TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-138 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

136. As indicated in Section 5.10.1.4 of th

and mitigation measures could incand grubbing (including tree remmitigation plan that includes landscfor onsite replacement of any trerevegetation, including native shrreseeding of disturbed areas to prevspecies. Construction contract dappropriate measures to protect tdisturbance. These minimization a

will be applicable to all vegetation limits of disturbance, not just eareas. 

137. Fairfax County submitted comme

November 6, 2017, which includeSeeps; refer to Fairfax County’s letpart of the agency responses in responses to their comments. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 137 on previous page) 138. DRPT will continue to coordinate 

local agencies, including Fairfax Coand Project permitting, in accordanlocal laws and regulations. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-140 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

139. Fairfax County submitted comme

November 6, 2017, which includeParks; refer to Fairfax County’s letpart of the agency responses in responses to their comments. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 139 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-142 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

140. This letter was provided to DRP

alternative recommendations Commonwealth Transportation Bowhich was ten months prior to the EIS (on September 8, 2017), and are the content of the Draft EIS. Betweepublishing the Draft EIS, DRPT cCounty, and their comments, inwithin this letter, are addressed documentation included in the Draof the Project corridor was included H of the Draft EIS. There will be no on Fairfax County Park Authority l

 The Project requires compliance w

Preservation Act of 1966. Since complying with this legislation, in

determination of an area of preconnaissance archaeological studiand architectural identification- and of the APE. All studies have been codetails on these studies and the ensfound in Final EIS Appendix D. NaPlaces (NRHP)-eligible resources Project APE in Fairfax County incCorridor, Mount Vernon Parkway, Colchester Arms. The FRA has dewill have an adverse effect on the no adverse effect on the MounColchester Arms, and no effect on ODHR concurred with these determitaken to mitigate the adverse effecCorridor have been outlined in Memorandum of Agreement (Appe

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

 Specifically related to subsurface 

evaluated the archaeological APE including Fairfax County. Based on and Project plans in the county, outside of CSXT right-of-way in areto contain archaeological sites. Detadiscussed with the Fairfax County Patelephone and email in October 2015 been rendered to assure that no chanhave been made that require additio
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-144 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 140 on previous page) 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

141. The City of Fredericksburg submit

DRPT; refer to the City’s letter, whthe agency responses in the Final Etheir comments. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-146 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

142. DRPT has reviewed all attachmen

Ashland, including the Ashland Economics report, and responded attachment; refer to DRPT-numthrough #236. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

143. In 2002, the FRA completed the Ti

High Speed Rail corridor that establand defined the route for prtransportation choice for travelers D.C. to Richmond, Raleigh, and ChaDC2RVA Tier II EIS carries forwarTier I EIS within the Washington, Dof the larger SEHSR corridor by idenimprovements necessary to ptransportation choice for current anto Section 1.2 of the Final EIS for adthe Draft EIS FRA projected pafreight train levels for 20 years (204infrastructure improvements will Project’s Purpose and Need. The Dpreclude adoption of, or adjustmenchanges. Developing the corridor market demand and/or funding avato accommodate future technologic

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

B-148 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

144. The 2002 Tier I EIS established the 

SEHSR program, which, as stated 

provide a competitive transportawithin the Washington, D.C. to Charlotte travel corridor. The Tier I time and service reliability are ktraveling public’s choice of transFRA nor DRPT have set a specific gotime for the Project, nor has a reduapplied as a criterion during alternevaluation. Reductions in travel timamong different trains based on thand station stops, as well as the Propreparing the Draft EIS, DRPT conbus, air, and automobile passenRichmond, Virginia and points norDraft EIS). The central purpose of understand the behavior of travecorridor. Data collected from thestimate an initial set of passenger fare, travel time, and other service that the traveling public (e.g., numbresponsive to improved reliabipassenger rail service. Reduced trahad less effect on ridership. 

