 

the City; refer to the errata table foAppendix A of the Final EIS. DRreferenced Four Mile Run / LandbaFinal EIS as it is outside the study arof the rail corridor). 

53. Section 5.14.1 and 5.20.2.2 of the Fin

to reflect that: the Project will not reqof-way from Dog Run Park at Careduced to Long Bridge Park; animpacts have been identified to PotoYard Landbay N, and Rail Park. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

54. and 55. In the referenced section of the 

is included as one of the “six parks” by the Project. However, based on udesigns/mitigation measures, permRun Park at Carlyle are avoided Alternative, as reported in Section 5.

 The Project occurs entirely within e

way through the City of Alexandrpermanent acquisition of other rightnote that the improvements and Alexandria Station, including impowned parking lot, are provided foCity and do not indicate property acqProject. Retaining walls at the bounright-of-way is one design measuminimize impacts to property. Conwalls may require temporary conadjacent properties, including park used for construction easements completion of construction. Detaeasements and restoration plans coordination with the landowners du

56. DRPT will continue to coordinate w

through final design of the Project, resources. 

57. Based on the updated GIS informatio

to DRPT-numbered statement #2temporary construction impacts Potomac Yard Park, Potomac Yard Las reported in Section 5.14 of the Fiimpacts have been minimized to thconceptual level of design. 

58. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen

walls are shown in the Draft EIS mare generally used in areas to minideveloped areas and, in general, are the visual environment in these area

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

B-240 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

59. The City’s comment concerning 

retaining walls is noted. The height athe retaining walls will be determinrequired at that time. 

60. to 62. DRPT developed the conc

Alexandria Union Station, including number and configuration of parking forecasts projected to the planning hoparking area configuration utilizing parking area owned by the City of Aindicate the maximum area of pointended as a concept to show how addressed. Project improvements aAlexandria Union Station, including iowned parking lot, are provided for stand do not indicate property acquProject. DRPT will work with the Citlocation of parking and to minimize itas the layout of the station site prolayout to final design, which will occavailable and incremental improvemeDRPT-numbered statement #4 for details). The DC2RVA Project does development of the station and parseparate from the DC2RVA Project. 

[Note that the numbering in the City-provid

#62 to #65.] 

65. The DC2RVA Project is not funded 

EIS study, with the exception of ontrack funded through the Atlantic G(refer to DRPT-numbered statemecontains conceptual station and parkactual parking/station improveresponsibility of Amtrak and/or thconstructed with a mix of federal, stRefer to DRPT-numbered statements through #62 for further detail. 

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

66. The walls shown in blue in the refere

(and in the updated Preferred AlteAppendix L of the Final EIS) are rwalls are used to limit the extent of imthe additional track or realigned tracthe existing railroad right-of-way. Twalls varies depending on the elevthe track and the adjacent groundothers” refers to wall locations proother stakeholders that are within the or be impacted by the DC2RVA Profeature that may be added to retainfinal design, but it is not a conceptuaretaining walls. 

 Refer to DRPT numbered response #

noise and vibration analysis process
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-242 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

67. The permanent and temporary lim

presented in the Draft EIS include conceptual engineering for constructareas to the extent that such areas coconceptual level of design. Temp“outside” of the permanent LOD, align with them where additional arconstruction staging. Permanent disturbance may be obscured in the rof-way lines where the right-of-way limits of disturbance. See Appendix provides detailed mapbooks that stemporary LOD for the Preferred Acorridor. 

68. Temporary limits of disturbance alo

crossing of Four Mile Run indicate staging area (see Appendix L of thmapbooks that show the permanent the Preferred Alternative for the 12The area may be used to stage coequipment during construction in thconceptual engineering plans is that to existing conditions, to the extent pof the construction. 

69. DRPT anticipates that the connectio

as the PEPCO Lead, north of the Richand east of the CSXT main lines wconstruction. A temporary track outthe PEPCO Lead at a time convcustomer(s). During this time the Pconnected to the fourth track and ctrack across the existing lead track w

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

70. There is the potential for temporary 

of Cameron Street, which may inpublicly announced temporary lane lane closures may result from cmethods that will be assessed durinwork with the City through finabecomes available and incremenscheduled, to minimize any tempoStreet. 

71. Parcel ownership is based on GIS d

the municipalities. Surveys used to vownership will be performed as paneeded; refer to DRPT-numberconstruction / funding details. 

72. DRPT does not anticipate that the s

will have an adverse effect on noissound wall or retaining walls will rebehind the wall. DRPT did not retaining walls in the noise analysconservatively overestimate the associated with the proposed intercitwill continue to evaluate the potentiwalls on noise and coordinate widesign, after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. 

73. The City’s comment about retaining 

impacts is noted. Retaining wall desiconceptual engineering level of desigimpacts of retaining walls will be perdesign after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled; restatement #4 for construction / fund

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

B-244 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

74. A qualitative assessment of potenti

from construction has been updat5.19.2.3 since the Draft EIS. DRPT Department of Transportation Road during design and constructioncontainment systems will be implemminimize migration of airborne consoils identified during constructiodisposed, in accordance with appprotocols. 

