CHAPTER 5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
 5-1 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The discussion on environmental consequences documents the potential effects on the human, 

physical, and natural environments that may result from construction and operation of the 

Preferred Alternative for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail 

(DC2RVA) Project, as evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The potential 

effects presented in this chapter are estimated directly from the conceptual engineering design of 

the Preferred Alternative in each of the six areas defined for the Project, which are described in 

detail in Chapter 4 and summarized below in Table 5.0-1. 

Table 5.0-1: Summary of Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative Description 

Area 1: Arlington 

(Long Bridge Approach) 1B Add Two Main Tracks on the West 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 

(Long Bridge Approach to Dahlgren Spur) 2A Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 

(Dahlgren Spur to Crossroads) 3B Add a Third Main Track Through the City, Add a Third Main Track North and South of the City 

Area 4: Central Virginia 

(Crossroads to Doswell) 4A Add a Third Main Track 

Area 5: Ashland 

(Doswell to I-295) 5A 

Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station 

Improvements), Add a Third Main Track North and South of 

Town 

Area 6: Richmond 

(I-295 to Centralia) 6F Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations Full Service with SLine Improvements 

Comparison to Draft EIS1 Chapter Structure. In the Draft EIS, environmental consequences were 

presented in Chapter 4. This Final EIS Chapter 5 maintains the same structure as the Draft EIS 

chapter, and the environmental resources are described in the same order; however, each of the 

23 numbered sections begins with a 5 rather than a 4. For example, Water Resources were 

described within Section 4.1 in the Draft EIS but are enumerated as Section 5.1 in this Final EIS. 

Any exceptions to this are noted within the text of this chapter. 

 

1 The Draft EIS for the DC2RVA Project was published on September 8, 2017, and is available on the Project website: 

http://dc2rvarail.com/draft/

5
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-2 

Within the 23 sections, some subsections were not carried over if information has not changed 

from the Draft EIS as consistent with the intent of the condensed format of this Final EIS; for 

example, the impact criteria and methodologies under Noise and Vibration, Section 5.7, are not 

provided herein but can be reviewed in their entirety in Section 4.7 of the Draft EIS and have not 

changed since that time. References to Draft EIS subsections, tables, or figures and/or technical 

reports have been included in this Chapter 5 where necessary to support the discussions of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Definition of Limits of Disturbance. The potential environmental impacts for the Project are 

estimated directly from the conceptual design of the Preferred Alternative. Physical impacts to 

environmental resources are estimated within the Project’s limits of disturbance (LOD), which 

are defined as the boundary within which all construction, materials storage, grading, 

landscaping, and related activities will occur.

 Permanent effects (identified with a “P” in the tables where impacts are quantified) 

include all areas where Project infrastructure will physically replace existing conditions, 

and will not be restored after completion of construction. 

 Temporary effects (identified by a “T” in the tables where impacts are quantified) are 

areas required for construction of the Preferred Alternative, such as for construction 

access or staging and storage of equipment, that will temporarily modify the existing 

conditions, but will be restored after completion of construction. For restoration, the 

property will be regraded and seeded with an approved seed mixture by the contractor 

and allowed to renaturalize after completion of the Project. 

While natural resources are generally affected by direct encroachments or physical effects of the 

built improvements as described by the permanent and temporary LOD above, the area of 

potential impact for the human environment, noise, and air quality are typically larger to account 

for factors such as viewsheds, community sizes, geographical and political boundaries, and 

census boundaries, which have not changed since the Draft EIS evaluations. 

In general for the Preferred Alternative, permanent LOD are 0 to 40 feet outside of existing CSX 

Transportation (CSXT) railroad right-of-way, with a maximum offset of 650 feet for station 

improvements. Temporary LOD are generally 10 to 15 feet outside of the permanent LOD, with 

a maximum offset of 50 feet. 

Changes since the Draft EIS. The permanent and temporary LOD for the Preferred Alternative 

are based on conceptual engineering, which is an approximately a 10 percent level of design. 

Refinements to the conceptual engineering resulted in design changes—and therefore changes to 

the LOD and associated environmental impacts—between the Draft and Final EIS. In many cases, 

these changes in LOD resulted in a reduction in potential impacts from what the Virginia 

Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) initially determined in the Draft EIS. For 

example, retaining walls were added to maintain the permanent LOD within the existing CSXT 

right-of-way wherever practicable, which reduced impacts to property and resources such as 

parks immediately adjacent the right-of-way, and the elimination of a parking deck at 

Richmond’s Main Street Station in response to City comments resulted in reduced property and 

cultural resource impacts in Shockoe Valley. There are also certain areas of increased impact since 

the Draft EIS, such as just north of Ashland, where additional data led to the determination that 

the existing Washington Highway (Route 1) overpass over the rail corridor would need to be 

replaced due to insufficient horizontal clearance for an additional track and crash wall. These 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-3 

changes are fully detailed in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS and are a result of either responses to 

public and/or agency comments or from new data or changes to the data that were used in 

refining the conceptual designs. 

The changes in the conceptual engineering LOD and/or impacts since the Draft EIS are presented 

in this chapter in the following ways: 

 Text within each resource section provides a description of any changes in the conceptual 

engineering LOD that resulted in changes to reported impacts to that resource since the 

Draft EIS evaluation. 

 The tables present the range of impacts associated with the Draft EIS Build Alternatives 

for comparison to impacts for the Preferred Alternative, as shown in a “Draft EIS Impacts” 

row in each quantitative table. This gray-shaded row is located below the Preferred 

Alternative row for each associated Alternative Area. 

- For Alternative Areas in which the Draft EIS evaluated more than one Build 

Alternative (i.e., Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6), the “Draft EIS Impacts” row shows the range of 

impacts for all Build Alternatives that were evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

- For Alternative Areas in which the Draft EIS evaluated a single Build Alternative (i.e., 

Areas 2 and 4), the “Draft EIS Impacts” row shows a single value. 

 Table values in this chapter are color coded to show the relative change in impacts since 

the Draft EIS. Reductions in impacts for the Preferred Alternative since the Draft EIS are 

indicated by green font and increases by red font. 

- For Alternative Areas in which the Draft EIS evaluated more than one Build 

Alternative (i.e., Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6), the color coding reflects the increase or decrease 

from the impacts reported in the Draft EIS for the corresponding Build Alternative, 

not the range of impacts for all Build Alternatives that were evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

The LOD, which is based on conceptual design, may be further reduced or eliminated during 

future phases of design. If the Project’s final design or impacts exceed the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) commitments established in this Final EIS and the Record of Decision (ROD), 

then DRPT will re-evaluate the design and/or the NEPA documentation. 

Environmental Resource Mapping. Appendix M of this Final EIS presents updated 

environmental resource mapping that was previously published throughout the chapters and 

appendices of the Draft EIS. The majority of the mapping provided in the Draft EIS and its 

associated technical appendices has not changed, did not show the Project LOD, and/or was 

presented at a scale where the minor changes in LOD since the publication of the Draft EIS are 

not discernible; therefore, consistent with the intent of the condensed document format of this 

Final EIS, those maps are not reproduced, and Appendix M of this Final EIS instead provides the 

location in the Draft EIS where the reader can find the original mapping that remains up-to-date. 

Appendix L of this Final EIS provides detailed a mapbook that shows the Preferred Alternative 

permanent and temporary LOD for the 123-mile Project corridor. The reader can use these maps 

in a side-by-side comparison with the resource mapping from the Draft EIS to view the Preferred 

Alternative LOD and the locations of existing environmental resources; the text in each of the 

following environmental resource section states how impacts to environmental resources have 

changed since the publication of the Draft EIS. Potential impacts to environmental resources as 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-4 

identified in this Final EIS (which are based on a 10 percent level of design) will be reconfirmed 

as part of future phases of final design and permitting. 

Analysis Dates. As indicated in Section 1.3.6 of this Final EIS and consistent with the Draft EIS 

evaluations, the year 2025 is the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and DRPT’s build year 

estimate for the Project, and the planning horizon date is 2045, reflecting a 20-year lifetime for the 

improvements after the projected implementation of the new intercity passenger rail service in 

2025. Accordingly, FRA and DRPT used 2025 as the date when the physical impacts to 

environmental resources associated with DC2RVA Project construction will take place. DRPT 

used the 2045 planning horizon date to estimate the longer-term effects of the proposed service, 

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

as described within this chapter. 

Mitigation for Environmental Impacts. Proposed mitigation is identified throughout this 

chapter as measures to avoid, minimize, reduce, or eliminate potential effects of the Project. As 

part of the identified mitigation, applicable best management practices, known as BMPs,2 are also 

identified. BMPs are existing practices and measures required by law, regulation, or policy that 

reduce the environmental impacts of designated activities, functions, or processes. Although 

BMPs mitigate potential impacts by avoiding, minimizing, or reducing/eliminating impacts, 

BMPs are distinguished from mitigation measures because BMPs are inherently part of the Project 

and are not additional mitigation measures proposed because of this environmental review 

process. Examples of typical BMPs include permanent seeding, use of native vegetation, sediment 

and erosion control, silt fences, check dams, and sediment basins. DRPT will refine the mitigation 

measures during final design and ensure that they are incorporated into the DC2RVA Project. 

For a detailed listing of these mitigation measures and other activities that will be completed 

during final design and construction, refer to the Project Commitments for this Final EIS. 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service in the Existing DC2RVA Corridor 

 

2 BMP Design Manual of Practice, Virginia Department of Transportation, April 2013; Virginia Erosion & Sediment Control 

Handbook; Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook; Virginia Stormwater Management Program; VDOT 

Drainage Manual. https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/StormwaterManagement/Publications.aspx
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-5 

5.1 WATER RESOURCES 

Due to the linear nature and extent of the DC2RVA corridor and proximity to the Potomac River 

and other major tributaries within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the Preferred Alternative will 

include unavoidable effects to water resources. Detailed discussions of the water resources 

affected by the Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS were presented in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report (Appendix M of the Draft EIS). 

The analyses summarized in this section assume the design changes associated with the Preferred 

Alternative, as described in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. Notable changes in impacts to water 

resources as compared to the impacts reported in the Draft EIS for the Build Alternatives are 

identified within the individual subsections below. 

5.1.1 Surface Waters, Rivers, Streams, and Floodplains 

Table 5.1-1 presents the permanent and temporary impacts (physical encroachments) on water 

resources by the Preferred Alternative. An updated mapbook of water resources (major river 

crossings, streams, wetlands, impaired waters, floodplains, and resource protection areas) in 

relation to the Preferred Alternative LOD is provided in Appendix M of this Final EIS. Potential 

impacts to each of the water resources is discussed in detail after Table 5.1-1. 

The Preferred Alternative will parallel the existing CSXT railroad through the full extent of the 

DC2RVA corridor and permanently span or encroach upon 163 rivers, streams, and other surface 

waters that fall within or adjacent to the existing railroad corridor. DRPT estimates permanent 

linear and parallel encroachments to these watercourses at 29,957 linear feet. In the Draft EIS, 

depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, DRPT determined that between 152 and 191 

streams would be permanently affected by the proposed improvements and that linear and 

parallel encroachments to these streams would be between 26,377 and 35,422 linear feet. There 

are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency 

comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to water resources; rather, narrow linear 

refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted in 

incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to those 

reported in the Draft EIS. Although the total number of steams and watercourses spanned by the 

Project remained the same, DRPT determined that, as a result of the minor design modifications 

since the Draft EIS, the Preferred Alternative will result in fewer total permanent impacts 

(physical encroachments) as compared to impacts originally reported in the Draft EIS. 

