CHAPTER 2

OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

AND AGENCY COORDINATION
 2-1 

OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND 

AGENCY COORDINATION 

This chapter describes the public involvement and agency coordination activities for the 

Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) Tier II Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) and 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) employed many forms of public outreach to engage 

diverse audiences, inform them of the Draft and Final EIS, and offer a variety of ways to 

contribute their input. DRPT and FRA have also coordinated extensively with local, state, and 

federal agencies and jurisdictions throughout the environmental review process. The public, 

agency, and elected official comments received in response to these coordination efforts were 

instrumental in defining the scope of the Project, in preparing the Draft EIS and this Final EIS, 

and in defining the Preferred Alternative. 

2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Based on the geographic extent of the Project, DRPT implemented an extensive public 

involvement process to keep the public informed of the latest Project information and to provide 

opportunities to ask questions and inform the development of the EIS. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS 

included detailed descriptions of the various communication methods employed for the Project. 

Application of these same communication tools was continued after the publication of the Draft 

EIS and the associated public hearings. A brief summary of each is provided below: 

Newspaper and Online Advertising. DRPT placed multiple advertisements in local, regional, 

and specialty newspapers along the Project corridor prior to each round of public meetings held 

prior to publication of the Draft EIS: Scoping (four meetings), Alternatives Development (three 

meetings), and Alternatives Review (three meetings). Similar advertisements were placed for the 

five public hearings which were held subsequent to publishing of the Draft EIS. DRPT also placed 

Spanish-language ads in newspapers which target Hispanic communities. In conjunction with 

the print ads, DRPT also placed electronic, interactive ads in the Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star 

and Richmond Times Dispatch websites and also through the Washington Post Digital 

advertising to reach people through news sites and other partner websites in the Project area. 

Targeted Title VI Outreach. DRPT identified Title VI audiences throughout the corridor for 

targeted outreach during the course of the Project. Email notifications were sent to Title VI groups 

and organizations, and outreach materials were distributed at transit agencies, community 

centers, libraries, and Hispanic and faith-based organizations in areas with higher populations of 

low-income residents and areas with higher populations with limited English proficiency (LEP). 

For all public involvement and agency outreach materials and events, targeted communication 

options were available to assist Title VI audiences, and DRPT translated all broad outreach 

media—such as meeting handouts and comment forms, newspaper ads, flyers, and press 

2
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-2 

releases—to Spanish. Any remaining handouts, including the Spanish versions, were distributed 

after each meeting to libraries in areas with higher concentrations of Hispanic populations to 

encourage their understanding and participation. 

Project Contact Mailing List. DRPT created and maintained a Project mailing list for stakeholder 

groups and members of the public. Requests to be added to the mailing list could be made at any 

time, including through the Project website and at all public meetings. DRPT delivered Project 

updates, newsletters, and public meeting invitations to those on the mailing list via email, and 

printed and mailed materials for individuals not readily reachable by email. All flyers, rack cards, 

bookmarks, meeting handouts, and emails were also translated to Spanish. At the time of 

publication of the Draft EIS in September 2017, there was a maximum of approximately 4,225 

organizations, agencies, and individuals listed on the Project Contact Mailing List. 

Property Owner Notifications. In accordance with Section 33.2-1011 of the Code of Virginia, 

DRPT mailed property owner notification letters to allow access to properties for Project field 

surveys. In advance of the June 2015 Alternatives Development Public Meetings and the October 

2017 Public Hearings, DRPT sent postcards to these same property owners and any property 

owners located within 500 feet in each direction from the centerline of the existing tracks. 

E-Newsletters. DRPT distributed E-newsletters at key milestones throughout the Project to 

highlight details and outcomes of public meetings, explain the study process, provide updates on 

alternatives and recommendations, remind readers how and where to comment, and provide 

other timely insight. Spanish-speaking audiences were encouraged to request assistance if 

needed; however, no requests were received during the course of the Project. 

Project Website. On October 6, 2014, DRPT launched the Project website: 

http://www.DC2RVArail.com. It serves as key reference for all public information, and DRPT 

continually updates the website with current and relevant information. The website also accepts 

comments and includes translation and font enlargement features. 

Project Press Releases and Media Advisories. DRPT issued press releases at Project kick-off and 

prior to public meetings, and also made them available on the Project website. DRPT also issued 

media advisories prior to the public meetings to invite the media to attend and provide meeting 

coverage. To garner more media attention, DRPT contacted key media outlets to follow up on 

releases and offered to provide other information to inform news stories. These efforts resulted 

in over 188 news stories published during the announcement of each phase of public meetings 

held on the Project, ranging from the Scoping meeting in 2014 through the most recent Public 

Hearings for the Draft EIS in 2017 (see Section 2.1.1 below for details).

Project Brochure. DRPT prepared two Project brochures—one at the onset of the Project and an 

updated version in fall 2016. DRPT mailed the first brochure to 553 elected officials, libraries, faith 

groups, and chambers of commerce and disseminated the second brochure at key stakeholder 

and public meetings. Electronic versions of the brochures are available on the Project website.

Social Media. The purpose of the Project’s social media efforts is to broaden outreach, increase 

awareness of the Project, and provide engagement opportunities to stakeholders who might not 

otherwise participate. DRPT summarized the content of social media posts to check for the most 

discussed topics and potential new issues not identified through traditional means and used 

social media to perform real‐time evaluation of Project information and locate geographic areas 

with higher or lower levels of stakeholder participation. As of July 2018, Social Media profiles 

included 522 followers on Twitter (@dc2rvail) and 504 followers on Facebook (dc2rvarail). 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-3 

2.1.1 Project Launch to Public Hearings 

On October 6, 2014, 30 days in advance of the first Scoping public meeting, DRPT initiated the 

Project’s public outreach to alert the public, agencies, and media of the Project’s inception. The 

Project launch included formal publication by FRA of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Project in 

the Federal Register on October 23, 2014.1

Public outreach announcements for the launch were developed in conjunction with public 

outreach announcements for the Scoping public meetings and included a group of web “splash” 

pages; an electronic survey; social media posts; an email message to contacts in the Project 

database; an initial press release to key local and regional print and electronic media—including 

a Spanish version to limited English proficiency media outlets; and a Project brochure that was 

distributed to regional libraries, faith groups, transportation agencies, chambers of commerce, 

and elected officials encouraging them to share Project information with their communities and 

customers. 

Public involvement throughout the remainder of the Project was based on several key milestones, 

which are summarized below and described in detail in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIS. 

 Scoping. The purpose of scoping is to introduce the Project and to provide an early and open 

forum for identifying public concerns and clearly defining the environmental issues and 

alternatives to be examined in the EIS. DRPT and FRA held four open house style public 

Scoping meetings for the Project on November 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2014. Scoping meetings were 

held along the corridor in Alexandria, Quantico, Ashland, and Richmond. An online meeting 

launched on October 27, 2014 was also hosted on the Project website. 

 Alternatives Development. DRPT held a second round of three public meetings on June 1, 2, 

and 3, 2015. Alternatives Development meetings were held in Alexandria, Fredericksburg, 

and Richmond. The topics covered at these open house meetings included the Draft Purpose 

and Need Statement, alternatives development process, and preliminary rail alignment 

options. 

 Alternatives Review. DRPT held another round of three public information meetings on 

December 8, 9, and 10, 2015, again in an informal open house format. The Alternatives Review 

meetings were held in Springfield, Fredericksburg, and Richmond. At these meetings, DRPT 

presented updated information on alternatives development, and topics covered included the 

review of alternatives and preliminary information and methodology for rail operations, 

modeling, engineering, and environmental analyses. 

 Draft EIS. The public hearings are described in Section 2.1.2 below. 

All comments received during the public meetings were reviewed, documented, and included in the 

Project’s administrative record. Outreach materials included reference to several methods by which 

people could submit comments and questions regarding the Project. These methods included: 

 Submission of comment form at in-person meetings 

 Mailing the hardcopy comment form to the Project office 

 

1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/10/23/2014-25219/environmental-impact-statement-for-thesoutheast-high-speed-rail-project-from-washington-dc-to 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-4 

 Submission via the electronic comment form on the Project website 

 Emailing the Project email address, info@dc2rvarail.com 

 Calling the toll-free Project hotline (information in English and Spanish) 

Comments received during specific comment periods informed decision making for that 

specified milestone. Comments submitted outside of the comment periods informed DRPT’s 

understanding of public sentiment regarding the Project and, in some cases, provided unique 

information, like property and historic resource details that helped guide alternatives 

development efforts. DRPT responded to comments that included information requests (e.g., 

specific landowner concerns or general Project information questions) by email, unless otherwise 

requested. DRPT also hosted meetings, made phone calls, and provided information by mail. 

2.1.2 Public Hearings for the Draft EIS 

After publishing the Draft EIS, DRPT held five public hearings along the corridor on October 10, 

11, 17, 18, and 19, 2017 to solicit public comments on the Draft EIS. The hearings were held from 

6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in Richmond and Ashland and from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in Alexandria, 

Fredericksburg, and Quantico. The public hearings consisted of two parts: an informal open 

house, during which the public could review Project information and talk to subject matter 

experts; and a formal comment period during which the public could speak for the record. Table 

2.1-1 provides the meeting date, location, and number of attendees at each public hearing. 