 With the application of approp

construction, this Project will not cauterm particulate matter air quality im

75. The DC2RVA Project is subject to fe

conformity regulations (40 CFR ParProject-generated pollutant emissiowere calculated for the one marginal study area (i.e., the Washington, ozone marginal nonattainment areapredicted annual pollutant emissionnitrogen oxides (NOx) and volat(VOCs)—precursors to ozone—are bde minimis threshold values withiMaryland-Virginia ozone marginPursuant to the General ConformProject-generated emissions below thbe minimal. Such projects do not redeterminations. Similarly, given the proposed within the Washington, ozone marginal nonattainment area, that construction-related NOx and Vthe general conformity de minAdditionally, since the DC2RVA stuareas that are in attainment for the (i.e., sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxidlead), emissions were not calculated 

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

76. As discussed in Section 3.5 of the Dr

an environmental records review material (hazmat) database records from Environmental Risk Informcommercial database search aninformation provider. Investigation sites/facilities that could potentially will be completed in a Phase I Envirothat will occur prior to any property plans, to be developed during finprovisions for responding to poteissues that may be identified during 

77. If contaminated soils or materials 

construction, they will be disposed applicable state and federal regulat5.5.2 of the Final EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-246 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

78. Comment noted. The intent of the 

provide a high-level summary of reledocument refers the reader on information in the Draft EIS. 

79. DRPT will address all applicab

Management Program (VSMP) requiand water quantity controls during dthe Project. 

80. Comment noted. The City’s stateme

EIS Section 4.1.1.3 and Section 4.19. 

81. and 82. This comment appears to b

triangular wooded area bounded by t19 and D-20 in Draft EIS Appendix D, Northern Virginia). According to Simreferred to by Alexandria natural Cameron Run channel floodplain foralluvial bottomland forest community and a number of species that are Alexandria, such as squarrose sedgLarge-seeded forget-me-not (Myosouses surrounding the site are largely northern rail line) and recreational Run Regional Park and Townes at Casouthern rail line. Habitat in the area bordered by existing rail lines and dethe surrounding development, this island rather than a wildlife corridcomment. Further, Project activities railroad right-of-way. 

* Simmons, Rod. Remnant Natural Aand Undeveloped Sites in the City Eisenhower Valley, Natural ResourcHorticulture and Natural ResourceRecreation, Parks & Cultural ActivVirginia. February 2012. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

(Response to comment 82 on previous page) 83. Invasive species are addressed in Fin84. As indicated in Final EIS Section 5.9

visual impacts associated with laconsidered during the final desigminimizing tree and shrub remlandscaping to screen undesirable foccur after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. 

84a. The Project will comply with app

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act aSection 5.1.1.1. The City of AlexManagement Ordinance explicitly e13-123(A)(1)) from RPA requiremduring final design and constructiisolated wetlands will be minimized unavoidable impacts will be subjpermits; and appropriate mitigatioapplicable. 

85. EMF (electromagnetic force) generat

a potential issue during the pubprocess. Because DRPT is not propoline, and is proposing to use the slocomotives currently in use on the anticipate that any possible increase significant impact. Additionally, emare not regulated by the federal Commonwealth of Virginia. 

86. The Low-Medium designation for 

Table 4.23-1 of the Draft EIS is the Vnot related to Energy. Energy consuSection 4.8-1 of the Draft EIS, was DC2RVA corridor. DRPT projeconsumption from intercity passenunder the Build Alternatives than th
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-248 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

87. Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS states tha

of land use within 500 feet of thagricultural”. This is for the entire coAlexandria. Table 3.11-4 of the Drafland use for the City of Alexandria. Twithin Table 4.11-3 of the Draft EISFinal EIS, is for each Alternative Areathe City of Alexandria, but also FairfaCounty, and Stafford County. 

88. DRPT coordinated with Dominion V

planning phase of their 230-kilovolt tAlexandria and Arlington Countycorridor was one of several aconsidered. CSXT negotiates agreeminfrastructure crossing or within theicoordinate with CSXT regarding the planned utility infrastructure during to identify potential conflicts with utiright-of-way and to coordinate the loto reduce or eliminate potential fucoordinate with utility owners, incluPower, during the next phase of deconflicts with utilities outside of Ccoordinate the location of planned right-of-way to reduce or eliminate p

89. Final EIS Section 5.1.3 addresses w

Section 5.1.6.3 identifies avoidanmitigation measures that will be imp

90. The additional track across Four Mil

existing railroad bridge. Thereforestreambed will be necessary. Final Ewater quality issues and Section 5.1minimization, and mitigation mimplemented. 

91. Draft EIS Section 4.1.2 and Final EI

potential impacts to wetlands. 

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

CITY OF ALEXANDRI

A (continued) 

92. Draft EIS Section 4.1.1 and Final EIS 

potential impacts to floodplains. 

93. See response to DRPT-numbered sta
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-250 

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA (continued) 

94. Comment noted. See response to DR

#77. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

FAIRFAX COUNTY1. The Draft EIS reported that Build Alt

approximately 0.55 acres of tempoSeeps Conservation Area. HoweverBuild Alternative 2A as shown in result in any permanent or temporarand corrected the impact to zero acrtable, which is Appendix A of the Section 5.10.1.1 of the Final EIS, there Seeps Conservation Area. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-252 

FAIRFAX COUNTY (continued) 

2. The Preferred Alternative in Area 

impacts to Accotink Stream Valley, Mason Neck West, Old Colchester PStream Valley Park or Franconia Forepermanent right-of-way need to be apark facilities as part of this Projtemporary impacts to park facilAlternative are included in Table 5.1facilities are within the study area errata table which is Appendix A othese parks are not included in Tablpermanent or temporary impactscorridor mapping which depicttemporary Limits of Disturbance (LOfacilities. 