Rail Bridge over Powells Creek (Area 2, Northern Virginia) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-6 

Table 5.1-1: Stream Resource/Floodplain Effects of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 

Area 

Preferred Alternative Number of Streams Stream Length (Linear Feet) Navigable Waters (Linear Feet) State Scenic Rivers (Linear Feet) Nationwide Rivers Inventory (Linear Feet) Chesapeake Bay RPA (Acres) 100-Year Floodplain (Acres) 

Area 1: 

Arlington 1B P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 5.0

T: 1.3

P: 0.1 

T: 0.3

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 4.0-6.0 

T: 0.6-1.5 

P: 0.1-0.3 

T: 0.3-1.0 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

2A P: 52 

T: 68 

P: 8,031 

T: 3,396

P: 201.4

T: 236.9

P: 45.9

T: 50.2 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 76.1

T: 41.6

P: 16.1

T: 17.1

Draft EIS Impacts P: 52 

T: 68 

P: 7,198 

T: 4,022 

P: 205.7 

T: 232.9 

P: 44.4 

T: 50.2 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 67.9 

T: 50.2 

P: 15.1 

T: 18.1 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 3B P: 20 

T: 26 

P: 1,271

T: 1,958

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

P: 45.0 

T: 50.1 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 46.0

T: 17.9 

P: 9.9

T: 7.4

Draft EIS Impacts P: 16-43 

T: 21-45 

P: 1,101-4,597 

T: 1,693-1,894 

P: 44.5-45.0 

T: 50.1-

102.7 

P: 44.5-45.0 

T: 50.1-

102.7 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 36.9-57.9 

T: 17.7-18.6 

P: 7.7-10.5 

T: 3.8-6.4 

Area 4: 

Central 

Virginia

4A P: 32 

T: 43 

P: 3,616

T: 2,768

P: 22.8

T: 292.0

P: 21.8

T: 39.6

P: 21.8

T: 39.6

P: 69.2 

T: 28.8

P: 17.2 

T: 16.6

Draft EIS Impacts P: 32 

T: 43 

P: 3,627 

T: 2,798 

P: 64.8 

T: 265.9 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 40.5 

T: 20.8 

P: 69.7 

T: 31.9 

P:17.2 

T: 17.3 

Area 5: 

Ashland 5A P: 23 

T: 25 

P: 6,978

T: 1,741

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 19.3

T: 36.9

P: 19.3

T: 36.9

P: 18.0 

T: 13.5

P: 6.6 

T: 3.3

Draft EIS Impacts P: 22-28 

T: 25-31 

P: 6,928-9,114 

T: 1,623-2,958 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 40.1 

T: 15.7 

P: 16.6-32.6 

T: 12.8-15.4 

P: 5.9-11.5 

T: 2.4-4.0 

Area 6: 

Richmond 6F P: 36 

T: 31 

P: 10,061

T: 1,140

P: 30.2

T: 99.9

P: 30.2 

T: 99.9

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 64.8

T: 9.3

P: 44.1

T: 17.5

Draft EIS Impacts P: 30-36 

T: 29-34 

P: 7,523-10,886 

T: 2,288-3,609 

P: 29.2-31.7 

T: 49.5-51.9 

P: 29.2-31.7 

T: 49.5-51.9 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 53.5-63.3 

T: 11.1-17.4 

P: 8.1-51.9 

T: 3.5-20.2 

Total for the 

Preferred 

Alternative: 

P: 163 

T: 193 

P: 29,957 

T: 11,003 

P: 299.4 

T: 678.9 

P: 162.2 

T: 276.7 

P: 41.1 

T: 76.5 

P: 279.1 

T: 112.4 

P: 94.0 

T: 62.2 

Notes: P = Permanent Effect; T=Temporary Effect 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-7 

5.1.1.1 Designated Waters 

Navigable Waters

The Preferred Alternative crosses seven Coast Guard regulated navigable waters, as listed below 

and shown in the updated environmental resource mapbooks in Appendix M of this Final EIS. 

There are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and 

agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to navigable waters; rather, 

narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD 

resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to 

those reported in the Draft EIS. In general, permanent impacts to navigable waters are lower and 

temporary impacts are higher than reported in the Draft EIS. The Project will not affect or reduce 

the navigable channels within these waterways because all navigable waterways are already 

crossed by existing bridges and any new bridges required by the Project will be designed with 

horizontal openings that are equal to or greater than existing spans. 

 Occoquan River 

 Neabsco Creek 

 Powells Creek 

 Aquia Creek 

 Rappahannock River 

 Mattaponi River 

 James River 

State Scenic Rivers and Nationwide Rivers Inventory

The Project crosses the following five state scenic rivers: Occoquan River, Rappahannock River, 

North Anna River, South Anna River, and James River. The North Anna River and South Anna 

River are also listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory. As with the navigable waters, 

permanent impacts to these rivers are generally lower than reported in the Draft EIS and 

temporary impacts are higher. There are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering 

made in response to public and agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts 

to state scenic rivers and nationwide rivers inventory; rather, narrow linear refinements with 

increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted in incremental changes 

in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. 

The Preferred Alternative will not affect river designations because the Project does not propose 

any new crossing locations of rivers, and any new rail structures will be designed to generally 

reflect the horizontal and vertical nature of existing structures.

Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act)3

The DC2RVA Project corridor falls within several designated Chesapeake Bay Preservation 

Areas. Permanent impacts to Resource Protection Areas (RPA) within the six alternative areas, as 

shown in Table 5.1-1 and the updated mapbook in Appendix M of this Final EIS, have slightly 

increased for the Preferred Alternative, and temporary impacts have decreased. In the Richmond 

area, the increased permanent LOD since the Draft EIS is a result of track extensions from Staples 

Mill Road Station for operations in and out of Acca Yard. Otherwise, there are no noteworthy 

changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency comments since 

the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to RPAs; rather, narrow linear refinements with increases 

and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted in incremental changes in impacts 

over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. 

 

3 The Bay Act and its implementing regulations are included in Va. Admin. Code § 62.1-44.15:74, et seq. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-8 

The Project will be consistent with the Bay Act and its implementing regulations in that 

improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with: the Virginia Erosion and 

Sediment Control Law4; the Stormwater Management Act5; the terms and conditions of water 

quality permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Virginia Marines Resources Commission (VMRC); and an 

erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater management plan for Virginia DEQ. 

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)6

Virginia’s Coastal Zone was shown in Figure 3-3 of the Appendix M of the Draft EIS (Natural 

Resources Technical Report). The Preferred Alternative, consisting of the six alternative area 

segments, will be consistent with the established Virginia Coastal Zone Enforceable Policies as 

related to fisheries management, subaqueous lands management, wetlands management, dunes 

management, nonpoint source pollution control, point source pollution control, shoreline 

sanitation, air pollution control, and coastal lands management. 

As part of final design, DRPT (or the sponsoring agency at the time of application) will submit a 

Federal Consistency Determination for the Preferred Alternative that analyzes the coastal effects 

of the Project in light of the enforceable policies of the Virginia CZMP and provides commitment 

to comply with those policies. As indicated above, the Preferred Alternative will be designed and 

constructed in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and the terms 

and conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC, and an 

erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater management plan approved by Virginia 

DEQ. Implementation of proposed mitigation measures and any required permits will ensure 

consistency with the enforceable policies of the Virginia CZMP. 

5.1.1.2 Floodplains and Floodways 

As indicated in Table 5.1-1, the Preferred Alternative will permanently affect 94.0 acres of Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated 100-year floodplains (which were shown 

in Draft EIS Figure 3.1-3). There was considerable variation in the acres of encroachments (both 

longitudinal and parallel) among the various combinations of the Build Alternatives in the Draft 

EIS—ranging from 62.4 to 124.8 acres. Within the individual areas, there are minor increases and 

decreases in Preferred Alternative impacts from those reported in the Draft EIS. However, there 

are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency 

comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to floodplains and floodways; rather, 

narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD 

resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to 

those reported in the Draft EIS. 

None of the floodplain encroachments associated with the Preferred Alternative represent a 

“significant encroachment”7 because of the following reasons: 

 It would pose no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation 

facility that is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation 

 

4 Va. Code Ann. §62.1-44.15:51—§62.1-44.15:66 

5 Va. Code Ann. §62.1-44.15:24—§62.1-44.15:50 

6 The Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program was established by Virginia Executive Order 35 (2014): 

Continuation of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program. 

7 See 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650.105(q). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-9 

route. These rail lines are not considered the only emergency evacuation route, nor do 

they support emergency vehicles. 

 It would not pose a significant flooding risk. The Preferred Alternative will be consistent 

with procedures for the location and hydraulic design on floodplains contained in 23 CFR 

650 Subpart A—Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains. Accordingly, 

DRPT does not expect that the Preferred Alternative will increase flood height elevations, 

the probability of flooding, or the potential for property loss and hazard to life. 

 It would not have significant adverse effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

Avoidance and minimization efforts, including spanning floodplains where practicable 

and minimizing wetland impacts, will be incorporated during design to avoid or 

minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 

5.1.1.3 Stormwater/Drainage 

Increased stormwater runoff from construction of the Project improvements can impact receiving 

streams and associated land surfaces in two forms: long-term impacts caused by runoff from 

increased impervious surfaces and short-term impacts caused by land disturbance during 

construction. As previously indicated, the Preferred Alternative will be designed and constructed 

in accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, the Stormwater Management 

Act, and the terms and conditions of water quality permits required by USACE, Virginia DEQ, 

and VMRC. By upgrading older stormwater facilities in the DC2RVA corridor, the Project will 

improve drainage, representing an overall beneficial effect of the Project. 

5.1.2 Wetlands 

Table 5.1-2 presents the temporary and permanent impacts by wetland type, and an updated 

mapbook showing wetlands in relation to the Preferred Alternative LOD is provided in Appendix 

M of this Final EIS. DRPT estimates permanent impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative 

will be 24.19 acres (compared to the Draft EIS Build Alternative impacts that ranged from 22.14 

to 49.64 acres), and temporary impacts during construction will be approximately 24.91 acres 

(similar to the Draft EIS Build Alternatives that ranged from 25.25 to 30.86 acres).The Preferred 

Alternative generally has fewer permanent and temporary impacts from those presented in the 

Draft EIS. However, there are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in 

response to public and agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to 

wetlands; rather, narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and 

temporary LOD resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile 

corridor compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. 