Table 2.1-1: Public Hearings 

Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Attendance1

October 10, 2017 Main Street Station 

1500 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 94 

October 11, 2017 Patrick Henry High School 

12449 W. Patrick Henry Road, Ashland, VA 169 

October 17, 2017 

Hilton Alexandria Old Town 

1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 77 

October 18, 2017 James Monroe High School 

2300 Washington Avenue, Fredericksburg, VA 43 

October 19, 2017 National Museum of the Marine Corps 

18900 Jefferson Davis Highway, Triangle, VA 27 

Note: 1. Attendance numbers based on DC2RVA sign-in sheets. 

Upon arrival at the hearings, attendees were asked to sign in and were given a comment form 

and a public hearing handout that provided background on the study (materials were produced 

in English and Spanish). The open house portion of the hearings included 19 staffed informational 

boards that included the following: 

 Review of alternatives 

 Socioeconomics 

 Property Acquisition Process 

 Historic and Archaeological 

Resources 

 Natural Resources 

 Air, Noise, and Vibration 

 Transportation 

 Train Frequency 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-5 

Detailed maps and map books were also presented, and Project subject matter experts were available 

to answer questions. The open house remained staffed during the formal comment portion of the public 

hearings. 

The formal comment portion of the hearings were held in a separate space from the open house 

areas and began at 6:30 p.m. in Richmond and Ashland and 7:30 p.m. in Alexandria, 

Fredericksburg, and Quantico. DRPT opened the formal comment portion of the hearings and 

allotted each speaker three minutes to state their comments. Comments and questions provided 

during the public hearings were documented for the Project record, and DRPT did not provide 

responses to questions and comments during this hearing. After those who had signed up to 

speak gave their comments, the Hearing Officer opened the floor to any additional speakers who 

wished to come to the microphone and provide their name and comment for the record. Once all 

comments were provided, the Hearing Officer concluded the public hearing and let attendees 

know that the Project team was available in the open house area to answer any additional 

questions. Attendees were invited to submit a written comment during the meeting, by mail, or 

online to be included in the record. 

A self-guided online meeting was also made available through the duration of the Draft EIS 

comment period (September 8, 2017 to November 7, 2017) and included a review of the Draft EIS 

and the same display information as the in-person meetings. All public hearing materials were 

posted on the Project website. 

The public was invited to provide comments about the Project during and after each hearing 

through various formats. The last two options below applied to the public hearings only, whereas 

the first five were offered during the first three sets of public meetings for the Project as well. 

 Submission of comment form at in-person meetings 

 Mailing the hardcopy comment form to the Project office 

 Submission via the electronic comment form on the Project website 

 Emailing the Project email address, info@dc2rvarail.com 

 Calling the toll-free Project hotline (information in English and Spanish) 

 Submission via the online meeting 

 Verbally via the Court Reporter 

DRPT prepared a Draft EIS Public Hearing Summary Report2 that describes the format and 

content of the public hearings, documents public outreach efforts before, after, and during the 

Draft EIS comment period, and summarizes comments received from agencies, organizations, 

and the general public. 

2.1.3 Public Comment on the Draft EIS 

The 60-day comment period for the Draft EIS ran from September 8, 2017 to November 7, 2017. 

During this time, DRPT received more than 14,000 comments from 4,247 individual commenters, 

with most citizens commenting on several topics or issues. All comments received were fully 

considered; DRPT reviewed each comment, categorized and appropriately grouped them by 

topic. Table 2.1-2 provides a summary of the 4,247 individual commenters, and Table 2.1-3 

 

2 Available on the Project website: http://dc2rvarail.com/resources/public-meeting-archive/ 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-6 

provides a summary of the 14,170 comments, indicating the number of times a particular topic, 

or issue, was mentioned. The top ten primary issues that were commented on were: 

 Alignments through the Ashland Area 

 Specific Landowner Issues (such as property-specific impacts from the Project, including 

property access or property acquisition) 

 Alignments through the Richmond Area 

 General support of Project 

 Alignments through the Northern Virginia Area 

 Economics impacts 

 Farmland impacts 

 Road/bridge impacts 

 Emergency response impacts 

 Safety 

Note that petitions that were sent in as form letters were captured as separate comments for the 

purposes of the count in Table 2.1-2 and Table 2.1-3. Refer to Section 2.4.2 of this Final EIS for 

summary of public comment and DRPT’s detailed responses, which are included as Appendix C 

of this Final EIS. 

Table 2.1-2: Draft EIS Comment Summary – Number of Commenters 

Comment Format Number of Commenters 

Email 2,561 

Letter 74 

Phone Call 2 

Public Hearing Court Reporter Transcript – Alexandria 10 

Public Hearing Court Reporter Transcript – Ashland 40 

Public Hearing Court Reporter Transcript – Fredericksburg 6 

Public Hearing Court Reporter Transcript – Quantico 2 

Public Hearing Court Reporter Transcript – Richmond 12 

Project Website Online Comment Form 769 

Project Hotline Voicemail 12 

Petition 3 

CAC Ashland / Hanover Comment 5 

Agency Letter / Email 53 

Form / Duplicate Submissions 698 

Total 4,247 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-7 

Table 2.1-3: Draft EIS Comment Summary – Primary Topics

Primary Issues Number of Topics within Comments 

ADA Accommodations 5 

Agency Coordination 15 

Air Quality 29 

Alignments-Ashland 5,630 

Alignments-Fredericksburg 24 

Alignments-Northern Virginia 988 

Alignments-Richmond 1,069 

Alternatives 16 

Bicycle and Pedestrian 123 

Biological Resources 25 

Capacity 190 

Community Facilities and Services 74 

Compatibility Projects/Plans 14 

Construction 46 

Cumulative Impacts 4 

Economics 724 

EIS Process 15 

EJ/Social/Title VI 9 

Emergency Response 387 

Energy 1 

Errata 4 

Farmland 631 

General Opposition 68 

General Support 1,051 

Hazardous Materials Transport 9 

Health Impacts 5 

Historic and Cultural Resources 100 

Information Request 27 

Land Use 6 

Mailing List Request 21 

Mitigation 29 

Mobility 7 

Noise & Vibration 57 

Other 9 

Ownership and Operations/Maintenance 5 

Parking 23 

Parks and Recreation 26 

 Continued.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-8 

Table 2.1-3: Draft EIS Comment Summary – Primary Topics

Primary Issues Number of Topics within Comments 

Project Schedule 5 

Public Involvement 12 

Purpose and Need 9 

Road / Bridges 585 

ROW 14 

Safety 265 

Section 4(f) 9 

Service 112 

Specific Landowner Issues 1,463 

Stations 100 

Technology 72 

Visual/Viewshed 21 

Water Resources 37 

Total 14,170 

2.1.4 Additional Public Outreach 

This section describes the public outreach for the Project, in addition to the public meetings, 

hearings, and comment periods. 

2.1.4.1 Public Meetings Hosted by Outside Organizations 

In addition to the public meetings hosted by DRPT, DRPT was also asked to present at three 

public meetings held by outside organizations. These meetings were requested by local 

jurisdictions, citizens, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to discuss proposed 

alternatives in their areas. Table 2.1-4 provides the meeting host, date, location, and number of 

attendees at each meeting. During these meetings, DRPT gave a brief Project update presentation 

and answered questions from the audience. Topics raised during the question and answer 

sessions included the study process, property impacts, passenger and freight rail service, Project 

cost, rail within the I-95 corridor, noise and vibration, eliminated alternatives, safety, economics, 

Purpose and Need, Project outreach, and train speeds. Comment forms were available at these 

meetings, collected, reviewed, and logged in the Project database. Additionally, DRPT collected 

sign-in sheets and added attendees to the Project contact mailing list. 

Table 2.1-4: Outside Organization Hosted Meetings 

Meeting Host Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Attendance1

Virginians for High Speed Rail; 

Town of Ashland 

February 4, 2016 

(6:30 – 8:30 p.m.) 

Ashland Town Hall 

101 Thompson Street 

Ashland, VA 23005 

17 

Hanover County April 4, 2016 

(6:30 – 8:30 p.m.) 

Patrick Henry High School 

12449 W. Patrick Henry Road 

Ashland, VA 23005 

402 

Spotsylvania County July 11, 2016 

(6:30 – 8:30 p.m.) 

Fredericksburg Christian High School 

9400 Thornton Rolling Road 

Fredericksburg, VA 22408 

233 

Note: 1. Attendance numbers based on DC2RVA sign-in sheets. 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-9 

2.1.4.2 Small Group Informational Meetings 

As shown in Table 2.1-5, DRPT participated in more than 45 small group informational meetings 

with interested organizations throughout the corridor, in many cases at the request of the 

organizations themselves. Notifications about these meetings were issued from the requesting 

agency/organization, and all meetings were open to the public. Feedback received at these 

meetings focused on ways that DRPT could collaborate to improve Project communication. 