3. No right-of-way is needed from M

Colchester Park and Preserve; recreational facilities will be lost as will continue to coordinate with tAuthority through the final design pappropriate mitigation efforts, which becomes available and incremenscheduled. 

4. No temporary or permanent right-

from Old Colchester Park and PreserAlternative in Area 2. 

5. If, during final design, DRPT dete

easement onto Fairfax County Parrequired to construct the Project, DRof the property with the Park Autho

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

FAIRFAX COUNTY (continued) 

6. and 7. There are no permanent or te

Colchester Park as a park. Regarding the FRA and DRPT have conducted with the National Historic PreservatProject initiation, determination of a(APE), archaeological studies with architectural and archaeologicaevaluation-level surveys of the APcoordinated with the Virginia DResources (DHR) and details on thescoordination can be found in Draft and Final EIS Appendix D and E. Colchester Park is a recorded boundaries for this resource do nolimits of disturbance. Archaeologicain the limits of disturbance as part oconfirm that the site does not extend no archaeological remains were encothe extant site boundaries. 

8. Comment noted. Temporary imp

during final design of the Projectavailable and incremental improvemland disturbed by the Project rehabilitated. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-254 

FAIRFAX COUNTY (continued) 

(Response to comment 8 on previous page) 9. Comment noted. DRPT will continu

Fairfax County Park Authority duriof the Project, after funding bincremental improvements are sched
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

1. The DC2RVA Project does not inclu

passenger train service from the ACELA train sets are electric and opelectric catenary system. Based on th2002 Tier 1 EIS and ROD, and as docof Design, DRPT is proposing to powered train sets. However, one of the DC2RVA Basis of Design was electrification of the corridor, whiseparate environmental documentactual service levels and schedules p(and other stations) is being refined Development Plan, which is being pof the DC2RVA Project (refer to Sectdetails). 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-256 

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY (continu

2. The Draft EIS includes a queuing 

crossings (see Section 4.15.2 of the Danalysis for the Preferred Alternat5.15.2), based on the conceptual enThe analyses indicated that the existiFeatherstone Road provide appropricurrent and future train volumes Additional review of traffic data to will be performed for all at-grade design, after funding becomes avaischedule can be established. Althoperformed as part of the DC2RVA Pconstruction of a grade separated CSXT rail corridor at Featherstonpreclude the county or other entity fseparation at this location as part of 

3. The referenced text was replaced, as 

refer to the errata table for the Draft of the Final EIS. 

4. The Preferred Alternative will serve b

stations at the Woodbridge Station. Wand Need of the Project, the conpreclude connectivity to and within area or to a future Rapid Bus Transthe railroad right-of-way. 

5. DRPT welcomes input on the design 

the additional Occoquan River rail bto coordinate with Prince William Coafter funding becomes available and can be established. 

6. DRPT acknowledges that Prince W

the importance of rail and multimCounty was added to the list in Charequested by the County; refer to the EIS, which is included as Appendix 

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

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY (continu

7. DRPT proposes to install continuou

tracks throughout the corridor as parEIS identifies where moderate and defined by FRA and FTA) are projecthe proposed intercity passenger ravibration contour figures in Appendwhere Project-related noise and vibrby FRA) are projected to occur, incCounty. There are no changes to thsince the publication of the Draft EIS, areas (in Area 1 and Area 6); these Final EIS Section 5.7 and updated Appendix M of the Final EIS, howeveanalyses in Prince William County. 

DRPT will reevaluate potential nois

measures during final design, as reafter funding becomes availaimprovements are scheduled. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-258 

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY (continu

8. DRPT understands the County’s con

which was presented both during cand in written comments. Given Lodge was the subject of additional aas a historic property to the Final EFinal EIS and Chapter 6 of the Final Ecoordination. An analysis of the potLodge and its viewshed is included i5.20.1.3, and 6.5.3.1 in the Final EIS. the design and aesthetic features oCreek rail bridge, and will continue William County during final designavailable and a construction schedul

9. DRPT carefully evaluated the Project

(APE) and the boundaries of the Cocas part of the Draft EIS. No developthe Project will occur within or nearesource; as such, it does not fall witwork being planned in this area Arkendale to Powell’s Creek project, environmental and cultural resource 2011 and the impacts of which are se

Title 56, Chapter 13, §56-363 of the V

“It is hereby declared to be the polithat all crossings of one railroad highway by a railroad, or a railroad bwherever reasonably practicable, pexisting facility. It is the policy of the the number of new public at grade cunnecessary crossings.” In accordancpublic crossing at this location shoulpedestrian traffic channelized to rtrespassing on railroad right-of-wadoes not preclude the possibility of crossing to be coordinated by the Co
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY (continu

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

B-260 

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY (continu

(No comments on this page)
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY (continu

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

B-262 

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG 1. The Department of Rail and Public T

numbered each corresponding staresolution and the staff memo that ththe Resolution page provided by the letter) for responses to those statestatements #2 through #6 in this resp