Additionally, a small portion of the wetlands within the permanent and temporary LOD in the 

Project corridor occur along tidal waterways and are tidally-influenced: 

 Permanent LOD: 0.85 acres occurring in Areas 2 and 4 

 Temporary LOD: 0.50 acres occurring in Areas 1, 2, and 4 

Tidal wetlands offer important habitat to migratory waterfowl, provide nurseries for aquatic 

species of the Chesapeake Bay, are important for shoreline stabilization, and serve as a filter 

removing excess nutrients and pollutants from connected waters. Impacts to these waters will be 

minimized by designing water crossings to span waterways, placing as little infrastructure in the 

waters as practicable.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-10 

Table 5.1-2: Wetland Effects (acres) of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 

Area 

Preferred 

Alternative PEM1 

PEM/ 

PSS 

PEM/ 

PFO 

PEM/ 

PSS/ 

PFO PSS2 

PSS/ 

PFO PFO3 Total 

Area 1: 

Arlington 1B P: 0 T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0.01 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0.01 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.0-0.02 

T: 0.01-0.67 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.0-0.02 

T: 0.01-0.67 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

2A P: 1.51

T: 0.59

P: 0.21

T: 0.17

P: 2.24

T: 1.19

P: 0.67 

T: 0.37 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 1.31 

T: 0.82

P: 5.94

T: 3.14

Draft EIS Impacts P: 1.36 

T: 0.62 

P: 0.15 

T: 0.19 

P: 1.71 

T: 1.53 

P: 0.67 

T: 0.37 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 1.31 

T: 0.83 

P: 5.19 

T: 3.54 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 3B P: 1.63T: 1.06

P: 0.29

T: 0.32

P: 1.48 

T: 2.10

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.03

T: 0.29

P: 0.04 

T: 0 

P: 0.73

T: 1.46

P: 4.20

T: 5.23

Draft EIS Impacts

P: 1.57-

1.92 

T: 0.92-

1.16 

P: 0.42-

0.54 

T:0.10-

0.21 

P: 2.39-

3.92 

T: 0.90-

1.30 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.13-0.42 

T: 0.34-0.36 

P: 0-0.04

T: 0 

P: 0.70-

17.03 

T: 1.49-

4.24 

P: 5.24-23.82 

T: 4.45-6.53 

Area 4: 

Central 

Virginia 

4A P: 2.68

T: 1.43

P: 0.76

T: 0.19

P: 3.03

T: 7.08

P: 0.93

T: 0.94

P: 0.04 

T: 0 

P: 0.20

T: 0.94

P: 1.16

T: 3.55

P: 8.80

T: 14.13

Draft EIS Impacts P: 2.51 

T: 1.66 

P: 0.78 

T: 0.17 

P: 2.67 

T: 7.55 

P: 0.71 

T: 1.15 

P: 0.04 

T: 0 

P: 0.25 

T: 0.90 

P: 1.43 

T: 3.31 

P: 8.39 

T: 14.74 

Area 5: 

Ashland 5A P: 0.71T: 0.13

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.22

T: 0.45

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.05

T: 0.86 

P: 0.98

T: 1.52

Draft EIS Impacts

P: 0.16-

2.70 

T: 0.05-

0.78 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.21-

2.10 

T: 0.46-

0.92 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0.08 

P: 0.04-

3.69 

T: 0.86-

1.70 

P: 0.41-8.48 

T: 1.48-3.47 

Area 6: 

Richmond 6F P: 2.82T: 0.51

P: 0.20 

T: 0.01 

P: 0.22

T: 0.03

P: 0.07

T: 0.03

P: 0.57

T: 0.05 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.39

T: 0.25

P: 4.27

T: 0.88

Draft EIS Impacts

P: 1.30-

2.75 

T: 0.29-

0.64 

P: 0-0.20 

T: 0-0.01 

P: 0.28-

1.07 

T: 0.05-

0.33 

P: 0.13-

0.36 

T: 0.06-

0.10 

P: 0.01-0.08 

T: 0.05-0.40 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.18-

0.30 

T: 0.22-

0.77 

P: 2.91-3.74 

T: 1.03-1.91 

Total for the Preferred 

Alternative: 

P: 9.35 

T: 3.72 

P: 1.46 

T: 0.69 

P: 7.19 

T: 10.85 

P: 1.67 

T: 1.34 

P: 0.64 

T: 0.35 

P: 0.24 

T: 1.02 

P: 3.64 

T: 6.94 

P: 24.19 

T: 24.91 

Notes: 1. PEM=Palustrine Emergent (freshwater emergent wetland) 

2. PSS=Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (freshwater shrub wetland) 

3. PFO = Palustrine Forested (freshwater forested wetland) 

P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-11 

5.1.3 Water Quality 

5.1.3.1 Temporary Effects 

Despite protective measures, the Project could potentially result in short-term effects to water 

quality, such as increased sedimentation; increase in turbidity from in-stream work; increased 

likelihood of potential spills; and non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface 

water from stormwater runoff. 

Construction activities that could affect stormwater runoff include excavation to widen “cut” 

sections and to remove unsuitable (organic) material from “fill” sections; filling and placing 

ballast to support new track; relocating access roads; relocating or creating new trackside swales; 

and any substructure work required for the signal and communication equipment foundations, 

grade-crossings, bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction-phased 

staging areas and haul roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion 

and sedimentation. 

5.1.3.2 Long-Term Effects 

Minor long-term water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases in impervious surfaces 

and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad surface into receiving water 

bodies; leaking fluids from trains; and an increase in non-point source pollutants from 

infrastructure, grease, oil, metals, maintenance chemicals, vegetation management chemicals, 

and suspended solids and other elements associated with railways. 

The Preferred Alternative will be located adjacent to existing railroad and roadway facilities, and 

construction of the Preferred Alternative will incorporate BMPs and improved stormwater 

facilities, which will mitigate the potential impacts caused by the new facilities constructed by the 

Project and may result in improved water quality conditions. 

5.1.3.3 Impaired Waters 

The DC2RVA corridor includes 51 water crossings that have been assessed and found to have 

more contamination than allowed to support one or more of its designated uses. The Natural 

Resources Technical Report (Appendix M of the Draft EIS) provided a list of impairments, 

probable causes, and the potential for the DC2RVA Project to add to these impairments; impaired 

waters in relation to the Preferred Alternative LOD are provided in Appendix M of this Final EIS. 

The potential for additional contaminants is similar for all waters, and waters that are already 

impaired may have additional restrictions in the form of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

limits in an effort to restore designated uses. 

The Project will not remediate existing sources of contaminants unless practical or required by 

federal, state, or local regulations; however, as indicated above, construction of the Preferred 

Alternative will incorporate BMPs and improved stormwater facilities, which will mitigate 

potential impacts and minimize further impairment of the water bodies. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-12 

5.1.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

Table 5.1-3 presents the areas of potential influence associated with the Preferred Alternative 

LOD within drinking water protection zones. The permanent and temporary LOD for the 

Preferred Alternative were assessed in relation to the following prescribed protection zones: 

 Public Surface Water Supply Intakes, Zone 1 (bounded by a 5-mile radius): 

- Eight Zone 1 public surface water supply intakes: Fairfax County Water Authority, 

Quantico Marine Base Mainside, Stafford County Utilities, Spotsylvania County 

Utilities (two intakes), Lake Caroline, Hanover Suburban Water System, and City of 

Richmond. The Draft EIS identified three intakes. This number was increased to eight, 

as listed above, based on new information provided by the Virginia Department of 

Health (VDH) since publication of the Draft EIS. 

- With the exception of the Hanover Suburban Water System, all of the intakes are 

located upstream of the existing tracks. In addition, only the surface water supply 

intake watershed of the Hanover Suburban Water System falls within the permanent 

or temporary LOD of the Preferred Alternative, as shown in the table below. 

 Public Groundwater Sources: 

- Zone 1 (1,000-foot radius, potential to contaminate water supplies): 2 public 

groundwater sources, reduced from 3 reported in the Draft EIS. 

- Zone 2 (1-mile wellhead protection zone): 10 public groundwater sources, reduced 

from 14 reported in the Draft EIS. 

 Private Wells: 

- Within 100 feet of 7 private wells, reduced from 14 reported in the Draft EIS. There are 

an additional 12 private wells that occur within 200 feet of the Preferred Alternative. 

In Table 5.1-3, the increases shown in permanent impacts within the 100- and 200-foot radius of 

private wells in Areas 2 and 3 are associated with changes in the LOD that have occurred since 

the Draft EIS: specifically, at Dawson Beach Road in Prince William County to account for 

extended centerlines, lane widening, and associated changes to intersections, and directly south 

of Lansdowne Road in Spotsylvania County to account for the addition of a rail siding on the 

west side of the existing tracks and associated changes to intersections and entrances. In contrast, 

reduction in impacts in Area 4 since the Draft EIS resulted from the elimination of temporary 

LOD at the Doswell Road intersection in Hanover County and narrowing of LOD along Railroad 

Lane just north of the Ruther Glen Road intersection in Carolina County, both of which were due 

to wall modifications to reduce impacts. 

Although the existing railroad facilities that fall within the wellhead protection zones are exempt, 

work required for the DC2RVA Project will include permanent and temporary impacts within 

the wellhead protection zones for public and private wells. Construction of the new facilities and 

subsequent operation within these protection zones have the potential to introduce 

contamination to existing wells. Before construction, DRPT (or the sponsoring agency at time of 

application) will evaluate the potential for contamination. The Project will not remediate existing 

sources of contaminants unless practical or required by federal, state, or local regulations; 

however, as indicated above, construction of the Preferred Alternative will incorporate BMPs and 

improved stormwater facilities, which will mitigate potential impacts and minimize further 

impairment of the water bodies. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-13 

Table 5.1-3: Estimated Area within Drinking Water Protection Zones 

Alternative 

Area 

Preferred Alternative 

Public Surface 

Water 

Zone 11 (acres) 

Public 

Groundwater 

Sources (acres) 

Private Wells 

(square feet) 

Hanover Suburban Water System Zone 12Zone 23100-foot radius 200-foot radius 

Area 1: 

Arlington 1B P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

Area 2: 

Northern Virginia 2A P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0.10

P: 33.82 

T: 12.85

P: 8,266

T: 9,796

P: 94,857

T: 27,516

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 26.37 

T: 15.94 

P: 7,822 

T: 8,726 

P: 72,243 

T: 23,146 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 3B P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 22.00

T: 7.93

P: 19,294

T: 8,680

P: 120,001 

T: 22,545

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 13.98-16.91 

T: 6.39-9.72 

P: 279-16,365 

T: 414-8,397 

P: 41,238-

105,610 

T: 3,762-16,996 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 4A P: 25.36 

T: 11.44

P: 0.81 

T: 0

P: 36.88

T: 22.19

P: 4,115

T: 5,012

P: 17,512 

T: 23,615

Draft EIS Impacts P: 25.53 

T: 12.47 

P: 0.81 

T: 1.07 

P: 37.55 

T: 27.73 

P: 4,117 

T: 25,446 

P: 18,088 

T: 45,750 

Area 5: 

Ashland 5A P: 0 

T: 0

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 9.25 

T: 6.16

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0

T: 0 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 8.36 

T: 6.08 

P: 0-4.70 

T: 0-1.51 

P 9.25-46.53: 

T: 5.32-11.24 

P: 0-4,205 

T: 0-1,693 

P: 0-26,018 

T: 0-2,727 

Area 6: 

Richmond 6F P: 0 T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0

T: 0 

P: 33,712 

T: 9,116

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0-23,773 

T: 0-1,938 

P; 16,364-55,761 

T: 2,932-13,595 

Total for the

Preferred Alternative:

P: 25.36 

T: 11.44 

P: 0.81 

T: 0.1 

P: 101.95 

T: 49.13 

P: 31,675 

T: 23,488 

P: 266,082 

T: 82,792 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2016; DMME, 2016. 