Table 2.1-5: Small Group Informational Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Type / Attendees Topics 

November 3, 2014 

Richmond Regional Planning District 

Commission, GWRideConnect, Arlington 

Transit, Dinwiddie County, Federal 

Railroad Administration 

 Public Information Officer Update Regarding 

Upcoming Public Meetings 

March 12, 2015 Virginia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Hispanic Community Outreach Strategy 

March 12, 2015 Ridefinders  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Public Outreach Strategy 

March 12, 2015 AAA Seniors  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Senior Citizens Outreach Strategy 

March 15, 2015 Historic Fredericksburg Foundation Inc.  Project Overview 

 Project Engagement Opportunities 

March 19, 2015 East Coast Greenway Alliance, Virginia 

Bicycling Federation 

 Project Purpose and Need 

 Barriers to Greenway, Private Freight Right-of-Way 

March 19, 2015 Mayfield Civic Association 

 Project Overview, including Activities and Schedule 

 Field Studies 

 Public Engagement Opportunities 

May 13, 2015 Caroline County, City of Alexandria, 

Marine Corps Base Quantico 

 Public Information Officer Update Regarding 

Upcoming Public Meetings 

May 22, 2015 Hampton Roads Regional Council  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

July 15, 2015 DuPont  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

September 9, 2015 Neabsco Beach Way Homeowners 

Association 

 Project Overview 

 Neabsco Creek Bridge 

October 15, 2015 

City of Richmond Public Information 

Office, Greater Richmond Transit 

Company 

 Project Overview 

 December 2015 Public Meeting Outreach Strategy 

November 10, 2015 City of Richmond Office of Diversity  Title VI Outreach Strategy 

November 10, 2015 City of Richmond Social Services 

Department  Title VI Outreach Strategy 

November 10, 2015 Virginia Department for the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing  Title VI Outreach Strategy 

November 12, 2015 Fairfax County Public Information Office  Project Overview 

 December Public Meetings 

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

2-10 

Table 2.1-5: Small Group Informational Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Type / Attendees Topics 

November 13, 2015 Fairfax County Department of 

Transportation - Public Information Office 

 Project Overview 

 December Public Meetings 

November 17, 2015 City of Richmond, City of Fredericksburg, 

Springfield Chamber of Commerce 

 Business Groups/Chambers of Commerce Update 

Regarding Upcoming Public Meetings 

February 3, 2016 Transportation Association of Greater 

Springfield 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

June 9, 2016 Randolph-Macon College, Town of 

Ashland, Hanover County 

 Project Overview 

 Ashland Area Alternatives 

 Potential Impacts to College 

June 14, 2016 Civil War Trust  Cultural Resources 

July 27, 2016 Randolph-Macon College  Ashland Area Alternatives 

 Potential Impacts to College 

August 22, 2016 Virginia Association of Counties  Project Overview 

September 15, 2016 

American Council of Engineering 

Companies, Virginia Transportation 

Networking Luncheon [Presentation] 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

September 19, 2016 Arlington/Alexandria Phase II Meeting  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

October 27, 2016 

Hap Connors – Commonwealth 

Transportation Board, Fredericksburg 

District 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 3, 2016 Northern Virginia Transportation 

Commission 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 3, 2016 Potomac and Rappahannock 

Transportation Commission 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 16, 2016 Crystal City Civic Association  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

November 17, 2016 Northern Virginia Transportation 

Authority 

 Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

December 5, 2016 

Richmond Area Locality Workshop: 

City of Richmond, Henrico County, 

Chesterfield County, Richmond Regional 

Planning District Commission, and Federal 

Railroad Administration 

 Richmond Recommendations 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

January 18, 2017 Alexandria Transportation Commission  Project Activities and Schedule 

March 28, 2017 Ashland Study Request 

 Project Activities 

 Potential Impacts to Town of Ashland and Hanover 

County 

June 5, 2017 Virginia Department of Historic Resources  Project Update and Schedule 

July 13, 2017 Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and 

Department of Transportation  Project Update and Schedule 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-11 

Table 2.1-5: Small Group Informational Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Type / Attendees Topics 

October 24, 2017 Alexandria City Council  Resolution to comments on Draft EIS 

November 9, 2017 Special Commonwealth Transportation 

Board Meeting - Ashland  Project Concerns 

March 15, 2018 Woodbridge Potomac Communities Civic 

Association  Project Update and Schedule 

April 4, 2018 Virginia Department of Historic Resources  Project Update 

 AH Phase 1 in LOD 

May 16, 2018 City of Richmond  Project Update and Schedule 

August 7, 2018 Virginia Department of Historic Resources  Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources in 

Shockoe Valley 

September 10, 2018 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

Preservation Virginia, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, Virginia Department 

of Historic Resources 

 Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources in 

Shockoe Valley 

October 15, 2018 Historic Richmond  Project Update 

 Potential Impacts 

October 24, 2018 Town of Ashland Museum  Project Update and Schedule 

November 2, 2018 Elegba Folklore Society  Project Update and Schedule 

December 3, 2018 National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

Preservation Virginia, Historic Richmond 

 Potential Impacts to Cultural Resources in 

Shockoe Valley 

Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote meeting that was held subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017. 

2.1.4.3 Town of Ashland/Hanover County Community Advisory Committee 

Through the alternatives development process and related community meetings, DRPT 

recognized the unique nature of the Town of Ashland and Hanover County, and that many of 

the alternatives for greater rail capacity in this area generated community concerns. As a result, 

DRPT implemented a community-based effort to supplement the corridor-wide DC2RVA public 

involvement activities described above and to help inform DRPT's recommendation for a 

Preferred Alternative that provides the required rail capacity through the Town of 

Ashland/Hanover County area. 

As part of this community-based effort, DRPT established a Community Advisory Committee 

(CAC) to take a more intense look at all previous options, identify any potential new options to 

meet the Purpose and Need of the DC2RVA Project, and suggest mitigation strategies to address 

Project impacts. The CAC was specifically requested to: 

 Review all alternatives studied during the preparation of the Draft EIS, including those 

considered but already dismissed during the alternatives development process 

 Recommend alternative(s), including new alternatives or modifications to alternatives, to 

meet the Project Purpose and Need 

 Identify and represent the concerns of members’ communities 

 Apply a structured and transparent approach seeking consensus 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-12 

The CAC consisted of 14 members from the below organizations. Each organization nominated 

individuals to participate in the committee. CAC member organizations are listed below in 

alphabetical order: 

 Town of Ashland 

 CSX Transportation 

 Hanover County 

 Randolph-Macon College 

 Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization 

DRPT Director Jennifer Mitchell acted as chairperson of the committee and technical subject 

matter experts for the Project presented findings and answered questions at the meetings. 

The CAC met monthly from May through September 2017 for a total of five meetings. The CAC 

members were notified by email and were encouraged to share the meeting details with the 

public. All meetings were open to the public, with specific meeting times set aside specifically for 

verbal comment by the public, with a limit of 2 minutes per citizen. The comment period was 

open until all individual commenters were able to provide their input at each meeting. Each of 

the CAC meetings included a full video recording available after the meeting on the Project 

website. The video offered the public who were unable to attend the opportunity to view the 

same information when it was most convenient for them. All public comments and questions 

were reviewed by the DRPT staff, and responses were prepared and shared with the CAC as part 

of the decision-making process. 

Table 2.1-6 provides the meeting date, location, and number of attendees at each CAC meeting. 

Table 2.1-6: CAC Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Type Meeting Location 

Meeting 

Attendance1

May 22, 2017 CAC Meeting Hanover County Administration 

Building Board of Supervisors 90 

June 26, 2017 CAC Meeting Randolph-Macon College 60 

July 25, 2017 CAC Meeting Randolph-Macon College 280 

August 28, 2017 CAC Meeting Randolph-Macon College 80 

September 11, 2017 CAC Meeting Randolph-Macon College 60 

Notes: 1. Attendance numbers are based on DC2RVA sign-in sheets. 

Row highlighted in gray denotes meeting that was held subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017. 

It is important to note that the CAC process was not meant to replace the Draft EIS public hearings 

and public comment period. Members of the public were encouraged to also provide comments 

on the Draft EIS once the document was made publicly available on September 8, 2017. 

Refer to Section 3.3 of this Final EIS for a description of the CAC recommendations as they pertain 

to selection of the Preferred Alternative. Refer to Appendix G of this Final EIS for the final 

summary report on all CAC activities, which was published in October 2017. 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-13 

2.2 AGENCY COORDINATION 

DRPT and FRA conducted extensive agency coordination throughout the course of the Draft EIS. 

More than 35 agencies were invited to be Cooperating or Participating Agencies. Cooperating 

Agencies include those agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise and typically: 

 Participate in scoping 

 Provide staff support 

 Assist with analyses, field reviews, and public meetings 

 Review documentation 

The Draft and Final EIS are meant to assist Cooperating Agencies in fulfilling their jurisdictional 

and NEPA responsibilities. Table 2.2-1 presents the Cooperating Agencies3 for the DC2RVA 

Project. 

Participating Agencies also have an interest and remain involved throughout the Project, but they 

typically do not have as active a role as Cooperating Agencies. The Participating Agencies for the 

DC2RVA Project are also presented in Table 2.2-1. 