2. Designs in support of the Draft and F

Statement (EIS) were prepared at a cfor assessing the impacts of the DCapproximately a 10% level of desigChapter 4 of the Final EIS for detailsLansdowne Road to a four-lane facomprehensive plan as a possible imare no designs, concept plans, fundinexpand Lansdowne Road. Therefore, the proposed grade separation of LCSXT right-of-way reflects the two-lathe completion of the Final EIS. Addinote that the Project is not anticipated or operations on Lansdowne Road. A roadway to four lanes is independenand any impacts associated with expwould be a result of that roadway wthe DC2RVA Project. During futurSection 7.5 of the Final EIS), DRPT wwith the County to incorporate thfuture roadway improvements in thas planned and funded at that time. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu3. DRPT will work with the City, the 

stakeholders to identify and pmaintenance of the railroad vFredericksburg; however, repair of thpart of the DC2RVA Project. The viadby CSXT. The DC2RVA Project dofrom coordinating with CSXT to suridentify potential improvementsimprovements; however, the rehabcomment is not part of the DC2RVA 

4 and 5. DRPT developed conceptual st

layouts for the Final EIS (as shown pedestrian access to platforms, to asthe DC2RVA Project to meet the additional service. Station improtypically the responsibility of the station owners/operators. Accordingcoordinate any additional pdesign/development of any improvements, including platformsother station amenities with the Censure a design compatible with setting and the needs of the stakehol

6. DRPT evaluated noise effects of 

passenger trains using Federal Railroand Federal Transit Administration 

qualify potential noise impacts as eLocations where moderate and seprojected to occur are presented in figures provided in Appendix P of tnot changed in the Fredericksburg arAlternative. In accordance with mitigation measures will be considimpacts are projected to occur. Mitevaluated in more detail during the Project, which will occur after fundinincremental improvements are schevaluating and implementing noise accordance with FRA and FTA methsubject to FRA approval. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-264 

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu(No comments on this page)
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu(See DRPT-numbered statement #1. Resp

statements #3, #4, #5, and #6 provided on p
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-266 

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu(See DRPT-numbered statement #1. Resp

statements #3, #4, #5, and #6 provided on p
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu(See DRPT-numbered statement #1. Resp

statements #3, #4, #5, and #6 provided on p
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-268 

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu(No comments on this page)
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG (continu(No comments on this page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-270 

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

1. The Department of Rail and Publi

notes the grammatical correction; hEnvironmental Impact Statement (Econtent is not reissued as part of the 

2. The DC2RVA corridor is one comp

network serving the East Coast. Tdivert freight shipments to a differwhen necessary, although the comlonger and less efficient. Deveinfrastructure to handle interrupted an event that may temporarily incbeyond the scope, or the Purpose and 

3. Expanded text on the treatment 

pedestrian facilities has been added tEIS. Opportunities for additional accessibility improvements, includinfacilities to be compliant with the AmAct (ADA), could be incorporated coordination with FRA. 

 The decision to establish a new 

greenway is a separate and distinct high speed passenger rail serviEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA), Purpose and Need of this Project. TSpur Trail, which is not yet built but 3-4 track right-of-way just north oFredericksburg, would cross the samin the Preferred Alternative at this Project will not add any additional current trail plans will not be affecte

4. The spelling of Lansdowne Road h

Final EIS; refer to the errata table foincluded as Appendix A of the Final 

5. Comment noted. The Final EIS is p

order. 

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

SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY (continued

6. Designs in support of the Draft and F

a conceptual level sufficient for assDC2RVA Project, which is approxim(see the beginning of Chapter 4 of While the expansion of Lansdowne Ris in the County’s comprehensiimprovement by 2030, there are no funding, or schedule in place to exTherefore, the conceptual design separation of Lansdowne Road overeflects the two-lane roadway in plathe DC2RVA Tier II EIS. Additionalthat the Project is not anticipated to operations on Lansdowne Road. A roadway to four lanes is independenand any impacts associated with expwould be a result of that roadway wthe DC2RVA Project. During futurSection 7.5 of the Final EIS), DRPT wwith the County to incorporate thfuture roadway improvements in thas planned and funded at that time. 

7. A four-quadrant gate system is 

treatment at Mine Road as part of the the Project, which is in line with the comment. See Chapter 4 of the descriptions of the Preferred Alternthe Final EIS, which provides an uPreferred Alternative. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-272 

HANOVER COUNTY

1. The Department of Rail and Publi

acknowledges the resolution adopteof Supervisors. In accordance wirecommendation of the Town of ACommunity Advisory Committee December 2017 resolution of Transportation Board (CTB), AlternTracks Through Town was seleAlternative in the Final EnvironmentRefer to Section 4.3.5 of the Final EIPreferred Alternative in this area and Further, DRPT, in accordance wCommonwealth Transportation Boarworking with the Town, the host raiRailroad Administration (FRA), andevelop safety improvements for pucrossings in Ashland, separate from 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