Notes: 1. Surface water supply intake watershed bounded by a 5-mile radius. 

2. Zone 1 includes a 1,000-foot radius (~72 acres) in which land use activities should be assessed for their potential to contaminate water supplies. 

3. Zone 2 Virginia adopted a 1-mile wellhead protection zone around all groundwater public sources. 

P = Permanent Effect, T=Temporary Effect 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-14 

5.1.5 Permits 

Chapter 7 of this Final EIS provides details on the final design, permitting, construction, and 

implementation of the Project, which DRPT anticipates will be implemented incrementally. 

Wetland and water quality permits will be required for construction of the Preferred Alternative. 

The controlling regulations and permits required at the local, state, and federal level were 

described in Section 4.1.5 of the Draft EIS and include the following: 

 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act—Water Quality Certification 

 Section 402 of the Clean Water Act—National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act—Dredge and Fill Materials 

 Section 408 of the Clean Water Act—USACE permission to alter or occupy civil works 

projects previously constructed by the Corps such as dams, levees, or flood channels 

 Code of Virginia Chapter 2, Title 62.1 Subaqueous Stream Bed Bottom—VMRC 

 Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act—United States Coast Guard 

 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act—USACE 

 MS4 Permit–Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

A Joint Permit Application (JPA) to apply for permits from USACE, VMRC, Virginia DEQ, and 

the Local Wetlands Boards could incorporate several of the above permits. DRPT, in consultation 

with the regulatory agencies, will determine the potential use of Nationwide and/or Regional 

permits, which will occur during final design (see Chapter 7). 

5.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation – Water Resources 

5.1.6.1 Wetlands, Streams, and Water Resources 

Efforts have been made throughout the planning and conceptual design process, and will 

continue to be made during final design, to further avoid and minimize impacts to the extent 

practicable. General minimization measures incorporated into the Preferred Alternative include: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Reduction of construction footprint to the extent practicable in areas with water resources 

 Construction of bridges over wetland areas, substantially reducing impacts in comparison 

to causeways with culverts 

 Use of bridges/open bottom culverts designed to the proper hydraulic opening to 

maintain stream morphology/integrity and that are wide enough without altering stream 

depth, facilitate passage of wildlife and aquatic species, and decrease erosion 

 The use of stabilized side slopes and retaining walls to minimize encroachment 

 Implementation of temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 

 Use of natural stream design for unavoidable stream relocations, which means that the 

channel would mimic the characteristics of an appropriate reference stream 

 Prompt revegetation of disturbed area, in particular stream banks, immediately after 

construction to stabilize soil and reduce erosion 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-15 

Impacts to water resources will require submittal of a JPA to USACE, Virginia DEQ, and VMRC. 

Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be developed in coordination with these agencies during 

the permitting process and incorporated into final design for both temporary and permanent 

impacts. Permanent impacts to wetlands and streams from construction activities will require 

compensatory mitigation. Guidance for compensatory mitigation from the regulatory agencies 

can be found in the July 2004 Joint USACE and Virginia DEQ Recommendations for Wetland 

Compensatory Mitigation: Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance Criteria, and 

Monitoring Criteria and associated Mitigation Checklist; the March 2008 Off-Site Mitigation Location 

Guidelines; and the USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly issued 

Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule from June 2008. The mitigation 

rule indicates the agencies’ preferred hierarchy for mitigation options as follows: 

1. Purchase of compensatory mitigation bank credits 

2. Purchase of an approved in-lieu fee fund’s credits 

3. Watershed approach-based mitigation by the permittee 

4. Onsite mitigation/in-kind mitigation by the permittee 

5. Offsite mitigation/out-of-kind mitigation by the permittee 

Virginia DEQ has also adopted this preferred sequence. Factors to be considered in deviating 

from the preference for banks include the likelihood for ecological success and sustainability, the 

location of the compensation site(s) relative to the impact site and their significance within the 

watershed, and the costs of the compensatory mitigation project. DRPT recognizes the 

importance of early identification of the amount and type of available bank credits for wetlands 

and streams. DRPT will undertake more detailed investigation of the availability of mitigation 

bank credits and prepare a more detailed compensatory mitigation plan during final design. If 

there are insufficient bank or in-lieu fee credits, DRPT is prepared to develop a permitteeresponsible mitigation proposal in coordination with USACE early in the permitting process.

The final compensatory mitigation plan will be determined during the permitting process, in 

coordination with the regulatory agencies, and will likely include a combination of types of 

mitigation. Wetland mitigation requirements vary by wetland type. Typical replacement ratios 

of area disturbed are Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM) (1:1), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 

Wetlands (PSS) (1.5:1), and Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO) (2:1). Compensation is approved 

on a case-by-case basis, and requirements may vary. Estimates of potential compensation 

requirements are based upon the impact estimates presented previously in Table 5.1-2. 

Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable stream impacts will be based on the Unified Stream 

Methodology (USM) form. Impacts greater than 300 linear feet typically require compensation; 

however, for projects with multiple stream impacts, compensation for all impacts is often 

required regardless of the length of individual crossings. Although compensatory mitigation is 

generally not required for impacts to jurisdictional ditches or open waters, impacts will be 

reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and compensation will be determined during the permitting 

process. USACE is a cooperating agency for the Project and provided comments on the Draft 

EIS; their comments are summarized in Section 2.4.1.1 of this Final EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-16 

5.1.6.2 Floodplains and Stormwater/Drainage 

The design of this Project will include the use of stormwater management practices to address 

issues such as post-development storm flows and downstream channel capacity. Extreme 

weather events could include unusual heat or cold, prolonged or intense rainfall, and flooding, 

and resiliency to such events will also be addressed during the design phase. The Project will be 

designed and constructed in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 11988-Floodplain Management; 

23 CFR 650 Subpart A—Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains; the Virginia 

Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations; and the Virginia Stormwater Management Law and 

regulations. The Project will include an erosion and sediment control plan and a stormwater 

management plan approved by the Virginia DEQ, or local water quality protection criteria at least 

as stringent as the above state requirements. Accordingly, DRPT does not anticipate that the 

Project will increase flood height elevations, the probability of flooding, or the potential for 

property loss and hazard to life. 

Opportunities for green infrastructure, such as rain gardens, vegetative swales, green roofs, 

porous pavements, and low impact development (LID) systems and practices will be 

considered during final design. Existing stormwater facilities will be upgraded and new 

stormwater facilities will be implemented to capture and treat run-off. Stormwater 

management measures, including detention basins, will be installed to reduce or detain 

discharge volumes and compensate for increased impervious surfaces. Major bridge crossings 

built to accommodate the additional rail line will be designed to be compatible with clearances 

of existing bridges and to minimize hydraulic alterations, and storm surge protection measures 

will be taken in areas along the Potomac River where practicable. A detailed hydraulic survey 

and study will be conducted during final design (after funding becomes available and 

incremental improvements are scheduled) to ensure that no substantial increases to risk of 

flooding will occur. Potential for expansion and contraction of rails in response to extreme heat 

and cold also will be considered in the design and specifications for the rails. Additional design, 

operational, and maintenance elements will also be considered as appropriate during further 

project development as federal and state guidance continues to evolve. 

With the implementation of the above practices, the Project will improve drainage, representing 

an overall beneficial effect of the Project. 

5.1.6.3 Water Quality 

Minor long‐term water quality impacts could occur as a result of increases in impervious surfaces, 

increases in train traffic, and consequent increases in pollutants washed from the railroad and 

bridges into receiving water bodies. Stormwater management measures, including detention 

basins, vegetative controls, and other measures described in the section above, will be 

implemented to minimize water quality impacts. These measures will reduce or detain discharge 

volumes and remove pollutants, thus avoiding substantial further degradation of impaired water 

bodies in the Project corridor. 

Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices will be implemented in accordance with the 

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Stormwater Management 

Law and regulations. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law requires soil-disturbing 

projects to be designed to reduce soil erosion during and after construction. Implementation of 

BMPs will minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of construction activities. 

Preconstruction sediment quality assessments and water quality monitoring during construction 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-17 

may be conducted to address potential resuspension of contaminants and nutrients into overlying 

water. Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize water quality impacts will be made during final 

design. Such efforts to prevent impacts could include: 

 Designing the project to minimize the LOD and subsequent impacts to water resources 

 Installation of silt fencing and measures to prevent soil erosion from earthwork entering 

water bodies 

 Implementation of temporary and permanent stormwater management measures 

 Conducting stream work in the dry 

 Native revegetation of disturbed areas 

 Taking practicable measures to prevent spills of fuels, lubricants, or other pollutants into 

water bodies 

 Elimination of weep hole devices that allow runoff to drip directly into waterways from 

bridges 

 Use of vegetated buffers and vegetated swales to intercept runoff 

 Use of holding basins to reduce pollution content, temperature, and intensity of runoff 

entering the water supply 

The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations and the Virginia Stormwater 

Management Law and regulations also prohibit contractors from discharging any contaminant 

that may impact water quality. If accidental spills occur, the contractor is required to immediately 

notify all appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and to take immediate action to contain 

and remove the contaminant. 

Additionally, the requirements and special conditions of any required permits for work in and 

around surface waters will be incorporated into construction contract documents so that the 

contractor will be required to comply with such conditions. The number, locations, and 

abatement capacities of stormwater management facilities will be determined during later phases 

of Project design. Pollutant removal efficiencies will be used as a factor in determining the 

location and design of stormwater management facilities. 

Impaired Waters 

As indicated in Section 5.1.3.3 above, the DC2RVA corridor crosses 51 impaired waters and the 

Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M of the Draft EIS) provides a list of impairments, 

probable causes, and the potential for the DC2RVA Project to add to these impairments. The 

Project will not remediate existing sources of contaminants unless practical or required by federal, 

state or local regulations; however, DRPT will ensure that BMPs and other stormwater techniques 

will be employed to minimize further impacts on impaired waters. Construction techniques 

designed to reduce water quality impacts will be employed. Clearing practices will be limited to 

the greatest extent practicable around impaired waters to limit further degradation. The DC2RVA 

Project will adhere to additional restrictions in accordance with any TMDLs developed for 

impaired waters. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-18 

5.1.6.4 Drinking Water/Aquifers/Water Supply 

By upgrading older stormwater facilities along the DC2RVA corridor, the Project will improve 

drainage, representing an overall beneficial effect of the Project. In addition, efforts will be made 

throughout the final design process to avoid and minimize impacts to drinking waters to the 

extent practicable. Minimization measures could involve modifications, such as further 

alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts; the use of BMPs; the use of retaining walls; and 

temporary and permanent stormwater management measures to reduce transportation of 

chemicals by stormwater, including limited or avoidance of snow removal and vegetation 

maintenance chemicals near source water protection areas and well locations. 

5.2 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS 

Most of the proposed improvements associated with the Preferred Alternative are located 

adjacent to existing railroad tracks in areas where the land has already been disturbed, and DRPT 

does not anticipate any impacts to local topography or geology. The physiographic provinces in 

the Project corridor were presented in Figure 3.2-1 of the Draft EIS, and the presence and/or types 

of soils with construction-limiting qualities within the LOD of the Preferred Alternative have not 

changed from what was reported in Section 4.2.3 of the Draft EIS. 