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

145. and 146. The DC2RVA Tier II EIS c

approach approved in the SEHWashington, D.C. to Richmond, existing rail corridor owned anConsistent with FRA’s decision in DRPT identified and evaluated alteadd capacity to the existing rail corfuel burning equipment. AlternatiMaglev or hyperloop technologlocomotives) are not consistent witdefined in the 2002 Tier I EIS and Purpose and Need of the DC2Rrecognize that technologies are transportation modes and options future. The Project’s Basis of Desclearance on new grade-separated not to preclude a potential future Advancing the DC2RVA Project approach selected by FRA doeapplications of hyperloop or othewhen they become viable, which woenvironmental documentation at th
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-150 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 146 on previous page) 147. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen148. Refer to DRPT-numbered stateme

comments on a deep bore tunnel an

149. The requested correction has been 

table for the Draft EIS, which is App

150. DRPT and FRA initially focused re

alternatives on the existing dowcentrally located to serve Ashland College campus, and provides easprimary east-west road connecting 95 to the east and Hanover Countywest. Based on comments from aconducted a screening evaluation locations: south of Ashcake Road; and adjacent to Patrick Street. The loStreet is reasonably close to dRandolph-Macon’s campus, but woand traffic impacts to expanding threquire acquisition of parkland. For Street location was eliminated froNeither the station location north olocation south of Ashcake Road are downtown Ashland or the campuVaughan Road, while having reasoeast towards the Route 1 and I-95 coto the west on narrow roads through before linking to Route 54. In contrAshcake will have reasonable access via Ashcake Road, the area’s ocorridor. Therefore, a potential sAshcake Road was carried forward as an alternative to developing the dthree tracks with 850 feet platformsDRPT notes that there are no improalternate station location as part of (see Section 4.3.5 of the Final EIS). Rstatement #154. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

151. DRPT and FRA considered a deep 

alternatives development and edismissed the concept from furthscreening of potential alternatAlternatives Technical Report, Appdue to high costs and potential imAshland. The concept of a deep bhard-rock version and a shallower further evaluated and considerAshland/Hanover County Commu(CAC) process (refer to Section 3.3 details). The CAC members dismisas an unlikely alternative due to its to the Town from ventilation towers potential operational concerns. 

152. The FRA and DRPT have identifie

will maintain two tracks through AAlternative (refer to Section 4.3.5 oon the selection process). DRPT and eastern bypass alignments du

development and evaluation proconcept from further consideratipotential alternatives (as reported Report, Appendix A of the Draft Epotential impacts to parks, (including Route 1 and I-95), and win particular would have required through an existing park. The concincluding AEB 1 through the park wconsidered by the CAC process (rFinal EIS for CAC details). The CAbypass alternatives due to their hproperty, infrastructure, and the western bypass alternative, known 

objectionable” bypass alternative. 

153. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen(Responses are continued on next page)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-152 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

154. The Town of Ashland has stated a p

the existing station location and im350 feet platforms. The FRA and Alternative 5A, which will mainAshland, as the Preferred Alternativthe Final EIS for details on the selector station improvements will occuProject between Vaughan Road and Alternative 5A. Station platform imthe DC2RVA Project, are being between the Town of Ashland and ongoing project, Amtrak is workAshland and FRA to improve the eto meet ADA requirements. Thindependent of the DC2RVA Projeplace before construction would Project. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 154 on previous page) 155. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen156. FRA and DRPT, and the Ashland/H

and eliminated a deep bore tunnel additional rail capacity in Area 5 numbered statement #151). The concluded that Alternative 5A, in wnorth and south of downtown Ashmaintained through Ashland, has sthe Project’s Purpose and Need. The with its reduced footprint and community, to meet Project perfoestablished by FRA and DRPT refmodeling, as reported in Section 3.2 

157. The FRA and DRPT have identifie

will maintain two tracks through AAlternative (refer to Section 4.3.5 oon the selection process). Trench during the alternatives developmecarried forward as candidate Build EIS. A trench option was alAshland/Hanover CAC process. three-track trench through the Town “least objectionable” option for atown below-grade. 