2. As noted in DRPT-numbered statem

recommended and the FRA has apprknown as “3-2-3” by the CAC) as ththe Final EIS. While DRPT recognize“least objectionable alternative” for ebelow-grade, and bypass alternativeas the Preferred Alternative was Althe only CAC-identified alternativthrough the alternatives screeninalternatives selection phase, as descrits Alternatives Technical Report (AEIS). The west bypass corridor, idevaluated during the early screedismissed for many of the same reasDraft EIS for Alternatives 5C and below-grade alternatives were dscreening process due to high coconstruction and associated disruptibusinesses, residences, and traveleand approval of Alternative 5A was recommendations made by the CACthe three least objectionable alternatireinforced by the County Brecommendation for its support of A

 Additionally, DRPT performed ref

operations through the DC2RVA Pro3.2 of the Final EIS for details), inretaining a two-track railroad throuThis refined operations analysis constructing a two-track western btrack to the existing CSXT railroaAshland would improve the efficienthrough DC2RVA study Area 5, the not required to meet the Purpose anProject. Also, Alternative 5A (MainTown) results in the least impacts tSection 4(f) of the US DOT Act of 19a property is determined to have a 

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

B-274 

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

 must determine that no feasible 

alternative exists before approving Chapter 6 of the Final EIS for further 

3. The County’s summation and compa

to the natural, cultural, and socioecAshland-Hanover County area aevaluations prepared by DRPT recommendation and approval of Preferred Alternative in the FinAlternative was considered to be tdamaging of the Draft EIS Build Altenoted by the County, was consistent wand Need, including the incrementarecommended in the Tier I Final EIS (ROD). Chapter 5 of the Final EIS dimpacts of the Preferred Alternativementioned by the County, for the values in this chapter have been updneeded, since the publication of the D
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(For response to comment 3, refer to page B-2
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-276 

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(For response to comment 3, refer to page B-2
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(For response to comment 3, refer to page B-2
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-278 

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(For response to comment 3, refer to page B-2
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(For response to comment 3, refer to page B-24. A range of below-grade options, in

tunnels and trench structures, werinitial alternatives development prChapter 2 of the Draft EIS and thReport (Appendix A of the Draft Estatement #2 above, these belodismissed due to their higher coconstruction periods and inherebusinesses, residences and travelersoptions were considered during the for the reasons noted previouslultimately not considered to be as viless damaging than the ”3-2-3” alt5A) by the CAC. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-280 

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

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

B-282 

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

HANOVER COUNTY (continued) 

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

B-284 

HENRICO COUNTY

1. Comment noted. Staples Mill Road 

within Henrico County as it relatcomprehensive planning is discusseDraft EIS. Alternative 6F was seAlternative for the Richmond Area, and improvements at Staples Mill Ro

2. DRPT anticipates that the DC

implemented incrementally, based otrack capacity projects, as funding banticipates that funding for the multiple sources, including federal, spassenger fare revenue recovery anThese next steps in the Project (funincremental approach, as well as permitting, and construction) are sumthe Final EIS, which has been added 

3 and 4. At Staples Mill Road Station 

Preferred Alternative for the RichmFull Service, Staples Mill Roadrecommends: removing existing platwo new 1,200-foot level-boarding elevation 48” above top of rail) on thway opposite the existing station pedestrian bridge with an elevator platforms; and replacing the existing approximately 10,400 square foot Final EIS reflects the expansion of tStaples Mill Road Station by DRPTJune 2018; see Section 4.3.6 of the Fin

 Refer to DRPT-numbered stateme

funding and implementation. Thupgrading Staples Mill Road StatiDC2RVA Project, should federal, stabecome available. 

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

HENRICO COUNTY

5. DRPT welcomes input regarding th

Hungary Road overpass and will cothe County and other stakeholders dwill occur after funding becomes aimprovements are scheduled. The Cothe proposed Hungary Road overpa

6. The Laurel Industrial School Historic 

National Register of Historic Places the Main Building (the Robert Stiles Industrial School campus is also indNRHP. Both resources were discussereports and both the Draft and Final significance, state their eligibility, anthe Project to adversely impact these be found in and Chapters 3, 4, and Draft EIS and in Chapters 5 and 6 and EIS. Based on coordination with the Historic Resources (DHR), it has bcreation of the overpass will have historic district and the Main Builincluded in the Section 106 Draft Me(Appendix K of the Final EIS), whcompleted to mitigate the adverresources. 

7. The County’s recommendations to m

finished grade of the roadway and rThe height of the finished grade determined during final design, and existing elevation of the track, the vertical clearance of 24 feet 3 inches the structure, the structure depth width to meet CSXT horizontal cleathe superstructure depth based ovolumes and types of vehicles. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-286 

HENRICO COUNTY (continued) 

8. US Bike Route 1 is included in the 

approaching the proposed Hungary Route 1 connectivity will be construction of Project improvement

9. DRPT welcomes input regarding the 

Road overpass and will continue County and other stakeholders durinoccur after funding becomes avimprovements are scheduled. The Cofor the proposed Dumbarton Road o

10. DRPT will continue to work to mi

during the final design process of thplace once funding becomes avaimprovements are scheduled. 

 Right of way and relocations are di

the Final EIS, which have been updareflect the conceptual design of the described in Chapter 4 of the Finacquisition of parcels are expected thpart of the Project. The right-of-wincluding property owner notificatioand relocation, will be conducted bwith DRPT and FRA, in accordancstatutes and regulations. The CSXT cin Henrico County, is proposed to separated crossing under the Preferrgrade at this location, residential and be unavoidable, primarily due to acquisitions of parcels will occur in County as well. 