5.2.1 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Topography, 

Geology, and Soils 

Before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction associated with the Preferred Alternative 

within newly acquired or existing railroad right-of-way, thorough site investigations will be 

conducted to determine if mitigation will be required for limiting soil characteristics. A geologic 

hazard assessment will be made to establish potential impacts of soil characteristics to bridges, 

walls, trackbed, and roadway subgrades, and geotechnical engineering parameters will be 

developed for soil conditions along the corridor. Bridge, wall, trackbed, and roadway 

recommendations will be developed according to the specific conditions of each site. 

Geotechnical engineering parameters, foundation and subgrade design recommendations, and 

other geotechnical engineering recommendations will be developed from a detailed analysis of 

the site investigations during final design. 

Final designs will include standard means and methods to be included in construction packages 

to compensate for soil, geologic, and topographic limitations, including: 

 The use of cut or fill to compensate for topographic changes 

 The use of retaining walls to stabilize soils 

 Removal or encapsulation of unsuitable soils 

 Blending neutralizing material into acidic soils 

 Engineering structures to compensate for limiting conditions adjustment of slope ratios, 

design heights, and depth of embedment 

 Use of stabilizing materials 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-19 

5.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 

5.3.1 Farmland Soils 

The Preferred Alternative requires permanent right-of-way acquisition that contains prime 

farmland and statewide and locally important soils. The transition of these soils to transportation 

use is a direct effect of the Project. No unique farmland soils occur within the LOD of the Preferred 

Alternative. Figure N-2 of Appendix N of the Draft EIS presented farmland classifications (prime 

farmland and farmland of statewide importance) in the Project Corridor. 

Table 5.3-1 lists the acres of impacts and Corridor Assessment Scores for each segment of the 

Preferred Alternative as well as comparisons to the Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

Selection of Alternative 5A as part of the Preferred Alternative minimized potential impacts to 

farmland soils as compared to the bypass alternatives as evaluated in the Draft EIS in this area. 

Impacts to farmland soils have also been reduced substantially for the Preferred Alternative due 

to refinements in reporting methodology for soil classifications and permanent/temporary LOD. 

There are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and 

agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to farmland soils; rather, narrow 

linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted 

in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to those 

reported in the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.3-1: Farmland Soils Converted within Preferred Alternative and Farmland Corridor 

Assessment Score 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Prime 

Farmland 

Soils (Acres) 

Statewide and 

Locally Important 

Soils (Acres) 

Total 

(Acres) 

Corridor 

Assessment 

Score1

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 27.65 26.14 52.79 66 

Draft EIS Impacts 53.56 52.37 105.93 66 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 24.62 12.65 37.27 80 

Draft EIS Impacts 26.84-69.05 17.83-84.17 44.67-153.22 80-118 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 56.93 36.54 93.47 93 

Draft EIS Impacts 99.17 49.91 149.08 93 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 15.80 21.33 37.13 51 

Draft EIS Impacts 27.18-90.88 23.57-35.10 51.61-124.93 46-171 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 25.40 4.63 30.03 19 

Draft EIS Impacts 30.79-49.93 4.59-14.22 35.38-60.55 19-29 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 150.40 101.29 250.69 –

Source: VDOT; Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)-CPA-106 Forms. 

1. NRCS treated each alternative area separately; therefore, there is no “cumulative” corridor assessment score. 

Note that no Unique Farmland Soils occur within the Preferred Alternative. Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; 

increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build 

Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build Alternatives. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-20 

5.3.2 Agricultural and Forestal Districts 

The Preferred Alternative has no direct effects to agricultural and forestal districts. 

There is one agricultural/forestal district, the Stanley District in Hanover County as shown in 

Figure 3.3-1 of the Draft EIS, within two of the Build Alternatives presented in the Draft EIS (5C 

and 5C–Ashcake) that included construction of a two-track west bypass of the Town of Ashland. 

Either of these alternatives would have converted 73.7 acres of this agricultural/forestal district 

to a transportation use; however, these bypass alternatives are not part of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

5.4 MINERAL RESOURCES 

DRPT has determined that no mines will be affected by the Preferred Alternative. 

One known mineral resource is crossed by the Fredericksburg Bypass (Build Alternative 3C as 

evaluated in the Draft EIS). This site—Massaponax S. & G. (VA DMM permit 08288AA), as shown in 

Figure 3.4-1 of the Draft EIS—is a former sand and gravel pit. The bypass alternative is not part of the 

Preferred Alternative and therefore no conversion of this resource is required. 

5.5 SOLID WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

5.5.1 Effects 

Table 5.5-1 presents the number of known and potential hazardous material sites that are 

potentially affected by the Preferred Alternative. The estimated number of sites affected is based 

on the number of sites mapped within the Preferred Alternative’s LOD (permanent and 

temporary) that may contain hazardous materials or wastes. The Draft EIS identified four 

hazardous materials sites8 along the corridor that could require costly mitigation or potentially 

cause construction schedule delays; however, the Preferred Alternative no longer impacts one of 

these locations (the Loving’s Produce site near Main Street Station in Richmond), and an updated 

mapbook of the other three sites in relation to the Preferred Alternative LOD is provided in 

Appendix M of this Final EIS. 

Otherwise, design modifications to the Preferred Alternative have reduced the overall number of 

affected hazardous material sites shown in Table 5.5-1. However, there are no noteworthy 

changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency comments since 

the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to the remainder of these hazardous materials sites; 

rather, narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary 

LOD resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor 

compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. All hazardous materials sites were shown in Figure 

O-1 of Appendix O of the Draft EIS. Locations of all identified sites have been recorded for 

consideration in future phases of final design. 

 

8 Hazardous materials sites were defined as the following: Superfund/Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)/Standardized Emergency Management System 

(SEMS)/National Priorities List (NPL) sites, and known HAZMAT release sites, per 42 USC 103. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-21 

Table 5.5-1: Hazardous Materials Sites within Preferred Alternative LOD 

Alternative Area 

Preferred Alternative Superfund/ CERCLA/ SEMS/NPL1Known HAZMAT Release2Potential HAZMAT Contamination3Petroleum Release4HAZMAT Facility5Petroleum Storage Tanks6

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0-2 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 0 0 4 1 5 1 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 8 4 2 1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0 0 1 2 4 3 

Draft EIS Impacts 0-1 0 5-8 2-3 0-4 0-3 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 0 2 0 3

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 1-2 3-7 0-1 1-5 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 1 10 14 6 7

Draft EIS Impacts 0-1 0-1 5-16 8-23 4-7 5-16 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 0 1 15 19 15 14 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2016. 

Notes: 1. Sites proposed or already on the NPL. Sites in the United States eligible for long-term remedial action (cleanup) financed under the 

federal Superfund program. 

2. Area known to be contaminated by HAZMAT or has had a toxic release of unlisted chemical. 

3. Area with history of use for HAZMAT or has had a release that has been closed or remediated. These areas may be sufficient in their current 

use; however, there could be potential for uncovering contamination through construction. 

4. Area where a petroleum product is known to have been released. The case may be closed; however, there is the potential for uncovering 

contaminated soil through construction. 

5. Facilities that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste. 

6. Facilities with above ground and underground storage tanks that store petroleum or hazardous substances. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 

5.5.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Solid Wastes and 

Hazardous Materials 

Before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction of the Preferred Alternative within newly 

acquired or existing railroad right-of-way, thorough site investigations will be conducted to 

determine whether any of the sites are actually contaminated, and, if so, the nature and extent of 

that contamination. All solid waste material resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or 

other construction operations will be removed and disposed of according to regulations. Any 

additional hazardous materials discovered during construction of the Preferred Alternative or 

demolition of existing structures will be removed and disposed of in compliance with all 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All necessary remediation will be conducted in 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-22 

compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and will be coordinated 

with EPA, Virginia DEQ, and other federal or state agencies as necessary. The Project will 

remediate existing sources of contaminants where disturbed by construction activities; however, 

the Project will not remediate existing sources of contaminants not affected by construction 

activities unless required by federal, state, or local regulations. 

Types of remediation could include: 

 Excavation or dredging. Removal of contamination generally to a regulated landfill, but 

also to be treated (commonly used for petroleum contamination, which is the most likely 

form of contamination to be found in a project such as this). 

 Thermal desorption. Use of a chemical to vaporize contamination, which is then collected 

or destroyed in an off-gas treatment system. 

 Surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation (SEAR). Use of chemicals to decrease water 

surface tension to allow the contamination to de-absorb and be removed from the 

medium. 

 Pump and treat. Pumping out contaminated groundwater and passing it through a 

filtration system designed to absorb contamination from the groundwater. 

 Solidification and stabilization. Using a binder and soil to stop, prevent, or reduce the 

mobility of contaminants that are left in place. 

 In situ oxidation. Injection of oxygen or air to promote the growth of aerobic bacteria and 

accelerate natural destruction of organic contaminants. 

 Soil vapor extraction. Treatment of the off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

generated after vacuum removal of air and vapors (and VOCs) from the subsurface. 

 Nanoremediation. Use of nano-sized reactive agents to degrade or immobilize 

contaminants. 

 Bioremediation. Use of biological methods, such as seeding the site with specific plants, 

fungus (mycelia), or bacteria, to remove contamination. 

5.6 AIR QUALITY 

This section analyzes criteria pollutant air emissions associated with the Project. Additionally, 

while mobile source air toxics (MSAT) and greenhouse gases (GHG) are not criteria pollutants 

nor subject to conformity requirements, they are also considered in this section in accordance 

with EPA guidance. Potential air quality effects of the proposed DC2RVA Project include: 

 Changes in rail-related emissions due to an increase in daily train operations and a change 

in equipment. 

 Changes in the overall regional emissions due to travelers shifting from one mode of 

transportation to another. 

 Changes in local (microscale) emissions, including changes at various crossings that could 

handle additional traffic due to nearby highway-railroad crossing closures, experience 

additional delay due to an increase in train operations, and undergo changes in vehicular 

delay around stations due to increased traffic resulting from increased ridership. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-23 

While direct physical impacts to other environmental resources have changed as a result of design 

refinements and modifications to the LOD of the Preferred Alternative, the general findings from 

the air quality analysis have not changed from the Draft EIS as rail operations for the Preferred 

Alternative within the DC2RVA Project corridor have not changed from that which was analyzed 

in the Draft EIS. 

5.6.1 Locomotive Operations—NOx, VOC, and PM 

EPA established a comprehensive program9 to reduce emissions from locomotives, including 

line-haul, switch, and passenger engines. The program establishes emission standards with 

applicability dependent on the date a locomotive is first manufactured. For switch engine 

locomotives, the first set of standards (Tier 0) applies to most locomotives originally 

manufactured before 2001. The most stringent set of standards (Tier 4) applies to locomotives 

manufactured in 2015 and later. Additional intercity passenger locomotives operating under the 

DC2RVA Project will, at a minimum, meet the emissions standards set by EPA.10

The DC2RVA Project is subject to federal air quality general conformity regulations11 that require 

an evaluation of Project-generated emissions within nonattainment and maintenance areas be 

conducted to assess potential air quality effects. DRPT calculated annual pollutant emissions for 

the one marginal nonattainment area along the Project corridor (i.e., the Washington, D.C.-

Maryland-Virginia ozone marginal nonattainment area, which was shown in Figure 3.6-1 of the 

Draft EIS). The emissions were calculated using the expected EPA emission rates and projected 

locomotive fuel consumption, which was developed as part of the rail operations modeling 

conducted for this Project. 