Amtrak, WMATA, and VRE (Participating Agencies) in the DC2RVA Corridor 

 

3 USFWS was also invited to be a cooperating agency but did not respond. Although USFWS is not a cooperating 

agency, they did participate in a phone conference with the cooperating agencies on August 31, 2015. USFWS 

requested information regarding proposed Project alignments. DRPT worked with USFWS to provide this 

information and respond to other USFWS comments. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-14 

Table 2.2-1: Cooperating and Participating Agencies

Cooperating Agencies 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

Participating Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico 

Amtrak Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

(MWCOG)/National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board 

Arlington County Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) 

Caroline County Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (NVRPA) 

Chesterfield County Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) 

City of Alexandria Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) 

City of Colonial Heights Prince William County 

City of Fairfax Richmond Regional Planning District Commission/Richmond 

Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RRTPO) 

City of Fredericksburg Spotsylvania County 

City of Richmond Stafford County 

Crater Planning District Commission/Tri-Cities 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Town of Ashland 

Dinwiddie County Town of Dumfries 

District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

(DDOT) Town of Quantico 

Fairfax County Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 

Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (FAMPO) Virginia Port Authority 

George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC) Virginia Railway Express (VRE) 

Hanover County Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) 

Henrico County 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-15 

2.2.1 Agency Meetings 

Early and continuous agency coordination provides support for Project development. The first agency 

meeting was the agency scoping meeting for federal, state, and local agencies conducted on November 

3, 2014. The intent of the meeting was to introduce the Project; explain the study process; refine the 

Purpose and Need; review concerns and comments; and begin to identify alternatives for consideration. 

Comments and input from the agencies attending were welcomed. DRPT also held agency meetings 

on June 25, 2015 and March 31, 2016, to update the federal, state, and local agencies on Project activities 

and receive feedback. Table 2.2-2 provides a summary of the inter-agency meetings held to date. 

Table 2.2-2: Interagency Meetings

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

November 3, 2014 

16 attendees, representing FRA, USACE, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), VDOT, MWCOG, 

RRTPO, Stafford County, Spotsylvania 

County, Henrico County, Chesterfield 

County, and the City of Richmond 

 Served as Agency Scoping Meeting 

 Project Introduction 

 Study Process Explanation 

 Purpose and Need Refinement 

 Identify Alternatives for Consideration 

 Concerns and Comments on the Project from 

Attendees 

June 25, 2015 20 attendees, representing FRA, USACE, 

EPA, FHWA, and VDOT 

 Project Overview 

 Update on Project Activities to Date 

 Ongoing and Upcoming Project Deliverables 

 Concerns and Comments on the Project from 

Attendees 

March 31, 2016 

24 attendees, representing FRA, USACE, 

EPA, Amtrak, VDOT, VRE, WMATA, 

MWCOG, RRTPO, Stafford County, 

Hanover County, Chesterfield County, City 

of Fredericksburg, and MCB Quantico 

 Update on Project Activities to Date 

 Ongoing and Upcoming Project Deliverables 

 Concerns and Comments on the Project from 

Attendees 

February 9. 2017 Attendees representing VDOT  Project Update and Schedule 

February 22, 2017 Attendees representing VRE and FRA  Project Update and Schedule 

January 4, 2018 24 attendees representing Amtrak, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

January 17, 2018 2 Attendees representing FRA and DRPT  Project Concerns and Schedule 

March 6, 2018 Attendees representing NCDOT, VRE, 

Amtrak, FRA, CSX, DDOT  Service Development Plan Kickoff 

March 6, 2018 Attendees representing NCDOT  Scheduling 

Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote meetings that were held subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-16 

In addition to the larger agency meetings, DRPT scheduled smaller agency-specific meetings as 

needed to discuss particular resources and topics in greater detail. Table 2.2-3 lists these agencyspecific meetings and includes a brief summary of the discussion topics. 

Table 2.2-3: Agency Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

September 3, 2015 USACENorfolk District, Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

 Wetlands Methodology 

 Permit Requirements 

September 16, 2015 EPA 

 Project Overview 

 Climate Change and Resiliency 

 Wetlands 

 Environmental Justice, Relocations, and Public 

Outreach 

 Air Quality 

 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

 Stormwater 

November 30, 2015 USACENorfolk District, DEQ  Streams and Wetlands Field Review Meeting–

Segments 6, 7, and 81

December 16, 2015 USACENorfolk District, DEQ  Streams and Wetlands Field Review Meeting–

Segments 10 and 111

February 3, 2016 USACENorfolk District, DEQ  Streams and Wetland Field Review Meeting–Segments 

11 and 121

May 19, 2016 United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

 Project Overview 

 Threatened and Endangered Species Inventories and 

Survey 

July 21, 2016 USACENorfolk District, DEQ  Streams and Wetland Field Review–Segment 211

May 11, 2018 USACE- Norfolk District  James River Floodwalls 

May 24, 2018 USACE – Norfolk District Regulatory 

Branch, EPA 

 Draft EIS Comments and Responses; Permit 

Coordination; Mitigations 

June 6, 2018 EPA  Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Note: 1. See Section 2.3 of the Draft EIS for a description of DC2RVA corridor segments. 

Rows highlighted in gray denote meetings that were held subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017. 

2.2.2 Distribution of the Draft EIS 

On September 8, 2017, the EPA published in the Federal Register EPA’s weekly Notice of 

Availability (NOA) that included the Draft EIS. Publication of the NOA initiated the 60-day 

public involvement period. DRPT distributed the Draft EIS to 325 federal, regional, state, and 

local agencies, elected officials, and other interested parties for their review and comments. The 

document was also made available for public viewing at public libraries and government centers 

along the corridor, as well as on the Project website (www.DC2RVArail.com). The complete 

distribution list is included in Chapter 8 of the Draft EIS. 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-17 

2.2.3 Additional Agency/Stakeholder Coordination 

This section describes DRPT’s additional coordination efforts, including task force meetings, 

coordination with local agency and officials, and Section 106 and Section 4(f) coordination. 

2.2.3.1 Task Force Meetings 

Because the Project involves rail infrastructure owned by CSX Transportation (CSXT) and utilized 

by multiple operators, DRPT formed a task force of the transportation providers in the corridor 

to ensure effective communication and coordination of Project information. DRPT hosted task 

force meetings quarterly, or as needed at Project milestones, beginning in August 2014. 

Participants at the task force meetings typically included FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, Virginia’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG), and DDOT. The task force meetings began 

with an initial kick-off meeting followed by a series of updates on Project activities and the 

schedule. There have been 15 meetings held between the Project’s conception and July 2018. The 

meetings have served as an important tool for coordination amongst the primary Project 

stakeholders. 

The main objectives of the task force were: 

 To serve as the “Core Project Team” 

 To be briefed on major Project milestones and to keep appropriate staff informed of the 

Project progress 

 To serve as advisors to the lead agency for the EIS 

 To provide technical review and input to complete certain parts of the study 

Table 2.2-4 provides a summary of the task force meetings to date. 

Table 2.2-4: Task Force Meetings

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

August 18, 2014 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, VRE  Project Introduction 

 Early Project Concerns 

January 8, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, OAG 

 General Update of Project Activities 

 FRA Agreement with DRPT 

 Freight Growth and Modeling 

 Freight and Passenger Rail Capacity 

 VRE Station Planning and Development 

 Long Bridge 

 Basis of Design 

April 8, 2015 

FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, Virginia Office of the Attorney 

General (OAG) 

 Purpose and Need 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

 Public Involvement 

May 19, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE 

 Purpose of June Public Meetings 

 Materials to be Presented at June Public Meetings 

 Issues that arose during Locality Meetings 

 Key Provisions of Basis of Design 

June 29, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, OAG 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Service Goals 

 Engineering Options Overview 

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

2-18 

Table 2.2-4: Task Force Meetings

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

September 30, 2015 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, OAG 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Alternatives Development 

 Screening Results: Potomac to Staples Mill 

 Screening Status: Richmond 

 Ridership Model Development 

 Preliminary Service Plan 

 Streamlining Projects 

January 27, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT, OAG 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Operations Modeling Methodology 

 Alternatives Review 

 Draft EIS Content 

May 11, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT, OAG 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Locality Update 

 Build Alternatives and No Build Alternative 

 Ridership Forecasting 

 FASTLANE Grant Application 

August 16, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, OAG 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Build Alternatives and No Build Alternative 

 Preliminary Ridership Estimates 

November 2, 2016 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Alternatives Review 

 Community Outreach 

 Ridership Modeling Update 

 Atlantic Gateway 

February 2, 2017 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Alternatives Review 

 Ridership Modeling Update 

 Preliminary Engineering Update 

 Atlantic Gateway 

 Long Bridge 

July 12, 2017 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 Summary of Alternatives Review 

 Public Hearing Schedule and Timeline 

 Town of Ashland and Hanover County Area Community 

Advisory Committee Update 

February 8, 2018 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT 

 Project Update and Schedule 

 CTB Decision on Recommended Preferred Alternative 

 Preliminary Engineering Update 

 Service Development Planning 

July 10, 2018 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT 

 Preliminary Engineering 

 Service Development Plan 

 Final EIS format and documentation, including Draft EIS 

comment responses 

November 7, 2018 FRA, DRPT, VDOT, CSXT, Amtrak, 

VRE, DDOT 

 Service Development Plan 

 Final EIS Update and Timeline 

 Section 106 Coordination 

 Network-wide Modeling Results 

Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote meetings that were held subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017. 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-19 

2.2.3.2 Local Agencies and Officials Coordination 

Beyond agency coordination with departments within localities, DRPT also specifically engaged 

local officials during the Project’s development. In total, DRPT conducted over 60 meetings with 

local agencies and officials to provide Project briefings and updates, gather feedback on 

alternatives, and answer questions. The organizations and meeting dates are listed in Table 2.2-5. 