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

HENRICO COUNTY (continued) 

11. DRPT evaluated noise effects of 

passenger trains using FRA methodnoise impacts as either moderate or moderate and severe noise impacts presented in the noise impact contouvibration technical report (Appendix are no changes to the noise imppublication of the Draft EIS, with thfor noise only; these two areas are de5.7 and updated maps are provideFinal EIS. 

DRPT also evaluated construction n

Project. After the final design is cimpacts will be reevaluated, and mifinalized. Final design will occur available and incremental improvemalso notes that FRA does not considbe effective at reducing train noise. 

12. Section 5.1.1.3 of the Final EIS 

stormwater runoff impacts from the rail bed and track for the Preferred AAlternative will be designed and cwith the Virginia Erosion and Sedim560 et seq. of the Code of ViManagement Act (§10.1-603. 1 et seqand the terms and conditions of required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, a

13. Detailed drainage plans, including t

stormwater management facilities, shared with stakeholders during finplace once funding becomes avaimprovements are scheduled. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-288 

CITY OF RICHMOND 1. DRPT notes the City’s recommenda

6F: Full Service (Staples Mill Road Station), which has been selected as for inclusion in the Final EIS. 

2. DRPT agrees that an incorrect summ

6F with regard to service at Main Strin the “Recommended Preferred ADraft EIS Executive Summary (nodescriptions provided in Chapters were correct). The Draft Executive corrected; refer to the errata table foAppendix A of the Final EIS. Additthat all descriptions of Alternative 6the Final EIS. 

3. The City provided detailed comme

platforms on the west side of Maiattachment; refer to DRPT-numbere#15 for response. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) (Response to comment 3 on previous page) 4. DRPT responded to the City’s atta

DRPT-numbered statements #5 thro
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-290 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 5. The Draft EIS includes a traffic queui

crossings (see Section 4.15.2); the sufficient for the conceptual engineerEIS analyses are based. Additional update traffic conditions will be pecrossings, including those recommenas part of final design after funding construction schedule is established. 

6. and 7. Comment noted. Land use, com

land use compatibility of the Pdiscussed in Section 5.11 of the Fipedestrian safety is provided in Secwhich has been expanded since thcoordinate with the City during finbecomes available and a constructiofor all work within the City. 

8. The DC2RVA Project includes impro

infrastructure on existing CSXT rownership and responsibility for mProject improvements has not banticipates the track and rail infrastrmaintained by CSXT. Station implatforms and parking facilities, womaintained by Amtrak and/or stakeholder. 

9. The Build Alternative 6F and Build 

Draft EIS Table 2.6-2 were inadvershowing for Build Alternative 6F in and accurate for Build Alternative correction has been made in the Fintable for the Draft EIS, which is App

 In regard to the City’s commen

Alternative 6F within the Draft EIS, statement #2. 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 10. through 15. To streamline answers to 

at Main Street Station as part of the DRPT has provided a summary expof 6F as the Preferred alternative, foltopic areas, below: 

 The DC2RVA Project will add a sec

Main Street Station using the trestles/viaducts, which currently haeach side where two tracks previouson both east and west sides of the stafreight and passenger services. The low-level platforms on each side of tplatforms). Platforms on the east side 850 feet by 15 feet wide. Platforms station will extend 950 feet by 15 feet side platforms adjacent to the station will incorporate the platforms built shed and extend them north on new existing track viaduct. These platformthe train shed. The “outside” east and be built on new structures adjacent west viaducts. Elevators and stairca

the outside platforms from ground ladd a walkway attached to both sidextending approximately 200 feet nnew platform ends. The walkwayability to safely enter/exit rail cars platforms when a passenger train stopped at the station. DRPT will coRichmond to develop a parking plan future intercity passenger needs in coplans for its property around Main development within Shockoe Valley

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

B-292 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued)  DRPT considered and dismissed ad

west side of the station due to site impacts to cultural resources in the arand dismissed making the west side in keeping with the Project’s Baaccommodate long-distance trainsreduced platform length of 950 walkway, owing to site constraints aimpacts to cultural resources. Chaclarifies that while Main Street Staconcerns over potential impacts to cunumber of tracks and length of plastation, future passenger service amthe station, such as checked baprecluded. Amenities to be providparticular passenger service will coordination between Amtrak, the other station stakeholders, and are nDC2RVA Project. DRPT has assumed crew changes in the Richmond area, Staples Mill Road Station, would coMill Road Station under this alternatparking deck on the east side of Main EIS; this parking deck has been dismin lieu of coordinating with the City Station parking plan when future ser

 Site Constraints at Main Street Statio Historically, Main Street Station was 

the west and two tracks on the easttrestle/viaduct. Currently, there is oneach side of the station on the considered adding one or more maiof the station, and determined that obe added to the viaduct which wpreviously supported two tracks. Anneed to be on new structure and locawest of the existing rail viaduct to platform of 24 feet width at the statpreclude adding a third track on the 

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

CI

TY OF RICHMOND (continued) 

 The viaduct on the west side of th

two piers (located at the southwbuilding adjacent to East Main elevated above the viaduct. These adjacent to the viaduct just south adding an additional track. 