Table 5.6-1 presents the emissions inventory of expected Project-generated emissions under the 

Preferred Alternative (i.e., emissions generated from the additional intercity passenger trains 

from this Project), which have not changed since the evaluation in the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.6-1: Predicted Preferred Alternative Project-Generated Locomotive Emissions 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Annual Emissions (tons/year) 

NOx VOC 

Washington, D.C.-Maryland-Virginia1 13.7 0.3 

De minimis (allowable) levels in the nonattainment/maintenance areas 

according to the rates listed in 40 CFR 93.153 for “other ozone NAA’s 

inside an ozone transport region” 

100 50 

Notes: There are no changes to the values reported in this table since the Draft EIS. 

1. Predicted emissions listed are for those generated from the additional intercity passenger trains from this Project. 

Table 5.6-1 shows that Project-generated predicted annual pollutant emissions, from the 9 new 

daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day) added by this Project, in 

nonattainment and maintenance areas, are all below general conformity de minimis threshold 

values. Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project-generated emissions 

 

9 40 CFR Part 1033 

10 EPA has published expected fleet average pollutant emission rates in their Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for 

Locomotives USEPA-420-F-09-025.

11 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-24 

below these de minimis values to be minimal. Such projects do not require formal conformity 

determinations. These numbers are considered conservatively high because they do not account 

for any reduction in automobile emissions related to travelers diverting from auto to rail travel. 

5.6.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics 

DRPT qualitatively assessed regional MSAT effects associated with the Project based on the 

Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic 

Analysis in NEPA Documents, released October 18, 2016, and in part from a study conducted by 

FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions among Transportation 

Project Alternatives, as applicable to this Project. DRPT utilized FHWA’s guidance as neither FRA 

nor EPA have guidelines related to MSAT analysis, including hot-spot12 analyses. 

5.6.2.1 Regional MSAT Effects 

In 2045, DRPT projects that the Preferred Alternative will result in 1.12 million more rail 

passenger trips annually to/from/within the DC2RVA corridor (compared to the No Build 

Alternative). By shifting this travel to rail, DRPT expects that up to 2,700 vehicles per day and 

322,000 vehicle miles per day will be removed from the parallel roads of I-95 and U.S. Route 1 in 

the 123-mile Project corridor in the year 2045. Assuming an average fuel efficiency of 22 miles per 

gallon and a typical passenger rail trip traveling the full length of the DC2RVA corridor, this 

equates to a reduction of approximately 5.3 million gallons of fuel per year. In comparison, the 

additional intercity passenger trains that will operate as a result of this Project are estimated to 

consume approximately 2.3 million gallons of fuel per year. Therefore, overall fuel consumption 

will be reduced in the DC2RVA corridor. The Preferred Alternative will also result in a reduction 

in the rate of growth of passenger miles of travel by air and bus, which could ultimately lead to a 

reduction in vehicle miles from these two modes. 

Beginning in 2025, through 2045, the Preferred Alternative will decrease the total regional vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and MSAT emissions compared to the No Build Alternative. Under the No 

Build Alternative, the approximately 1.08 million annual intercity passenger rail trips from the 

Preferred Alternative could otherwise occur by other transportation modes; therefore, the 

availability of improved intercity passenger rail service will reduce the number of vehicle trips 

on a regional basis. Because the Preferred Alternative will not substantially change the regional 

traffic mix, the amount of MSAT emissions emitted from highways and other roadways along the 

Project corridor would be proportional to the VMT. Because the regional VMT estimated for the 

Preferred Alternative will be less than the No Build Alternative in 2045, MSAT emissions from 

regional vehicle traffic will also be less for the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Build 

Alternative in 2045. Emissions for the Preferred Alternative will also likely be lower than present 

levels in 2045 because of EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce annual 

MSAT emissions by over 90 percent from 2010 to 2050. 

Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, 

VMT growth rates, and local control measures; however, the EPA-projected reductions are so 

great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the Project corridor are 

likely to be lower in the future as well. 

 

12 A hot-spot analysis is known as a “microscale” analysis as it focuses on a relatively small geographic area. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-25 

5.6.2.2 Local MSAT Effects 

The potential MSAT emission sources directly related to Project operation will be from trains 

operating along the DC2RVA corridor, vehicles used at maintenance facilities, passenger vehicles 

traveling to and from the train stations, and passenger vehicles delayed at grade crossings. 

Localized increases in MSAT emissions will occur as a result of all of these activities. 

The localized increases in MSAT emissions will likely be most pronounced at maintenance 

facilities, where in-yard diesel-fueled switch locomotives will be used to pull in or pull out the 

trainsets for maintenance. The only maintenance facility along the DC2RVA corridor proposed 

as part of the Preferred Alternative is at the Bellwood Wye Yard, as detailed in Section 4.3.6.3 of 

this Final EIS; maintenance facilities located outside of the DC2RVA Project corridor are reviewed 

under separate environmental documents. Local MSAT emissions around this maintenance 

facility will increase with additional DC2RVA trains. There is no residential development or other 

sensitive land uses directly adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility. Therefore, DRPT 

expects any local MSAT effects to be minor. 

Localized Project-related emissions will be substantially reduced due to implementation of EPA's 

vehicle and fuel regulations. The Preferred Alternative will decrease regional MSAT emissions 

compared to the No Build Alternative. 

5.6.3 Highway Vehicle Operations—CO 

Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are associated with large volumes of slow-moving traffic, such 

as highly congested intersections. Areas experiencing high levels of CO are referred to as CO “hot 

spots.” The purpose of a CO hot-spot analysis is to determine if CO emissions generated by a 

proposed project would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the air quality standard for CO 

as promulgated by EPA. 

The Preferred Alternative will result in an increase in vehicular delay at grade crossings because 

more trains will be operating over these crossings; however, given the relatively short length and 

rapid passages of the 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per 

day)implemented under the DC2RVA Project and modest predicted increases in the rates of train 

service, it is unlikely that these delays will result in any substantial effect on air quality levels. 

Additionally, at the locations where highway-rail grade separations are constructed, vehicles will 

no longer have to stop to wait for trains to pass and CO emissions will be reduced. Proposed 

grade separation locations are identified in Section 5.15.2. 

Additionally, DRPT anticipates that the Preferred Alternative will increase vehicular traffic near 

station locations. While the Project will enhance passenger train travel speeds over an extended 

route and approximately double the frequency of intercity passenger rail service offered at each 

station, the increases in service will be distributed throughout the day and vehicular traffic 

increases near stations will be relatively modest. Many stations also have direct connections to 

local and regional transit. Particularly, all intercity passenger rail stations in Northern Virginia 

share service with Virginia Railway Express (VRE). Other stations in Northern Virginia have 

convenient or direct connection to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

(WMATA) Metrorail system, including Franconia-Springfield, Alexandria, Crystal City, L’Enfant 

Plaza, and Washington Union Station. In Richmond, Main Street Station serves multiple local and 

regional bus services, and the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) completed a 7.6-mile 

bus rapid transit (BRT) system along Broad Street and Main Street in 2018. These multimodal 

connections can help offset vehicular traffic at these stations. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-26 

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)13 for CO are 35 parts per million (ppm) 

(1-hour standard) and 9 ppm (8-hour standard). 

DRPT ran a computer model to determine the CO concentrations at the worst-case grade 

crossings along the DC2RVA corridor. DRPT selected these locations because the locations have 

the highest projected amount of traffic and/or the greatest amount of delay. The following worstcase traffic locations within the Preferred Alternative were selected: 

 England Street/Thompson Street in Ashland. A two-track at-grade railroad crossing 

where all intercity passenger and freight train traffic will continue to operate through 

town, which will contribute to the worst-case traffic conditions in Ashland (Preferred 

Alternative 5A). 

 Hermitage Road in Richmond. A three-track at-grade railroad crossing where most 

intercity passenger train traffic will use all or a portion of the CSXT S-Line between Main 

Street Station and Centralia, which will contribute to the worst-case traffic conditions on 

the S-Line in Richmond (Preferred Alternative 6F). 

The CO hot-spot analysis compared the 2015 Existing, 2025 Build and No Build, and 2045 Build 

and No Build scenarios. DRPT used CAL3QHC, which is a standard EPA dispersion model, to 

estimate CO concentrations. Model input parameters included MOVES2014 emissions factors, 

CO background levels, persistence factors, peak-hour volumes, free-flow speeds, and estimated 

gate down time. Simulated meteorological conditions designed to yield worst-case 

concentrations were used in the analysis. 

As shown in Table 5.6-2, the results of the analyses indicated that the 1-hour and 8-hour 

concentrations at the locations analyzed in any scenario were well below the NAAQS, and the 

evaluation has not changed since the Draft EIS. Based on these results, no mitigation is required, 

and no additional analysis is recommended. 

Table 5.6-2: Predicted CO Concentrations for the Preferred Alternative 

Worst-Case 

Intersection/Crossing 

Analysis Scenario 

2015 Existing 2025 No Build 2025 Build 2045 No Build 2045 Build 

1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour 

England Street/Thompson Street 

(Town of Ashland) 4.2 2.9 3.4 2.4 3.6 2.5 3.1 2.2 3.2 2.2 

Hermitage Road 

(S-Line, City of Richmond) 3.6 2.5 2.9 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.7 

Note: Predicted CO Concentrations are in ppm, including background. NAAQS for CO: 35 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour). There are no 

changes to the values reported in this table since the Draft EIS. 

 

13 42 USC 7401 et seq. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-27 

5.6.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The projected change in 2045 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for the Preferred Alternative 

relative to the No Build Alternative is shown in Table 5.6-3 by mode of passenger travel. These 

emission values were derived from mass emission rates per passenger mile published in a report 

prepared for the American Bus Association and projected changes in annual passenger miles of 

travel (as shown in Table 4.8-1 of the Draft EIS). 

Increases in CO2 emissions associated with additional intercity passenger rail service are expected 

to be more than offset by reductions in CO2 emissions due to reduced use of other transportation 

modes, as shown in Table 5.6-3. DRPT derived the CO2 emissions from the passenger ridership 

estimates for the entire DC2RVA corridor. 

The ridership forecasts for the Preferred Alternative are based on the full service station option 

used in Richmond; other options considered are reflected in the range presented by the Draft EIS 

Alternatives. Accordingly, the results in Table 5.6-3 reflect the projected changes through the 

entire DC2RVA corridor. 

Table 5.6-3: Change in Projected CO2 Emissions in the DC2RVA Corridor by Mode Compared 

to the No Build Alternative (tons per year)–Year 2045 

Preferred Alternative1 Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

6F (Full Service, Staples Mill Road/ 

Main Street Stations) 60,155 -41,187 -9,854 -15,632 -6,518 

Draft EIS Impacts 56,711- 

64,552 

-37,568- 

-43,206 

-9,310- 

-10,527 

-15,493- 

-17,516 

-5,663- 

-6,869 

Note: 1. Results in this table are for the entire DC2RVA corridor, which are based on the Richmond station option (i.e., 6F: Full Service to Staples

Mill Road Station and Main Street Station) that was selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

There are no changes to the values reported in this table since the Draft EIS. 