Table 2.2-5: Local Agency and Official Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

December 3, 2014 City of Richmond Mayor’s Staff, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Richmond Station Locations 

 Relation to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 

November 19, 2014 Delegate Manoli Loupassi, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Richmond Station Locations 

March 12, 2015 Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (FAMPO), DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Fredericksburg Region Outreach Strategy 

March 12, 2015 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Title VI Outreach Strategy 

April 29, 2015 Hanover County, Town of Ashland, Richmond 

Region Planning District Commission, DRPT 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

May 1, 2015 City of Fredericksburg, FAMPO, GWRC, Stafford 

County, DRPT 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

May 1, 2015 MWCOG Transportation Planning Board, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 4, 2015 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, DRPT 

 Service Goals 

 Alternatives Development 

May 7, 2015 PRTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 7, 2015 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 8, 2015 NVTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 14, 2015 Northern Virginia Transportation Authority 

(NVTA), DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 18, 2015 GWRC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

May 20, 2015 MWCOG Policy Board, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

September 24, 2015 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 9, 2015 

Caroline County, City of Fredericksburg, 

FAMPO, GWRC, Stafford County, Spotsylvania 

County, VDOT, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 9, 2015 FAMPO Technical Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 10, 2015 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 12, 2015 Hanover County, Town of Ashland, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

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

2-20 

Table 2.2-5: Local Agency and Official Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

November 13, 2015 NVTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 15, 2015 PRTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 16, 2015 FAMPO Policy Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

November 19, 2015 NVTA, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Alternative Development and Screening 

December 1, 2015 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, FRA, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Richmond Area Rail Conditions and Alternatives 

Development 

March 2, 2016 Hanover County, DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Hanover County Field Studies 

 Ashland Area Alternatives 

March 9, 2016 Chesterfield County, City of Richmond, Henrico 

County, RRPDC, DRPT, FRA  Richmond Area Station Site Planning 

March 22, 2016 City of Richmond, DRPT  Richmond Station Facilities 

March 22, 2016 Henrico County, DRPT  Henrico Station Facilities 

April 4, 2016 Stafford County, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 7, 2016 Spotsylvania County, FAMPO, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 14, 2016 Caroline County, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 28, 2016 Hanover County, Town of Ashland, RRPDC, 

DRPT 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

 Ashland Area Alternatives 

 Randolph-Macon College 

May 2, 2016 City of Fredericksburg, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 23, 2016 Arlington County, City of Alexandria, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 24, 2016 Speaker William Howell, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

May 27, 2016 House of Delegates Transportation Chair Ron 

Villanueva, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

July 28, 2016 CTB, DRPT  Project Overview 

September 21, 2016 CTB, DRPT  Project Briefing 

October 11, 2016 Caroline County Board of Supervisors, DRPT  Project Overview 

 Project Activities and Schedule 

October 18, 2016 CTB, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

October 25, 2016 MWCOG Regional Transportation 

Subcommittee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

November 1, 2016 CTB, Town of Ashland, Hanover County, 

Randolph-Macon College, DRPT  Project Tour of Ashland Area 

November 3, 2016 PRTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

November 3, 2016 NVTC, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

November 17, 2016 NVTA, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-21 

Table 2.2-5: Local Agency and Official Meetings 

Meeting Date Meeting Attendees Topics 

November 28, 2016 VDOT, DRPT  Environmental Justice and ADA Compliance 

November 28, 2016 Governor McAuliffe, DRPT  Project Briefing 

December 1, 2016 RRTPO, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

December 6, 2016 CTB, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

 Project Alternatives 

December 14, 2016 Henrico County Board of Supervisors, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

December 20, 2016 Fredericksburg Mayor/City Council Briefing, 

DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 9, 2017 FAMPO Technical Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 11, 2017 FAMPO Transportation Advisory Group, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 18, 2017 Alexandria Transportation Commission, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

January 23, 2017 FAMPO Policy Committee, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

February 3, 2017 Ashland Safety Summit Meeting, DRPT  Project Activities and Schedule 

April 17, 2017 Ashland Officials and Stakeholders, DRPT  Project Updates 

 Creation of Community Advisory Committee 

July 11, 2017 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

August 21, 2017 GWRC/FAMPO Policy Board, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

September 7, 2017 RRPDC, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

October 24, 2017 CTB, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

October 25, 2017 WMATA, DRPT  Potomac Yard and ROW 

November 21, 2017 WMATA, DRPT  Project Concerns 

 Alexandria Area Alternatives 

January 26, 2018 City of Alexandria, DRPT  Draft EIS Comments 

February 2, 2018 Arlington County, DRPT  Draft EIS Comments 

February 21, 2018 WMATA, DRPT  Draft EIS Comments 

March 8, 2018 ACHP, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

May 16, 2018 City of Richmond, DRPT  Project Update and Schedule 

June 28, 2018 ACHP, National Trust, NPS GW Parkway, 

Alexandria Archaeology, DRPT  Pre-Final EIS Project effects 

August 29, 2018 City of Richmond, DRPT  Potential Impacts to Shockoe Bottom 

November 8, 2018 City of Richmond, Parks and Recreation, DRPT  Project Update 

 Section 4(f) Discussion 

Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote meetings that were held subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-22 

In addition to the meetings with local officials listed in Table 2.2.5, DRPT also met with members of 

Virginia’s Congressional delegation on May 19, 2016 in Cannon House Office Building, Room Cannon 

5C. Representatives from the offices of Senator Tim Kaine, Senator Mark R. Warner, Representative Don 

Beyer, Representative Gerald Connolly, Representative Robert J. Wittman, Representative Dave Brat, 

and Representative Robert C. Scott all participated in the meeting. Attendees discussed the various areaspecific options along the corridor, as well as FASTLANE funding and how the Project could 

complement DRPT’s Atlantic Gateway suite of projects.4

DRPT provided additional outreach to elected officials during key Project milestones, as shown 

in Table 2.2-6. More than 300 elected officials were contacted and included on the Project’s email 

database to receive newsletters and other Project updates. 

Table 2.2-6: Elected Official Targeted Outreach 

Date Format Content 

October 22, 2014 Direct Mailing #1 Project notification providing notice that FRA and DRPT were initiating preparation 

of a Tier II EIS for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, VA, rail corridor. 

May 18, 2015 Direct Mailing #2 

Project update providing schedule information on public meetings to take place in 

early June. The update also shared that the Project’s Purpose and Need statement 

was completed, preliminary rail alignment options had been developed, and 

alternative screening criteria had been identified. 

November 10, 2015 Email #1 

Project update that early stages of the alternatives screening process were 

completed and input from the June 2015 public meetings was incorporated to 

develop a range of viable alternative improvements for detailed evaluation. 

September 12, 2017 Email #2 Project notification providing notice of the Draft EIS document release. 

September 27, 2017 Email #3 Project notification providing notice of the Draft EIS Public Hearing times, dates, 

and locations. 

September 27, 2017 Email #4 Project invitation to attend Draft EIS Public Hearing. 

October 10, 2017 Email #5 Project notification to inform officials about Draft EIS Public Hearing meeting materials. 

November 2, 2017 Email #6 Project notification indicating that the Draft EIS Public Hearing Comment Period 

closes soon. 

Note: Rows highlighted in gray denote communications distributed subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS in September 2017.

 

4 The Atlantic Gateway is a $1.4 billion partnership that focuses on the I-95 corridor between Washington, D.C. and 

Fredericksburg, VA. Partially funded by a federal FASTLANE grant, the program utilizes an innovative 

public/private partnership to leverage a suite of multi-modal improvements along one of the nation’s busiest 

corridors. The FASTLANE, or Fostering Advancements In Shipping And Transportation For The Long-Term 

Achievement Of National Efficiencies, grants are part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act § 

1105; 23 U.S.C. 117. The competitive FASTLANE grants provide financial assistance to nationally and regionally 

significant freight and highway projects that meet the program’s goals of improving safety, reducing congestion, 

generate economic benefits, improve connectivity, enhance resiliency, improve roadways vital to national energy 

security, and address the impacts of population growth on the movement of people and freight 

(www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/). 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-23 

2.2.3.3 Section 106 Coordination and Consultation 

DRPT coordinated with numerous property owners and officials with jurisdiction over resources 

protected under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), with particular 

focus on resources where the Project alternatives would likely result in an adverse effect to 

cultural or historic properties. 

Agencies involved in this dialogue included ACHP, Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

(DHR), USACE, American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), and United States DOI. 

Complete details on Section 106 coordination and consultation are included in Appendix E of this 

Final EIS. 

2.2.3.4 Section 4(f) Coordination 

DRPT coordinated with the owners of parkland resources protected under Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138). Letters were sent in summer 

2017 to owners of all Section 4(f) parkland resources that could potentially be affected by the 

Project. Based on comments received, design revisions were made to reduce the Project’s limits 

of disturbance (LOD) in areas adjacent to parks. Based on the revised LOD, letters were sent in 

Fall 2018 to all resource owners for resources with permanent impacts or temporary occupancy. 

Temporary and permanent impacts of the Preferred Alternative to the Section 4(f) resources are 

quantified in Chapter 6 of this Final EIS, which also includes complete details of Section 4(f) 

coordination. Concurrence of Section 4(f) use(s) have been received from the respective resource 

owners, copies of which are provided in Appendix E of this Final EIS. 

National Park Service-Stonewall Jackson Shrine (Area 4, Central Virginia) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-24 

2.3 COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) establishes the administrative policies 

and oversees transportation projects and initiatives for the Commonwealth’s transportation 

system. The CTB is made up of 17 members appointed by the governor, and typically meets on a 

monthly schedule. The CTB allocates transportation funding to specific projects, locates routes, 

and provides funding for highways, rail, and public transportation projects. The CTB Rail 

Committee, a subgroup of the CTB, meets separately and works with DRPT staff on policies, 

procedures, special projects, and reports related to rail.