 Approximately 1,100 feet south of th

through the middle tier of the “triple separated rail crossing of three rail opening is sized for only two tracks, atrack without replacing the triple cro

 Approximately 500 feet north of t

the rail viaducts pass over E. Bclearance for Broad Street beneath 8 inches, which is less than the VDinches. Broad Street also slopes viaduct to climb over I-95. Adding Street 35 feet west of the existicompound the roadway vertical cl

 DC2RVA’s Basis of Design, follo

Program and Planning Guidelines (20platforms for stations servicing Apassenger trains and 850 feet long plaonly Regional passenger trains. The Blength of the platforms to the length the goal of allowing direct access locomotive, passenger cars, etc. – to tstop. Matching the platform length to passenger access, and allows crew msafely at the station if needed. DRP1,200 feet long platforms on the wewould accommodate the full length However, DRPT determined that two not practical on the west side due to phpotential impacts to cultural resourprecluded extending the platforms tthose affecting adding a third track, a

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

B-294 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 

 The viaduct on the west side of th

two piers (located at the southwbuilding adjacent to East Main elevated above the viaduct. These the west side platforms from exten

 Approximately 500 feet north of t

the viaducts pass over E. Broad Strfor Broad Street beneath the rail viwhich is less than the VDOT stanBroad Street also slopes upward wclimb over I-95. Adding a platforthe west would compound limitations in order to maintain platform. 

 The existing rail trestle bridge 

approximately 75 feet thru-truss gaccess to the tracks from a platform 

any platform extending north from 

Street would have an approximaaccess to the train. 

 A platform length of 950 feet is th

added on the west side without conpiers at the southern end, or vertical over Broad Street at the northern enalong the track viaducts extending from the ends of the platform allowexit the train at the station if necessa

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

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued)  Concerns for Potential Impacts to Cu

Street Station 

 Multiple comments received by DR

EIS cited concerns over potential imcultural resources in the Shockoe Boarea around Main Street Station. This consulting parties (including the City groups and individuals with a vested 

City of Richmond as a consulting paall 22 technical reports produced on correspondence, and coordinationmeetings and telephone calls regissues. The City will continue to be resource tasks throughout the durati

 Comments received from all partie

both known architectural and archaarea, as well as resources that may byet identified or clearly defined. Of pis the past history of Shockoe Bottom the proximity to Lumpkins Jail (DeBurial Ground, and the Project’s poground”. There is also concern that twith development of a memorial to of this area. While the Project footpknown archaeological or historic sitStation associated with the slave determined that minimizing the fooreduce any potential impacts to concerns noted above, such as minimto reduce subsurface impacts in this proposed parking deck. Additionallconsulting parties, Lumpkins Jail site historic properties. The DHR determhave no adverse effect on the site as no of the Project. However, a commitmenon the Shockoe Bottom area and the slSection 106 Draft Memorandum of Athe Final EIS). 

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

B-296 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 

 Sections 3.1, 5.13.1, 5.13.2, 5.13.3, 5.20

the Final EIS provides further discussto cultural resources in the Shockoe B

 Station Amenities  Amenities to be provided at each 

passenger service will be determined service through coordination betwowner/operator, and other stakeholdas part of the DC2RVA Project. DR

Station Program and Planning Guidethe general size or footprint of each 2045 ridership projections for the alternative. Each station is sized tcrew, passenger and service amenititrain service and ridership. While station is included within the determination of the actual size, destation, and the staffing and confservice amenities, including parkiDC2RVA Project. 

 All of Amtrak’s passenger cars have ro

on and stow a limited number of btypically provides checked baggage serservice, and may also provide checkInterstate Corridor and some RegionaAmtrak, its state funding partners, anprovision of checked baggage service aprecluded by the proposed platform stimetable, ten (five round-trip) of the 18 serve Richmond (Staples Mill Road Staservice, including: the two Northsupported) trains (one round-trip) thaNortheast Corridor and extend to Neeight (four round-trip) trains that extenStar, Silver Meteor, Palmetto and CNortheast Regional (Virginia-suppoRichmond, Newport News and Norfservice. 

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

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued)  In the future, when the additi

frequencies proposed by the DC2RMain Street Station, the provision of will be determined in coordination bfunding partners, the City of Richstakeholders. 

 Simulation Model / Service Develop The City stated that it was premature 

of 1,200-foot platforms and checked on the simulations modeling, and reqbe carried forward in the Service DevDRPT recognizes that a 1,200-foot plfor stations served by Long Distance length, DRPT has chosen a 950 feewest side of Main Street Station due restrict longer platforms and to impacts to cultural resources from loproposed to extend walkways along to accommodate safe crew movemstation in lieu of longer platforms. D850 feet platform length for the east Project’s Basis of Design for the leve950 feet and 850 feet platforms serve Need with less impacts and less cost platforms, and do not preclude checkstation. DRPT’s computerized modeling described above and in the to inform the comparison of Project operations simulation modeling revalidates that the infrastructure pralternative meets service performanPurpose and Need; refer to Section details. 