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

B-154 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

158. The FRA and DRPT have selecte

Maintain Two Tracks Through Tothe existing two track railroad tPreferred Alternative (refer to Sectiodetails on the selection process). Dguidance for assessing potential associated with the proposed intercpreparation of the Draft and Fassessment also followed precedenthe Richmond to Raleigh (R2R) EIS, by FRA. Per FRA, train-induced gassessed using a threshold for humaThe threshold for human perceptiothreshold for structural damage to assessment approach is somewhat to potential building damage due borne vibration. Vibration is assesnot on a cumulative basis. Thereforof vibration need to be studied, vibration occurring over a 24-hour vibration level from one of the proprojected to be the same as the vibrproposed passenger trains (9 new dtotal trains per day) for the Project). of ground-borne vibration in the stwhich operate and may increase oof the proposed DC2RVA Project. produce higher levels (or more) gropassenger trains because they Alternative 5A will not involve relocation of the existing tracks therefore vibration levels are expectlevels as a result of the DC2RVA Pr

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

159. Comment noted. FRA and DRPT be

Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project in development process was underway the 5-year review of the comprehenthe Town Council. References to thmodified to address the Comprehen2016, and quoted language from thremoved in the Final EIS; refer to thEIS, which is Appendix A. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-156 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 159 on previous page) 160. The designation of the Ashland/Ha

community facility has been correctfor the Draft EIS, which is AppendFRA and DRPT have selected AlterTracks Through Town, which wexisting two track railroad through Alternative (refer to Section 4.3.5 oon the selection process). The Prefeimpact this community facility. 

161. DRPT has responded to the Ashland 

the Town provided; refer to DRP#197 through #235. 

162. The requested corrections have bee

table for the Draft EIS, which is App

163. and 164. FRA and DRPT have identif

will maintain two tracks through AAlternative (refer to Section 4.3.5 of Section 4.9.1 of the Draft EIS descrimethodology. While DRPT undAshland’s concern with Build Alte“High” visual impact rating does nassessment methodology because already a predominant visual featu

165. DRPT reviewed the business r

concluded that the information as pof the Draft EIS is correct. HAlternative 5A: Maintain Two Traselected as the Preferred Alternpermanent or temporary constrbusinesses; refer to Final EIS Section 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 165 on previous page) 166. DRPT acknowledges the economic 

conducted by a third party at the reDEQ has provided as an attachmeDRPT-numbered statement #236 fo

167. FRA and DRPT have identified A

maintain two tracks through AsAlternative. As selected, it will not station modifications within downimprovements at the Ashland Statbetween the Town of Ashland and A

changes under the DC2RVA Projecno roadway improvements (includ

existing at-grade crossing treatmRoad and Ashcake Road under the to Section 4.3.5 of the Final EIS foAlternative in Area 5. 

168. and 169. The Ashland/Hanover V

relocated under one option evaluatAlternative 5D. However, AlternaAlternative for Area 5, which wiAshland/Hanover Visitor Center. 

170. and 171. DRPT acknowledges that th

the changes in land use from road tan incompatible use. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-158 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comments 170 and 171 on previ172. The comment cites the calculated 

vehicle delay at the England intersection for 2015 and 2025 No-B5A/5B Year 2025 Build conditions (of Appendix S: Transportation TechEIS). As noted in the Draft EIS and rthere are increases in delays betweeNo-Build and Build conditions; it is delay impacts of the Project are reprbetween the 2025 No-Build and the 2025 Build conditions. Three-quarteoccurs based on anticipated changeNo-Build (i.e., unrelated to the DCremaining 25 percent attributable Additionally, these tables summarion a daily basis (i.e., an average acrnot reflective of delay experienced majority of delay in the corridor is tCSXT growth is independent of the occur regardless of whether or noimplemented. An updated analysiDelay for the Preferred Alternative Section 5.15.2.4. 