2.3.1 CTB Coordination – Scoping through Draft EIS 

Because of the scale of the DC2RVA Project, DRPT began briefing the CTB on DC2RVA in 

advance of procurement for this Project at the CTB Workshop on July 16, 2014. DRPT updated 

the Rail Committee informally through the scoping and alternatives development process as the 

Draft EIS was developed. DRPT provided formal updates at the September 20, 2016, Rail 

Committee and Workshop. DRPT presented its preliminary recommendations for the DC2RVA 

Project at the CTB Workshop on December 6, 2016, while the Draft EIS was in review by FRA. 

The recommendations presented in December 2016 were identical to those documented in the 

Recommendation Report (Appendix I of this Final EIS) with the deferral of a recommendation of 

a Preferred Alternative for Area 5 in the Town of Ashland/Hanover County Area. As described 

above in Section 2.1.4.3, Ashland/Hanover CAC, comments from local officials and citizens in 

this area requested that DRPT review its alternatives development process with greater public 

involvement. DRPT and community members engaged the CTB through updates and public 

comments at CTB workshops and Rail Committee meetings, as well as a CTB tour of the Town of 

Ashland and Hanover County on November 1, 2016. The tour served as a fact-finding mission 

for the CTB so that they could view the scale of potential rail alignments in relation to the existing 

landscape and receive an update on the overall Project. 

DRPT made formal presentations to the full CTB and CTB Rail Committee throughout 2017 (after 

publication of the Draft EIS): 

 February 15, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Reported on status of FRA’s Draft EIS review and DRPT’s request to conduct a 

separate NEPA effort for the Ashland/Hanover area due to unique land use 

conditions and longer-range need. 

 April 18, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Reported that DRPT was preparing refined operations analysis to confirm that the 

infrastructure proposed in the Draft EIS will meet the Purpose and Need of the full 

DC2RVA Project, particularly with regard to the proposal to retain a two-track 

railroad through the Town of Ashland. 

- Reported that FRA could not separate the section for Area 5 through Ashland from 

the DC2RVA Project for further analysis in a separate NEPA effort, since the EIS for 

the DC2RVA Project provides an FRA Record of Decision for a contiguous corridorwide service improvement from Washington, D.C. through Richmond, VA. 

- Conveyed that the CAC will be convened for the Ashland/Hanover area, and FRA 

supports the CAC process as additional community involvement to inform the 

development of the alternatives presented in the EIS. 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-25 

- Reviewed DRPT recommendations for Areas 1–6 and reported that the Draft EIS 

would not contain a DRPT recommendation of a Preferred Alternative for Arlington 

(Area 1) and Ashland/Hanover (Area 5). 

 September 19, 2017 CTB Rail Committee and CTB Workshop 

- Presented results of the CAC, in collaboration with CAC Member Barbara Nelson of 

the Richmond Regional Transportation Planning Organization. 

- CSXT expressed its concern that a 3-2-3 option would result in freight delays. 

 October 23, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Reported results of refined operations analysis modeling, which showed that most 

freight delays outside of the Project corridor are caused by forecasted freight growth 

through 2045 and are not attributable infrastructure constructed or service 

improvements implemented under the DC2RVA Project, particularly with a two-track 

railroad through Ashland in Alternative 5A. 

- Recommended phased implementation and coordination with the railroads and 

operators to address potential future delays both inside and outside the corridor. 

 October 23, 2017 CTB Workshop 

- Reviewed previous DRPT recommendations for each area of the DC2RVA corridor. 

- Reported on the Draft EIS Public Hearings and presented a draft comment summary. 

 November 9, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Held in Ashland. The Virginia Secretary of Transportation encouraged participation 

by all CTB members, not just CTB Rail Committee Members. Ten out of 17 CTB 

Members attended. 

- Presented results of the DC2RVA Public Hearing process and Draft EIS comment 

period. 

- Announced DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative as Alternative 5A, as 

defined in the Draft EIS, also known as “3-2-3,” for the Town of Ashland/Hanover 

County area (Area 5). 

- Reviewed DRPT’s rationale for both the Ashland/Hanover area and Richmond area 

recommendations. 

- Presented Draft CTB Resolution for the December CTB action. 

 December 5, 2017 CTB Rail Committee 

- Reported on status of DC2RVA developments, noting the many comments and letters 

received on the Draft EIS. 

- Noted that a Project Recommendation Report will be distributed to CTB members at 

the end of the month reflecting the CTB vote on the alternatives selected. 

- The proposed DC2RVA resolution was to be voted on during the action meeting on 

the following Wednesday. 

In addition to DRPT’s presentations, members of the CTB had the opportunity to discuss issues 

and ask questions. Public comment periods were provided at each CTB Rail Committee and each 

CTB Action Meeting. Meeting minutes and video recordings of these meetings are available 

online at www.ctb.virginia.gov/public_meetings. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-26 

2.3.2 CTB Resolution on Recommended Preferred Alternative 

CTB voted to adopt a resolution regarding DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative for 

DC2RVA at its December 6, 2017 CTB Action Meeting. Refer to Section 3.4 of this Final EIS for a 

description of the resolution, and Appendix H of this Final EIS for a copy of the resolution.

2.4 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIS 

FRA and DRPT received comments on the Draft EIS from agencies and organizations 

(summarized in Section 2.4.1) and the general public (summarized in Section 2.4.2). DRPT 

provided responses to substantive comments in Appendix B (agency and organization) and 

Appendix C (public) of this Final EIS. In general, substantive comments are those that question, 

with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information and methodology in the Draft EIS or present 

new information not considered in the Draft EIS, and cause changes or revisions in one or more 

alternative or environmental resource. 

2.4.1 Agencies and Organizations 

Thirty-four agencies and organizations provided comments on the Draft EIS during the 60-day 

comment period. DRPT carefully reviewed each letter and provided detailed responses and 

explanations to each comment, concern, and request. Refer to Appendix B of this Final EIS for 

copies of the original comment letters along with DRPT’s and FRA’s detailed responses to each. 

These detailed responses include reference to information provided in both the Draft EIS and this 

Final EIS, and are the outcome of ongoing agency coordination that has occurred since the 

publication of the Draft EIS and receipt of the agency comment letters. 

The following sections summarize the substantive comments from each agency or organization 

to which DRPT provided a response. Responses to substantive comments are incorporated by 

way of minor corrections, clarifying explanations, or supplemental documentation, as needed, 

into the content of the appropriate sections of this Final EIS. 

Many agency and organization comments included the following topics, which did not warrant 

changes to the methodologies or information provided in the Draft EIS. Notwithstanding, DRPT 

provided responses to these topics within the detailed responses provided in Appendix B of this 

Final EIS. 

 Overall position/opinion for or against the Project. 

 Preference for and/or opposition to a specific alignment or Build Alternative that was 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

 Suggestion of additional alternatives to consider, most of which were considered but 

dismissed during the 2002 Tier II EIS or do not align with the implementing actions that 

were the outcome of the 2002 Tier II EIS and ROD. 

 Request for detailed information or data that is beyond the scope of the NEPA document 

and would be developed during the final design and permitting process, which would 

occur in the future after Project funding becomes available and incremental 

improvements are scheduled. To address these requests, DRPT has added Chapter 7 to 

this Final EIS to describe future steps of the Project. 

 Requests for ongoing coordination beyond the NEPA phase of the Project; refer to Section 

7.8 of this Final EIS for details of Project regulatory actions, approvals, and commitments.
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-27 

2.4.1.1 Federal Agencies 

Refer to Appendix B1 of this Final EIS for detailed responses to Federal agency letters (which are 

presented in the same order as below). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region III. EPA provided technical comments on 

the Project’s Purpose and Need, alternatives, and several environmental resources including: 

aquatic resources, stormwater management, noise, environmental justice, children’s health, 

indirect and cumulative effects (ICE), and air quality. In response to these comments, this Final 

EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within environmental resources. 

 Clarifications to: freight movement as a Project need; definition of temporary/permanent 

impacts; safety of hazardous materials transport; weather resiliency design; and noise and 

additional considerations as part of the ICE evaluation. 

 Addition of: compliance with Executive Order 13045 Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; and updated Information, Planning, and 

Conservation (IPaC) information for threatened and endangered species. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). USACE commented on the Project’s Purpose and Need, 

alternatives, and aquatic resources, particularly regarding analysis methodology and mitigation. 

In response to these comments, this Final EIS incorporates clarifications to: freight movement as 

a Project need; definition of temporary/permanent impacts; potential mitigation for invasive 

species; functionality of tidally-affected wetlands; and reduced environmental impacts from 

Preferred Alternative 5A infrastructure. This Final EIS also incorporates Project commitments, 

including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, final design features, and/or 

mitigation measures. 

Department of the Interior (DOI). DOI commented directly on the Draft Section 4(f) evaluation. 

In response to these comments, the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (Chapter 6 of this Final EIS) 

includes clarification to address potential impacts to smaller park units as well as the overall park 

for the two units of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park (Stonewall Jackson 

Shrine and the area near Prospect Hill). This Final EIS also incorporates Project commitments, 

including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, final design features and/or 

mitigation measures. 