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

B-298 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued)  Title VI & Environmental Justice  As noted above, Alternative 6F woul

of train service to all users at both Staples Mill Road Station. Section 4.3that while Main Street Station site 

over potential impacts to cultural reof tracks and length of platforms pfuture passenger service amenities station, such as checked baggage seAmenities to be provided at each passenger service will be determinbetween Amtrak, the City of Richstakeholders when the service is imincluded as part of the DC2RVA Pro

16. Chapter 5 of the Final EIS provides 

of the Preferred Alternative in the Ci

 DRPT has met with the City an

including Hanover County, Henrico County, plus the Richmond Area Organization on several occadevelopment of the Draft EIS. DRPwith the City during final designavailable and a construction schedul

within the City. 

17. The location of the proposed wye ha

Draft EIS, in coordination with FRACity of Richmond. Section 4.4.6 of tthe location of the proposed wye, wrationale provided in Appendix J of 
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 18. and 19. As the City states, more detai

developed at each phase of the Projethe DC2RVA Project will be implem

funding becomes available, for phasiincreasing passenger rail servimplementation plan would be deCorridor Service Development Pladesign and construction of would bavailability. Refer to Chapter 7 osummary of these future steps of the 

20. DRPT has met with the City on seve

the development of the Draft and Fincoordinate with the City during finbecomes available and a constructiofor work within the City. 

21. DRPT has met and coordinated wit

Engineers (USACE) on several ocdevelopment of the Draft and Finacoordinate with the City and other 

design, after funding becomes avaischedule is established, for work withwith the USACE would be undertakethe final design phase should any mwall become necessary. 

22. Funding for the current DC2RVA T

grant with the Commonwealth of Viproviding the local match to the granTier II EIS process, the goal is to havthe NEPA process to meet federal reqfederal funding for the DC2RVA ProDC2RVA Project will be implem

funding becomes available. A consestablished as funding becomes avai

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

B-300 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 23. DRPT has met with the City on seve

the development of the Draft and designs of Commerce Road do not pof pedestrian facilities. Pedestrincorporated in the final design of commits to coordinate with the City funding becomes available and a established, for work within the City

 24. and 25. DRPT commits to coordinate 

design, after funding becomes avaischedule is established, for work wit
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) (Response to comment 25 on previous page) 26. and 27. The conceptual designs for i

in the Draft and Final EIS include ma

indicating impacts to parcels whrelocated, or removed. Additional re

be performed for all recommenincluding studies for frontage roads, after funding becomes available incremental improvements are sched

28. Additional subsurface investigation

will be performed for all proposed design, after funding becomes av

improvements are scheduled. 

29. The Preferred Alternative maintai

pedestrian facilities (provided in-kinexisting treatment) throughout thconceptual design of Hospital Streeconditions at the time of developmfuture development of bike facilitieincorporated in the final design funding becomes available and this improvements are scheduled. 

30. The Draft EIS includes a traffic que

crossings (see Section 4.15.2); the sufficient for the level of concecompleted for environmental analysithat the crossing does not meet the thrseparation. Additionally, there is an within one mile of this crossing with gthe existing roadway network, makinfor closure. DC2RVA conceptual desconstruction of a full grade sepapedestrian, and truck access by the Ci

 Additional review of traffic data to 

will be performed for at-grade crrecommended for grade separationafter funding becomes available and can be established. 

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

B-302 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 31. to 33. DRPT considered existing 

requirements for protecting exiproposed improvements do noinfrastructure. The existing LombBoulevard Bridge do not require rehto fulfill the Purpose and Need fDC2RVA conceptual designs do not replacement of the Lombardy Street Bridge by the City or CSXT. The need existing bridge piers will be determi
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AG

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 34. The Project requires compliance w

Preservation Act of 1966, requiring thconsideration potential effects on hist127-6657 and 127-6658 were prelimarchitectural studies associated with tbuilding was the subject of add2017/2018. In addition, the parcel wintact archaeological remains in 2018DHR determined that these resoureligible for the National Register of they are not listed as a historic prHowever, properties were noted durand DRPT removed the need for modby eliminating planned construction fto Appendix J of the Final EIS foRichmond area turning wye and serpart of the Preferred Alternative, whSection 4.6 of the Final EIS. Technical resource studies can be found in App

35. The FRA and DRPT fully unders

significance of the Shockoe Bottom areslated for the Memorial Park. DRPT rrecorded and evaluated archaeolproperties in this area have been ongoiShockoe Bottom including the proposdiscussed in Chapters 3, 5, and 6 of several reports in Appendix D (cureports). Throughout the studies consultation, the historic places locattaken into consideration during ProjeLumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre and others. The Project does not impact these sites. At the request of several coJail site was added to the list of histdetermined that the Project will have nas no impacts will occur as part of tShockoe Bottom and the slave trade a106 Draft Memorandum of Agreemenon historic properties (Appendix K of 

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

B-304 

CITY OF RICHMOND (continued) 36. Potential construction elements o

Interchange Improvements and VDresources in Shockoe Valley associatwere taken into consideration as bassure consistent methodologies anChapter 3 of the Final EIS inclubackground review completed as padetails on the Shockoe Bottom improvements as they relate to tAdditionally, the referenced projecindirect and cumulative effects sepotential impacts on land use and hSection 5.20 of the Final EIS. 

DRPT has defined the scope of impro

DC2RVA Project, including Main Strminimum amount of infrastructure service improvements proposed uincludes the removal of the propoMain Street Station in the Final EISstructure, DRPT will work with the plan for Main Street Station that is incfor Shockoe Bottom and Downtown