5.6.5 Construction Effects 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment-related particulate emissions in and around the Project corridor. Equipment-related 

particulate emissions can be minimized if the equipment is well maintained. 

The potential air quality effects of the Preferred Alternative will be short-term, occurring only 

while demolition and construction work is in progress and local conditions are conducive. The 

potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with building demolition, ground 

clearing, site preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, onsite movement of equipment, and 

transportation of materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense 

construction activity, and high wind conditions. Where required, DRPT will perform this analysis 

during final design to demonstrate general conformity. DRPT will also identify the appropriate 

BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. 

GHG emissions will also be generated during construction of the Project. Using the FHWA 

Infrastructure Carbon Estimator14, DRPT calculated GHG emissions from construction for the 

proposed action to estimate its contribution to the DC2RVA corridor. Based on this analysis, 

DRPT estimates that 11,467 tons per year of CO2 will be generated from construction activities 

 

14 The FHWA Infrastructure Carbon Estimator is available at: 

 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/tools/carbon_estimator/
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-28 

over a 25-year period. Comparatively, EPA oversees a GHG reporting program. As part of this 

program, EPA maintains an inventory of GHG emissions from large facilities. In 2016, CO2 

emissions from large facilities in counties along the DC2RVA corridor were 13,754,158 tons.15

Therefore, CO2 emissions from DC2RVA construction will be less than 0.1 percent of the total 

CO2 emissions from large facilities in the DC2RVA corridor. Given this relatively small 

contribution, DRPT concludes that construction of this Project will have a negligible impact on 

climate change due to GHG emissions. 

5.6.6 Conclusion 

The Project-generated net increases in predicted annual pollutant emissions from the 9 new daily 

intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per day) in nonattainment areas will all be below 

general conformity de minimis threshold values. Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, EPA 

considers project-generated emissions below these de minimis values to be minimal. Such projects 

do not require formal conformity determinations. 

With regard to GHG emissions, the Preferred Alternative will contribute less than 0.1 percent of 

the CO2 emissions from large facilities along the DC2RVA corridor. As a result, DRPT anticipates 

that the DC2RVA Project will not result in significant adverse effects to public health related to 

air pollutants and air toxics or contributions to GHG emissions. 

5.6.7 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Air Quality 

DRPT will identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction. Air 

quality mitigation is discussed in Section 5.19.2.3 in the Construction Impacts section. 

5.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes potential Project-related noise and vibration effects of the Preferred 

Alternative and identifies mitigation measures to offset Project-related impacts. These analyses 

only evaluated noise and vibration from the 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total 

trains per day) proposed as part of the Preferred Alternative, except where noted. 

As described below, noise impacts have decreased from what was reported in the Draft EIS as a 

result of revised restrictions on horn use in the DC2RVA corridor, and vibration impacts are the 

same as reported for the Build Alternatives in the Draft EIS. Detailed descriptions of noise and 

vibration impact criteria and methodologies, as well as construction impacts, were reported in 

Section 4.7 of the Draft EIS. As detailed in the following subsections, there are minor changes 

noise impacts since the publication of the Draft EIS (see Section 5.7.1) and no change in vibration 

impacts (see Section 5.7.2). 

5.7.1 Noise 

5.7.1.1 Predicted Noise Levels 

DRPT performed a General Noise Assessment and a General Vibration Assessment for the Project 

in keeping with FTA methods and the Project’s conceptual level of design (see Section 4.7 of the 

 

15 http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-29 

Draft EIS for a summary description of the noise and vibration assessment methods, with 

additional detail in Appendix P of the Draft EIS). 

Train noise level calculations accounted for Project-related wayside noise (locomotive and wheelrail noise) and locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings.16 Analysis results were used to 

determine the distance from the tracks at which train noise levels equal the noise impact 

thresholds for moderate and severe noise impacts at Category 1, 2, and 3 land uses (as defined in 

the table in Section 5.7.1.2, below). Noise impacts are identified at the noise-sensitive land uses 

within those distances to the track. 

5.7.1.2 Operational Noise Impacts 

This section presents the results of the assessment of Project-related noise during operation, 

which includes locomotive horn noise, stationary horn noise (if applicable), and wayside noise. 

The noise impact assessment followed FRA and FTA guidelines for corridor-level projects; the 

guidelines require identification of moderate and severe noise impacts based on project noise 

levels and types of land use. Noise levels are projected by combining horn noise and wheel rail 

noise, and do not distinguish between noise impacts dominated by noise from horns versus noise 

impacts dominated by wayside noise. Figures in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report

(Appendix P of the Draft EIS) showed the noise impact contours for the Build Alternatives 

evaluated in the Draft EIS, which have not changed for the Preferred Alternative other than in 

two locations in the Project corridor (these locations are updated in Appendix M of this Final EIS). 

 In the Draft EIS, the noise impact contour at VRE’s Crystal City Station did not properly 

account for CSXT’s restrictions on horn noise at the station; additional details are 

described in the text below. 

 In Area 6 near Richmond, a grade separated crossing proposed for Hermitage Road was 

changed to an at-grade intersection between the Draft EIS and Final EIS, resulting in an 

increase in train horn noise near the road intersection. However, while overall train noise 

would increase, there are no noise-sensitive land uses affected by the increase in noise, 

and no change to noise impacts occurred in this area. 

The noise impact assessment results are presented in Table 5.7-1 and includes noise impacts due 

to both locomotive horn and wayside horn noise. The values shown in the table represent the 

number of noise-sensitive land use receptors projected to experience noise impacts under the 

Preferred Alternative. Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 refer to land use categories 

evaluated in the noise assessment, as defined in the notes at the bottom of the table. The noise 

analysis did not account for terrain or buildings that block train noise from reaching noisesensitive parcels; therefore, the results are considered to be conservatively high. 

 

16 A locomotive horn’s primary purpose is to provide a safety warning of an approaching train to people and animals. 

Federal regulation (FRA’s Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway/Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR 

Part 222) requires locomotive horns be sounded for 15 to 20 seconds before entering all public grade crossings, but 

not more than one-quarter mile in advance. FRA locomotive horn use regulations and CSXT operating rules do not 

require locomotive horn use at private at-grade crossings. Further, CSXT has a rule on train horn use such that trains 

should not sound horns at any passenger and commuter station on the corridor between the hours of 11:30 pm and 

4:30 am unless people are present. Horns are not sounded along sections of track between public grade crossings 

unless the locomotive operator determines a safety warning is warranted; such incidences of horn use are rare and 

therefore, horn noise between public crossings was not evaluated in this analysis. Existing locomotive horn use at 

public grade crossings is incorporated into the noise analysis via the existing noise measurements. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-30 

Table 5.7-1: Operational Noise Impact Summary for the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Operational Noise Impacts, By Category1

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 

Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Severe Total 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 0 0 548 99 6 0 6532

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 670 99 6 0 775 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0 0 67 8 1 0 76 

Draft EIS Impacts 0-2 0-1 66-2,392 8-1,524 1-8 0-5 75-3,932 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 51 18 1 0 70 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 135 14 1 43 154 

Draft EIS Impacts 0-1 0 133-272 14-51 1-2 4 154-329 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 1 0 416 15 7 0 439 

Draft EIS Impacts 0-1 0 298-416 8-15 4-7 0 313-439 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 1 0 1,217 154 16 4 1,392 

Notes: The noise impact locations were shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P of Draft EIS), with two updated locations 

shown in Appendix M of this Final EIS. Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative 

Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not 

the range of impacts shown for all Build Alternatives. 

1. Category Descriptions: 

Category 1: Land where quiet is an essential element (e.g., amphitheaters and concert pavilions). This category includes lands set aside for 

serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) with 

significant outdoor use. 

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to 

noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is 

important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces 

where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios, and concert halls, fall into this category. Places for 

meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities are also 

included. 

2. The Category 2 severe impacts generally occur at residences located immediately adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor, including a trailer park 

just south of Woodbridge Station and several other residential neighborhoods in Prince William County. 

3. One of the severe Category 3 impacts is at the Ashland Library, located adjacent to the tracks; however, the proximity of the nearby station 

means that intercity passenger and freight trains will actually be traveling slower than modeled. The impacts identified within Ashland assume that 

passenger trains will operate at 90 mph through the Town of Ashland. However, trains will slow down through town to the CSXT’s 35 mph 

speed order for the Town of Ashland, even if they are not stopping at the station. Any reduction in speed will reduce the noise impacts shown 

for the Project. As a result, the noise analysis results are conservative. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-31 

The design of the Preferred Alternative includes the realignment of curves of existing mainline 

tracks along the CSXT right-of-way, as detailed in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative has the potential to reduce existing train noise along the tracks because 

straightening track curves, which is a main design element of the Project, can reduce or eliminate 

the potential for wheel flange squeal. Additionally, the proposed curve realignments physically 

move the tracks closer to or farther away from noise receptors, which in some cases can cause 

noise impacts to increase (closer to) or decrease (farther away) as a result of the Project. Also, the 

Preferred Alternative has the potential to reduce existing horn noise through the seven new grade 

separations and seven crossing closures proposed for existing at-grade crossings in the corridor 

(refer to Section 5.15.2 for specific locations of at-grade crossing treatments for the Preferred 

Alternative). 

Increases in intercity passenger service with 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total 

trains per day) each day, as proposed by this Project, will result in a corresponding increase in 

locomotive horn use in most portions of the Project corridor; however, the noise impacts 

presented in this Final EIS have decreased from those shown in the Draft EIS. The number of 

locations where the sounding of locomotive horns is required in Alternative Area 2 were reduced 

since the Draft EIS, which did not account for existing horn restrictions through Crystal City that 

were negotiated with CSXT separate from, and several years prior to, this Project. CSXT has an 

additional rule in place for Crystal City, stating that trains approaching the Crystal City station 

shall only sound their horns between 5:30 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays only, but not at any other 

times unless people are present. Incorporating this existing CSXT rule on train horn use at Crystal 

City Station into the noise model resulted in a reduction in noise impacts in this area. Train horn 

noise impacts are distinguishable from wayside noise impacts on the noise impact contour figures 

that were shown in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Appendix P of the Draft EIS. 

5.7.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Noise 

Potential noise mitigation measures are broadly categorized as applied at the source, in the 

pathway (the path that sound travels), or at the receiver. Other than locomotive horn and wayside 

horn use, the source of most train noise is the interaction of steel wheels and the steel rail; this is 

called wayside noise. In addition, railcars (particularly freight cars) sometimes rattle and produce 

noticeable amounts of noise. Locomotives also emit noise from the engine casing and from the 

cooling and exhaust vents. Use of continuously welded rail (CWR), which is or rail with no joints, 

minimizes wayside noise as joints in the rail produce noise when trains roll over them. As part of 

the Preferred Alternative, DRPT assumes that all new and existing mainline track will be CWR. 