Additionally, DOI submitted comments on the Draft EIS on behalf of: the National Park Service 

(NPS)/National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC); the Captain John Smith Chesapeake 

National Historic Trail; the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park and Richmond 

National Battlefield Park; and the American Battlefield Protection Program. In response to these 

comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within environmental resources. 

 Updates to: potential impact to the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Roaches Run 

Waterfowl Sanctuary, Mount Vernon Memorial Highway, and archaeological surveys. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-28 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA determined that it had no federal action or 

approval with regard to the Project. 

2.4.1.2 State Agencies 

Refer to Appendix B2 of this Final EIS for detailed responses to state agency letters (which are 

presented in the same order as below). 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ is responsible for coordinating the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s review of federal environmental documents submitted under 

NEPA and as such, included the following additional reviewing agencies, localities, and planning 

district commissions in their comments on the Draft EIS: 

 Department of Conservation and 

Recreation (DCR) 

 Department of Health (VDH) 

 Department of Historic Resources 

(DHR) 

 Richmond Regional PDC 

 Crater PDC 

 Virginia Outdoors Foundation 

 Town of Ashland 

 City of Fredericksburg 

 Fairfax County 

DEQ summarized all comments received and provided recommendations and requirements for 

minimizing potential impacts from the Project and for compliance with applicable legal 

requirements for the following resources and activities: water quality and wetlands; subaqueous 

lands and tidal wetlands; erosion and sediment control; stormwater management; air pollution 

control; solid and hazardous wastes and hazardous materials; natural heritage resources; 

recreational resources, scenic rivers and byways; state parks; historic resources; public water 

supplies; septic tanks and drainfields; open space; Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas; local 

participation; pollution prevention; water conservation; and energy conservation. DEQ also 

provided regulatory and coordination needs for each of these topics. In addition, DEQ provided 

the complete comments from the reviewing agencies as an appendix to their comments. 

In response to these comments in their entirety, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within environmental resources. 

 Updates to: surface water intakes; archeological surveys; rail operations modeling 

(specifically in regard to testing infrastructure through the Ashland Area); and reduced 

environmental impacts from Preferred Alternative 5A infrastructure. 

 Addition of: an expanded discussion of public health and safety; updated Information, 

Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) information for threatened and endangered species; 

and discussion of the Rusty patched bumble bee (a protected species). 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). DHR confirmed that it did not have any 

additional comments on the Draft EIS, beyond comments provided per the Section 106 process 

(refer to Appendix E of this Final EIS for details on agency comment and coordination per Section 

106). 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-29 

2.4.1.3 Local Agencies 

Refer to Appendix B3 of this Final EIS for detailed responses to local agency letters (which are 

presented in the same order as below). 

Arlington County. Arlington County provided detailed comments on natural resources, 

specifically within Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary and Long Bridge Park, as well as on 

potential Project impacts to planned infrastructure at Long Bridge Park. In response to these 

comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minimization of the Project footprint in Area 1, as described in Section 4.3.1 of this Final 

EIS. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Arlington County–Department of Parks and Recreation. The Department of Parks and 

Recreation provided comments primarily in response to FRA’s request for the County’s 

concurrence in FRA’s preliminary Section 4(f) determination, prior to the publication of the Draft 

EIS document. This Final EIS incorporates the County’s comments into the Final 4(f) Evaluation 

(included as Chapter 6 of this Final EIS).

City of Alexandria. The City of Alexandria provided a detailed list of comments and questions 

on the following topics: planned future projects; property acquisition; construction impacts and 

timeframe; population growth; noise and vibration; roadway network and traffic impacts; 

parkland resources; Section 4(f) evaluation; visual assessment; station parking facilities; proposed 

wall locations; air quality; potential contamination; stormwater; energy; land use; stakeholder 

coordination; and water quality. In response to these comments, this Final EIS incorporates the 

following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within a variety of environmental 

resources, as requested by the City. 

 Updates to: GIS information, specifically in regard to park boundaries and associated 

Project impacts; and Section 6(f) resources. 

 Minimization of the Project footprint in Area 2, as described in Section 4.3.2 of this Final 

EIS. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Fairfax County. Fairfax County provided comments on water quality (specifically in regard to 

the Pohick Seeps conservation area) and park resources under their jurisdiction, including Old 

Colchester and Mason Neck West parks. In response to these comments, this Final EIS 

incorporates Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory 

compliance, final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Prince William County. Prince William County provided comments in regard to: train 

service/station stops; crossing treatments (at-grade and grade-separated); transit connectivity; 

visual impacts; noise impacts, specifically in residential areas; and cultural resources, specifically 

visual impacts to Neabsco Creek from Rippon Lodge, and Cockpit Point Civil War Park. In 

response to these comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-30 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within document text, as 

requested by the County. 

 Addition of: an analysis of the potential impacts on Rippon Lodge and its viewshed. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

City of Fredericksburg. The City of Fredericksburg requested additions to the Project scope of 

work, based on a resolution that was passed by unanimous resolution by the City Council, in 

regard to: viaducts/overpasses; bicycle/pedestrian access; station infrastructure; and sound 

mitigation. The City also noted consistency of the Project with their Comprehensive Plan. In 

response to these comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within document text. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Spotsylvania County. The Spotsylvania County Planning Department provided comments in 

regard to: emergency management and commerce considerations for the East Coast and 

international trade; bicycle and pedestrian considerations; consistency with County 

comprehensive planning; and safety concerns of at-grade crossings. In response to these 

comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within document text. 

 Addition of an expanded discussion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities/public safety. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Hanover County. Hanover County provided the resolution that their Board of Supervisors 

adopted, which expressed support for Draft EIS Build Alternative 5A. The County also 

summarized and compared potential impacts to the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic 

resources of the Ashland-Hanover County area. These data are consistent with the evaluations 

prepared by DRPT that resulted in the recommendation and approval of Alternative 5A as the 

Preferred Alternative, as detailed within Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. 

Henrico County. Henrico County provided comments in regard to: Staples Mill Road Station 

improvements; prioritization of improvements; overpasses/bridges; cultural resources; parcel 

acquisition; noise impact, specifically in residential areas; stormwater management; and 

bicycle/pedestrian connectivity, specifically in regard to U.S. Bike Route 1. In response to these 

comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Updates to archeological surveys. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

City of Richmond. The City of Richmond noted their support for Draft EIS Build Alternative 6F 

and provided detailed comments on the following topics: platform length, checked baggage 

service, and crew change infrastructure at Main Street Station; cultural and historic resources in 

the Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom area; service development planning; property impacts; 

new wye track location; project phasing; flood walls; roadway crossings (at-grade and grade-
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-31 

separated); traffic impacts; bicycle and pedestrian crossings; and consistency with the City’s 

comprehensive plan. In response to these comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within document text. 

 Addition of: an expanded discussion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities/public safety; 

community/historical context of the Richmond Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom area; 

a revised location of the turning wye and service yard in Richmond; and justification for 

Preferred Alternative selection, including Main Street Station infrastructure as part of 

Alternative 6F. 

 Updates to archeological survey and architectural study in the Main Street 

Station/Shockoe Bottom area. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

2.4.1.4 Section 106 Consulting Parties 

DRPT received comments on the Draft EIS from the following Section 106 Consulting Parties: 

 National Trust for Historic Preservation 

 Civil War Trust 

 Hanover County Historical 

Commission 

 Historic Richmond 

 City of Alexandria – Planning and 

Zoning 

Comments from these Consulting Parties were in regard to historic and archaeological resources 

along the corridor and the continuation of the Section 106 consultation process for the Project. 

Appendix E of this Final EIS details the comments and coordination for Section 106. Additionally, 

refer to Appendix B4 of this Final EIS for detailed responses to Consulting Party letters. 

2.4.1.5 Operators 

Refer to Appendix B5 of this Final EIS for detailed responses to Operator letters (which are 

presented in the same order as below). 

CSXT. CSXT, the operator of the railroad in the Project corridor, submitted comments 

accompanied by a report performed by Cambridge Systematics that analyzed results of the 

preliminary operations modeling presented in the Draft EIS. CSXT’s primary comment was that 

the proposed infrastructure improvements are insufficient to support contemplated increases in 

passenger traffic. The following themes were prevalent throughout CSXT comments: 

 Draft EIS is consistent with FRA requirements, however, the capacity analysis does not 

show the following: 

- Proposed infrastructure improvements are not sufficient to enable reliable operations 

of projected train schedules. 

- The burden of extended running times and freight delays fall on CSXT’s freight traffic 

- Modeling does not “follow best practices.” 

 Passenger trains will hinder CSXT’s future use of any available capacity. 

 Draft EIS Build Alternative 5A (the “3-2-3” option) in Ashland will be a major bottleneck 

for freight operations. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-32 

 DRPT’s Recommended Preferred Alternative (as presented in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS) 

does not have significant freight benefits. 

 Projected freight delays were expected to be much higher than base case delays. 

 None of the original 2045 modeling cases “dispatched” to completion. 

 DRPT should consider alternative capacity configurations, including: 

- Four tracks in parts of the corridor. 

- Use of the Buckingham Branch for some through-traffic and integrating the 

Buckingham Branch into full modeling, not just as a stand-alone analysis. 