 The comment cites the “40-hour 

“threshold” is identified as one of public at-grade crossings “should separation or otherwise eliminateHighway Grade Crossing Handbconditions identified by FHWA fohour value is not a hard requiremeparticular improvement or actioAdditional clarification on this topiEIS Section 5.15.2.4. 

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

173. Refer to DRPT-numbered stat

Alternative 5A will not require any Railroad Avenue in the Town of Ato address necessary changes to trresulting from the Preferred Alternapplicable current AASHTO and V

174. Additional details on this comm

attachment from the Ashland Mnumbered statements #201-235 for 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-160 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

175. The Draft EIS, prepared by FRA a

with the National Environmental Pimplementing regulations, descdevelopment process and for Area detail seven alternatives, including two Tracks through Town. While within NEPA to identify a preferrDraft EIS documentation, the Didentified DRPT’s recommended prcorridor, but did not recommenalternative for Area 5 (Ashland). InsCAC to further review and inalternatives for Area 5, which is sumthe Final EIS. The CAC met fivmeetings to review Project alternaticommunity perspective, the leasTown, western bypass, and below-greviewing all the comments receivconsidering the input from the CAC 2017, DRPT provided the CTB with for a Preferred Alternative. The Alternative 5A - Maintain Two TraCommonwealth of Virginia’s Prefe5. FRA has agreed with arecommendation that Alternative 5Need of the DC2RVA Project. 

176. DRPT has conducted the public ou

accordance with FRA’s requiremeimplementing regulations. Beginnipublic scoping meetings (including meetings to present alternatives decriteria, 3 public meetings to review screening results, and 1 public meetreview the Project, proposed bypaprivate property. DRPT also held representatives of the Town and inception. 

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

 The Ashland/Hanover CAC hel

during the period May – Septemcommunity-led meetings to pualternatives in the Ashland/Hanodescribed the CAC process, and questions/answers, and technical made public via the DC2RVA Proje

 DRPT held 5 public hearings, 

Ashland/Hanover area, in conjurelease of the Draft EIS in SeptembeAlternative, 5A, was evaluated in d

was identified by the CAC as tthrough-town alternative. The deewas considered and eliminated by Finitial alternatives screening processeliminated again by the CAC durithree-track trench alternative was coidentified as the “least objectionable

177. The Ashland Museum elected to 

January 2015. The Town of Ashlaconsulting party, and elected to parAll consulting party materials (lettwere disseminated to the Town upoparty. Since February 2017, DRmeetings and two conference calls Ashland Museum specifically focusDRPT is committed to continuincompletion of the Tier II procimplementation (once funding becdisseminate data as available, inclueligibility determinations, Project Memorandum of Agreement (MOA106 Draft MOA is Appendix K of thand updates will be sent through ensure communication is open and 

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

B-162 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

178. As described in Section 2.1.4.3 

Ashland/Hanover CAC, composeHanover County, Town of AshCollege, and CSXT, was asked alternatives for the area and develmet the DC2RVA Purpose and meetings reviewing alternatives foarea, including the deep bore tunnereach consensus for a single alternata “least objectionable” alternative through town option (AlternativAlternative), and a three-track trenDuring a CTB meeting in October 2of the CAC process, Town represenwestern bypass and County represea trench or other through Town selecting 5A: Maintain Two Trapresented in Section 4.3.5 of the Fin
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 178 on previous page) 179. Subsequent to the Draft EIS a

process, the concept of a deep bore trock version and a shallower soft-eaevaluated and considered by the process. The CAC members dismisas an unlikely Project alternative d

impacts to the Town from ventistructures, and potential operatAppendix G of the Final EIS for det

180. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen181. As noted by the Town of Ashland

Alternatives Considered but DDoswell, VA, was developed by DRto evaluate using the Buckingham proposed high speed passenger Ashland and Staples Mill Road StCounty, Henrico County, the TRandolph-Macon College all oppservice to the Buckingham Branch RDraft EIS, FRA and DRPT reevaluatBranch Railroad, both as a potential freight diversion route. FRA alternatives using the Buckingham further consideration in the DC2substantial impacts to wetlands, culinfrastructure, and rail operationsCAC also evaluated the Buckingh

both passenger and/or freight diveuse of the Buckingham Branch Ra

consideration. 

182. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-164 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 182 on previous page) 183. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen184. DRPT eliminated the area north of 

Ashland station as part of the alteand it was not considered as pAlternatives analyzed in the Dranumbered statement #150 for adPreferred Alternative for the AAlternative 5A: Maintain Two Tra

per the CTB resolution of Decembeany modifications to the existing sta

185. Refer to DRPT-numbered statement 

Alternatives 5B and 5D, each addinAshland, have been evaluated in dwere not selected by FRA as the Pre

186. The North Ashland park polygon sho

Draft EIS was obtained from the VDODCR “conservation land” dataset (Julwhen the land is one of the enumeratlands and the public agency that owndesignated and determined it to be sigarea, or wildlife and waterfowl refuformal designation would be the incluland, and its function as a Section 4(f) pMaster Plan; an expression of interesWhile the North Ashland Park is incluComprehensive Plan and Parks and Rpark location and boundaries are not cconversations in January 2018 with MAshland Parks and Recreation Cdevelopment of North Ashland Park sto the recession and the location for the park was never established. The futuidentified as a mix of government ainformation, this area would not be resource at this time. North Ashland PSection 4(f) resource as indicated in thEIS, which is Appendix A of the Final 

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

187. The parcel affected in the vicinity of 

ID 7779-76-4998. It is the common arsubdivision. There are no residentia

188. Partial parcel acquisition and one 

Ashcake Road would occur under 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. Howeselected as the Preferred AlternativEIS Section 5.11 for impacts of the Community Resources, including re
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-166 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

189. The comment was provided verb

DRPT-numbered statement #156 fo

190. and 191. The Ashland/Hanover V

relocated under one option evaluatAlternative 5D. However, AlternaAlternative for Area 5, which doeAshland/Hanover Visitor Center. Ashland/Hanover Visitor Center to been corrected; refer to the errata which is Appendix A to the Final E

 The discussion of relocations, clos

Appendix Q of the Draft EIS are accabove. 

192. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen193. DRPT acknowledges the economic 

conducted by a third party at the reDEQ has provided as an attachmeDRPT-numbered statement #236 fo
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

194. Refer to DRPT-numbered statem

response. 

195. Refer to DRPT-numbered statemen
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-168 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

196. This letter was provided to DRPT p

the Draft EIS (on September 8, 20comments on the content of the Drathis letter and publishing the Drafwith the Town of Ashland to contained within this letter. The coaddressed in analyses and documenDraft EIS. Notwithstanding, add

comment are included in the attacMuseum; refer to DRPT-numbered detailed response. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 196 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-170 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

197. Similar comments from the Ashland 

under separate cover from the AshlanDRPT-numbered statement #197. comment are included in the attacMuseum; refer to DRPT-numbered #235 for detailed responses on these t
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 197 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-172 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

198. The bypass was the subject of a 

study rather than a full identificatithe Draft EIS process for numerous the width of the bypass corridor anpractice to avoid excavations whunderstood that the Phase IA replanning document only and does full survey. Rather, this work iderequire archaeological survey and needing study should this alteAlternative 5A: Maintain Two (without station or roadway modifiRoad and Ashcake Road) was sAlternative for the Ashland Area (rFinal EIS for details on the selection 

 Because the bypass was not se

Alternative, no additional cultural the Phase IA study were necessary. 

199. These comments were provided v

cover; refer to DRPT-numbered stat
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comment 199, refer to page B
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-174 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comment 199, refer to page B
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comment 199, refer to page B
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-176 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

200. There are no physical impacts to th

the Area 5 Build Alternatives, Alternative 5A: Maintain Two University properties would be covan institutional entity (not businesbut this is not applicable as the buildas part of the Project. 

 The Project requires compliance w

Preservation Act of 1966. Since 20been complying with this legislinitiation, determination of an area archaeological studies with parchitectural identification- and evthe APE. All studies have been codetails on these studies and the ensfound in Draft EIS Appendices Appendices D, E, and K. 

 Randolph-Macon College and 

extension are both historic propertieAs such, DRPT evaluated impacts tboth direct and indirect. FRA evaluaof the Project on these resources Project will have no effect. DHR determinations. 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(Response to comment 200 on previous page) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-178 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

201. through 235. DRPT commenced 

Ashland Museum in January 201dialogue with the Museum and ththat time. Beyond documents sent DRPT held one-on-one calls and menature of cultural resources in this DRPT held a call between the team department to discuss the Section 2017, DRPT held a follow-up call wthe Town and Ashland Museum. Dpresented information on the legal as well as information on the ProjTown and Museum presented datcommunity and their concerns regaOne item that was discussed was a (as of the summer of 2017) of archihistoric district. The Town and DHcost-share project to resurvey the Aevaluate the resources within recommendations on boundary chappropriate. Commonwealth Heritado this work. Because of the naturshare resurvey project area and thoverlapped. DRPT reviewed the resurvey project upon completion ato the DC2RVA work. The results Town of Ashland, Ashland Museum

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

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

 DRPT received written comments on 

the Town of Ashland on May 31, 20Museum on May 30 and June 19, 

comments in light of the Commonwdeterminations on NRHP eligibilitDRPT held a consulting party mrepresentatives of the Town, AshlanCounty present. During this meetresults of their investigations on thTown and Ashland Museum in their 19 letters. In sum, the cost-share resusame NRHP eligibility recommendatDRPT on all resources within the Deffects (APE). In addition, DRPT methe letters on July 26, 2017 and Museum’s concerns. The DHR electand said that the matching NRHP deDRPT and the cost-share resurvey pNo changes in eligibility were made Upon hearing these results at the Octstated that the results of this subsequand satiated their concerns. The Mustated that they appreciated the follothese investigations, the APE was oncases where DRPT adjusted the limitgeneral, the APE in Ashland was nDraft EIS limits and the previous Nresources studied for the Draft However, additional studies in areamodified since the Draft EIS were cwere sent to all consulting parties foare also presented in the Final EIS. ThLOD studies were coordinated with Town of Ashland through emails, person meetings. See Chapter 5 and EIS for additional details. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-180 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179) 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-182 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-184 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-186 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-188 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-190 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(No comments on this page) 
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-192 

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

(For response to comments 201 through 235, 

179)
RESPONSES TO STATE AG

VIRGINIA DEQ (continued) 

236. DRPT acknowledges that the 

commissioned an economic reporreport in its formal comments. 

 NEPA requires FRA to evaluate 

construction of no-build and build abusinesses is the primary adverse ealternative. Build Alternative 5A, for Area 5, has one business relocatto the grade separation of Ashcake Rfor safety and traffic mobility purpreplacement properties available fothe area. 

 The economic report commissioned 

focused on “two general catealternatives] that are likely to have impact”: “the proposals that add a tand “constructing the three-track Alternative 5A, the Preferred Alternfall into either of these categorieassessed in the report. Neverthelesof Construction” is addressed in SEIS and Section 5.11.1 of the Final Econclusion as the report. 

 The construction management pla

final design is complete and constwill include provisions to mconstruction to all businesses/build
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMEN TAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

B-194 

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

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

B-196 

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

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

B-198 

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

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

B-200 

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

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

B-202 

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

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

B-204 

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

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

B-206 

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

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

B-208 

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

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

B-210 

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

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

B-212 

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

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

B-214 

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

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

B-216 

VIRGINIA DHR

1. The Department of Rail and Public 

committed to continuing coordinatiocomponents with the Virginia DResources (VDHR) through comenvironmental process, final design, will disseminate data as available, in 106 of the National Historic Preserva