 In response to these comments, DRPT conducted refined operations modeling, in 

coordination with FRA, to test the Project infrastructure and additional scenarios, and 

modify certain assumptions. These efforts are summarized in Section 3.2 of this Final EIS 

and fully presented in Appendix F. Additionally, this Final EIS includes Project 

commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, final 

design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Norfolk Southern (NS). NS commented that the Draft EIS was limited in geographic and 

operational scope and had concerns regarding the No Build scenario. In response to the 

comments on operational scope, DRPT conducted refined operations modeling, in coordination 

with FRA, to validate the Project infrastructure, test additional scenarios, and modify certain 

assumptions; these analyses included an expanded geographic analysis area beyond the Project 

corridor. These efforts are summarized in Section 3.2 of this Final EIS and fully presented in 

Appendix F. 

CSXT Freight Service in the DC2RVA Corridor 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-33 

Amtrak. Amtrak commented on rail operations, specifically in regard to potential constraints and 

in relation to their own network modeling, and indicated preference for new right-of-way 

corridors to increase performance, particularly in the Ashland area. In response to these 

comments, this Final EIS includes a summary of the rationale for using the existing alignment 

through the Ashland area, and Project commitments, including agency coordination, 

permitting/regulatory compliance, final design features, and/or mitigation measures. Note that 

while Amtrak is a Participating Agency for the Project (see Section 2.2), Amtrak is included as an 

“Operator” for the purposes of this comment-response discussion. 

Virginia Railway Express. VRE supported the conclusions of the Draft EIS but expressed issues 

with design details of proposed additional tracks through VRE stations. VRE provided detailed 

comments on the following topics: Project timeline; design criteria; noise and vibration 

mitigation; alternatives / suggestions for the preferred alternative in the area of VRE operations; 

and impact of changes to major infrastructure on cost, schedules, and operations. In response to 

these comments, this Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within a variety of environmental 

resources, including the description of the No Build alternative. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. WMATA provided comments on the 

following topics: construction impacts in relation to their “zone of influence” policy (a zone 

boundary that often falls outside of WMATA’s right-of-way); impacts to their planned Metrorail 

station to be located at Potomac Yard (anticipated to be opened in late 2021 or early 2022); parcel 

ownership; and retaining walls and noise mitigation, specifically within the City of Alexandria. 

In response to these comments, this Final EIS includes Project commitments, including agency 

coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, final design features, and/or mitigation 

measures. Additionally, the planned Metrorail Station at Potomac Yard is included in the detailed 

mapbook of the Preferred Alternative (Appendix L of this Final EIS), and discussion of it was 

added the Cumulative Effects section (Section 5.20.2 of this Final EIS). 

2.4.1.6 Other Organizations 

Refer to Appendix B6 of this Final EIS for detailed responses to Other Organization letters (which 

are presented in the same order as below). 

Randolph-Macon College. Randolph-Macon College provided a summary of its history, its 

economic/educational impacts, and its plan for growth, and provided comments on: opposition 

to a third rail at-grade through Ashland; safety concerns regarding Draft EIS Build Alternative 

5A (the “3-2-3” option); and support for a western bypass option. As indicated by the CTB’s 

resolution for the Project (included as Appendix H of this Final EIS), the Preferred Alternative for 

the Project is being advanced in such a manner that avoids and/or minimizes permanent 

property impacts to the College; refer to Section 4.3.5 of this Final EIS for description of the 

Preferred Alternative through the Ashland area, including description of changes that were made 

subsequent to the Draft EIS. Further, the Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized the need to 

improve pedestrian and vehicle crossing safety in Ashland, and has committed to working with 

the FRA, Town of Ashland, Randolph-Macon College, CSXT, and other stakeholders on 

improving crossing safety in the Town of Ashland independent of the DC2RVA Project, as 

indicated in the CTB Resolution for the Project on December 6, 2017. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-34 

Sierra Club. The Sierra Club (Falls of the James section) expressed support for the Project in 

general and specifically for a station location at Main Street in Richmond. The Sierra Club further 

advocated for toll money support and use of solar powered facilities for rail projects; indicated 

that construction should meet high standards for erosion and sedimentation control; promoted a 

proposed north-south bikeway along the rail corridor. In response to these comments, this Final 

EIS incorporates Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory 

compliance, final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC). SELC expressed support for improving passenger 

and freight rail in Virginia and provided detailed comments on the following topics: 

identification of near- and immediate-term projects; support of use of existing right-ofway/opposition to bypass alignments; use of the CSXT S-Line in Richmond; cultural resources 

in the Main Street Station area; and coordination with CSXT. In response to these comments, this 

Final EIS incorporates the following: 

 Minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, within document text. 

 Addition of: community/historic context of the Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom area, 

including updates to archeological surveys. 

 Project commitments, including agency coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, 

final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 

Preservation Virginia. Preservation Virginia provided detailed comments regarding the 

evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources in the Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom 

area. In response to these comments, this Final EIS incorporates the addition of 

community/historic context of the Main Street Station/Shockoe Bottom area, including updates 

to archeological surveys and architectural studies, and Project commitments, including agency 

coordination, permitting/regulatory compliance, final design features, and/or mitigation 

measures.

Hampton Roads Chamber, Virginia Chamber, and Virginia Maritime Association. These three 

organizations provided similar comments: indicating support for the goal of additional passenger 

service, but without negatively influencing Virginia’s freight rail network (existing and future 

freight service demands) and access to the Port of Virginia. Section 1.2 of this Final EIS confirms 

accommodation of freight rail as a Project Purpose and Need. 

Virginians for High Speed Rail (VHSR). VHSR indicated support of the goal of the Project and 

provided detailed comments for the Ashland and Richmond areas including: support of a trench 

option/opposition to a “3-2-3” option through Ashland; and support of use of the A-Line and 

routing of trains to Main Street Station, in Richmond. 

VHSR additionally recommended identification of smaller near- and intermediate-term projects 

within the overall DC2RVA Project, to allow for prioritization of funding. In response to these 

comments, this Final EIS incorporates minor text modifications, for clarification or correction, 

within document text, and Project commitments, including agency coordination, 

permitting/regulatory compliance, final design features, and/or mitigation measures. 
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INVOLVEM ENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION 

 2-35 

2.4.2 General Public 

The general public submitted more than 14,000 comments (from 4,247 individual commenters) 

regarding the Project during the formal comment period and public hearing process that followed 

publication of the Draft EIS, as described in Section 2.1.2.1. Most comments came from 

individuals living, working, or having property interests in the Project area, particularly within 

Ashland and Richmond. DRPT carefully reviewed each comment, concern, and request and 

compiled them into broad subject matter categories, which generally parallel the chapter 

structure of the Draft and Final EIS documents: 

 Study Process 

- Purpose and Need 

- Proposed Train Service/ Operations/Schedule 

- Public Involvement 

- Other Considerations 

 Evaluation of Alternatives 

- Corridor Options Not Evaluated in the Draft EIS 

- Ashland Area Alternatives 

- Richmond Area Alternatives 

- Station Evaluation 

 Environmental Impacts 

- General 

- Traffic/Transportation 

- Right-of-way/Displacements/ Property Value 

- Land Use 

- Community Facilities/Title VI/ Environmental Justice 

- Farmland 

- Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 

- Cultural Resources 

- Natural and Water Resources 

- Noise and Vibration 

- Air Quality 

- Visual / Aesthetic 

- Hazardous Materials 

- Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

- Safety 

 Funding, Implementation, and Construction 

Appendix C of this Final EIS identifies public comments within these categories from individual 

and form letters and provides DRPT’s and FRA’s detailed responses to address substantive 

comments within these topics. The comments presented in Appendix C convey the substance of 

the comments made, but do not necessarily quote comments verbatim and condense similar 

comments together into a single topic. The responses include reference to information provided 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2-36 

in both the Draft EIS and this Final EIS and are the outcome of ongoing analyses and coordination 

that have occurred since the publication of the Draft EIS. Responses to substantive comments are 

incorporated by way of minor corrections, clarifying explanations, or supplemental 

documentation, as needed, into the content of the appropriate sections of this Final EIS. 

Many citizens commented on topics that did not warrant changes to methodology or information 

provided in the Draft EIS. Notwithstanding, DRPT provided responses to these topics within the 

detailed responses provided in Appendix C: 

 Suggestion of additional alternatives to consider, most of which were considered but 

dismissed during the 2002 Tier II EIS or do not align with the implementing actions that 

were the outcome of the 2002 Tier II EIS and ROD. 

 Request for detailed information or data that is beyond the scope of an environmental 

document and would be developed during the final design and permitting process. 

- Environmental documentation for the Project is based on conceptual engineering, 

which is approximately a 10 percent design level. Chapter 5 of this Final EIS clarifies 

the use of temporary and permanent impacts. Temporary impacts at the conceptual 

design level are a fixed offset from the permanent impact limits; this is an allowance 

for possible construction means and methods that may exceed the permanent impact 

limits. Final design would clarify the potential construction means and methods that 

might be used to eliminate or mitigate temporary impacts. 

- Final design would occur in the future should Project funding becomes available and 

incremental improvements are scheduled. To address these requests, DRPT added 

Chapter 7 to this Final EIS to describe future steps of the Project. 

DRPT did not provide individual responses to comments containing a general disposition to the 

Project, such as preference for or opposition to a specific alignment or Build Alternative that was 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. Notwithstanding, all comments received were considered as part of 

the selection process for the Preferred Alternative for this Final EIS. Additionally, DRPT 

addressed specific property questions directly with property owners.