Locomotive horns are another loud source of train noise; however, their use is mostly limited to 

at-grade crossings and other areas required by CSXT operating rules where they are used to warn 

people that trains are approaching. Locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is required 

under FRA safety regulations. FRA regulations and CSXT operating rules do not require 

locomotive horn use at private at-grade crossings. CSXT operating rules do require all trains to 

sound their horn when approaching, passing, or departing a passenger station along the 

mainline. Grade crossing closure, grade separations, and installation of wayside horns (which are 

stationary horns located at at-grade crossings, which eliminates the use of locomotive horns) are 

potential measures to mitigate locomotive horn use. These have been evaluated and are 

incorporated into the Project to the extent deemed reasonable and appropriate within the design, 

operating, and financial constraints of the Project. Although wayside horn applications were 

considered as a potential mitigation measure, they were not included as part of conceptual 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-32 

design, but will be considered in the future diagnostic process as part of final design. FRA 

regulations also allow the creation of quiet zones (where locomotive horn use at public at-grade 

crossings is not required due to the installation of supplemental safety measures), which would 

be separate from this Project. Under those regulations, municipalities can coordinate the design 

and development of quiet zones with the community, CSXT, and FRA. Section 5.15.2.2 of this 

Final EIS provides additional information on potential Project effects on quiet zones. 

Noise barriers, while not commonly used on rail projects, can block train noise and reduce noise levels 

in areas behind them. To be effective, noise barriers must block the line of sight between the noise 

source and the receiver. Raising the height of the noise barrier above that line of sight increases the 

amount of noise reduction the noise barrier provides, but the cost of a noise barrier is directly related 

to the size of the noise barrier. Cost effectiveness is sometimes used to evaluate whether the noise 

reduction provided by a noise barrier justifies the expense of designing, constructing, and 

maintaining the barrier. This type of evaluation also considers the number of noise-sensitive land uses 

expected to experience a noise reduction due to the noise barrier. FRA does not have criteria for 

evaluating cost effectiveness of noise barriers. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

does, however, and their criteria could be useful for evaluating the cost effectiveness and feasibility 

of noise barriers on this Project. Several comments on the Draft EIS requested noise barriers be 

constructed in the Crystal City area; however, the proximity of the multi-story buildings prohibit 

effective barrier construction at this particular location. Specific details on noise mitigation measures 

will be developed for the Preferred Alternative during final design, which will occur after funding is 

available and incremental improvements are scheduled. Receiver-based mitigation is rarely 

implemented on rail projects because it is not cost effective to treat multiple individual locations 

across large areas. Noise mitigation during construction is discussed in Section 5.19.2.4 in the 

Construction Impacts section. 

5.7.2 Vibration 

This section describes potential Project-related vibration effects for the Preferred Alternative and 

identifies mitigation measures to offset projected impacts. Impact criteria and methodologies, as 

well as construction impacts, were reported in Section 4.7.2 of the Draft EIS. 

The vibration impacts presented here are related to the implementation of the intercity passenger 

rail service improvements proposed under the DC2RVA Project, or where the existing railroad 

alignment was physically shifted closer to a receptor accounting for a potential increase in 

impacts due to freight and passenger operations. 

5.7.2.1 Predicted Vibration Levels 

Estimates of Project-related, train-induced ground-borne vibration (GBV) levels were used to 

develop distance-to-vibration-impact contours. Vibration impact contour lines were then 

overlaid upon digital aerial photographs to delineate the areas projected to experience vibration 

impacts (see the Noise and Vibration Technical Report, Appendix P of Draft EIS). 

5.7.2.2 Operational Vibration Impacts 

DRPT conducted the vibration assessment by calculating the distance from the rail line at which 

proposed intercity passenger train-induced vibration levels equal the FRA ground-borne 

vibration impact thresholds. Vibration-sensitive land uses inside the vibration contours are 

therefore projected to experience vibration impacts as defined by FRA. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-33 

Table 5.7-2 shows the number of receptors DRPT anticipates will experience vibration impacts 

associated with the Preferred Alternative; category descriptions are provided in the notes at the 

end of the table. There are no changes in the estimated number of impacts as presented in the 

Draft EIS. 

The source of vibration impacts shown in Table 5.7.-2 is a result of both increased DC2RVA 

intercity passenger rail frequencies and due to physical shifting of tracks or construction of new 

tracks closer to receptors due to both freight and passenger operations; the analysis does not 

distinguish between the two, though the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)/FRA vibration 

assessment guidelines indicate that freight trains generally produce more ground-borne vibration 

than passenger trains. Additionally, while vibration is assessed on a peak basis and not a 

cumulative one, the frequency of vibration events is factored in when selecting the vibration 

impact threshold. 

There are no changes to the vibration impacts and impact contour mapping as presented in the 

Draft EIS; refer to the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix P of Draft EIS) for figures 

showing the locations of these impacts for the Build Alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

Details of the vibration impact summary results within each area in the Project corridor are 

presented after the table below. 

Table 5.7-2: Vibration Impact Summary for the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Vibration Impacts, by Category1

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Total 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 0 15 0 15 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 15 0 15 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0-43 0 0-43 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 0 2 0 2 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 2 0 2 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 25 1 26 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 25-35 1 26-36 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 8 0 8 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 8 0 8 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 0 50 1 51 

Notes: There are no changes to the values reported in this table since the Draft EIS. 

1. Category Descriptions: 

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-34 

Area 1 (Arlington). There are no vibration-sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the Preferred 

Alternative in the Arlington area; therefore, vibration impact contours were not calculated, and 

no receptors will experience vibration impacts under the Preferred Alternative. 

Area 2 (Northern Virginia). The Preferred Alternative will result in 15 receptors experiencing 

vibration impacts in the Northern Virginia area. There is a building in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP)the historic Alexandria Union Stationwhich is within all vibration 

impact contours; however, this building was designed to stand next to rail transportation. 

Furthermore, the vibration levels are being compared to human-comfort criteria, which is much 

lower than vibration levels necessary to cause damage to even old structures. Therefore, while 

this building is within the vibration impact contours, it is not considered an impact17 and is not 

included in Table 5.7-2. 

Area 3 (Fredericksburg). No receptors will experience vibration impacts under the Preferred 

Alternative that passes through the City of Fredericksburg.

Area 4 (Central Virginia). The Preferred Alternative will result in two residential receptors 

experiencing vibration impacts in the Central Virginia area. 

Area 5 (Ashland). The Preferred Alternative will result in 26 receptors experiencing vibration impacts 

in the Ashland area. These impacts, including the Category 3 impact at the Ashland Library, are based 

on the assumption that passenger trains are operating at 90 mph through Ashland; however, trains 

will slow down to CSXT’s 35 mph speed order for the Town of Ashland, even if they are not stopping 

at the station. Any reduction in speed will reduce the noise and vibration impacts shown for the 

Project; therefore, the tabulation of vibration impacts is considered a conservative overestimate. 

Area 6 (Richmond). The Preferred Alternative will result in eight receptors experiencing 

vibration impacts in the Richmond area. 

5.7.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Vibration 

Vibration impacts are projected to occur due to the proposed intercity passenger trains, and also 

in cases where freight trains are proposed to be relocated onto new tracks located closer to a 

receptor. Passenger and freight trains will share the rail corridor, and have the ability to operate 

on all tracks throughout the existing corridor. Vibration mitigation options are limited due to the 

presence of freight trains on tracks also used by the proposed intercity passenger trains in in the 

DC2RVA corridor. Mitigation strategies, such as floating slabs, are not feasible options for tracks 

that also carry freight. Where freight trains operate on realigned or new tracks and vibration 

impacts were projected to occur, the only feasible options for mitigation of the trains are track 

and wheel maintenance measures, strategic location of special trackwork, and buffer zones 

between the tracks and the receptors. DRPT will coordinate with CSXT to mitigate vibration 

impacts related to freight trains on realigned or new tracks. 

Passenger train maintenance can also be implemented to reduce ground-borne vibration; 

modification of the passenger rail vehicle suspension is also a potential mitigation option. 

 

17 Extensive coordination on Alexandria Union Station has been completed with the Virginia Department of Historic 

Resources (DHR), City of Alexandria, and Alexandria Archaeology, including discussions on the resource’s 

continued NRHP eligibility and Project effect (design, noise, vibration, and other potential impacts). Due to the 

existing and continued use of the station in its historic capacity, known information on historic noise and vibration 

at the station, and the minimal increase in noise and vibration from the current status, the DHR stated that the Project 

will have no adverse effect on this resource. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-35 

Mitigation measures are described below, and DRPT will identify vibration mitigation measures 

during the final design process should they be necessary. 

 Track and wheel maintenance. Maintenance procedures, such as regularly scheduled 

rail grinding, wheel truing programs, vehicle reconditioning programs, and 

implementation of flat-wheel detectors, minimize the vibration sources before they can 

impact vibration-sensitive receptors. 

 Location of special trackwork. Effects of special trackwork have not been evaluated 

because the locations are likely to change as Project design progresses. It is crucial that 

vibration effects on sensitive receptors are evaluated when locating special trackwork. 

 Vehicle suspension. Changing the vehicle suspension of passenger trains is normally an 

option when creating a new fleet of passenger trains. It is not feasible for freight train 

traffic, and it is unlikely that existing passenger trains will modify their suspension.

Construction-related vibration mitigation measures include BMPs such as equipment selection, 

finding alternatives to traditional impact pile driving, and limiting the hours of operation and 

locations where sources of construction-related vibration will occur. For the purposes of NEPA, 

the Preferred Alternative is based on a conceptual level of design (approximately a 10% design 

level), which precludes detailed identification of BMP applicability and use; therefore, DRPT will 

develop the details of these BMPs during the final design process as additional information 

becomes available. 

5.8 ENERGY 

5.8.1 Energy Consumption during Operation 

In the Draft EIS, DRPT evaluated the Build Alternatives in terms of their potential to realize 

savings in energy consumed by all major modes of transportation in the DC2RVA corridor 

compared to the No Build Alternative. Travel by rail is more energy-efficient than travel by 

automobile or air. 18 As a result, the increases in rail ridership associated with the Preferred 

Alternative will shift ridership from other less-efficient modes of transportation (automobile and 

air) to rail, and result in conservation of overall travel-related energy. The estimated change in 

annual energy consumption of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Table 5.8-1. There are no 

changes since the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.8-1: Change in Annual Energy Consumption Compared to the No Build –Year 2045 

Preferred Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

DC2RVA Preferred Alternative (Based on Richmond Alternative: 

6F - Full Service, Staples Mill Road/Main Street Stations) 478 -606 -24 -141 -293 

Draft EIS Impacts 451- 

513 

-553- 

-636 

-23- 

-26 

-140- 

-158 

-265- 

-307 

Notes: Values are shown in billions of BTUs (British Thermal Units, a traditional measure of heat). Results represent all passenger travel to, from,

and within the DC2RVA corridor. There are no changes to the values reported in this table since the Draft EIS. 

 

18 Based on energy consumption rates from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics (2016) website. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-36 

5.8.2 Energy Consumption during Construction 

During construction of the Preferred Alternative, additional energy will be expended beyond 

what would be used for normal rail operations. This additional energy will be consumed on a 

short-term basis by construction of the Project and by potential construction-related delays to 

existing rail service in the DC2RVA corridor; however, once the Project is complete and additional 

improved passenger rail service is provided, long-term energy savings will be realized. 

5.9 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 

5.9.1 Effects 

Methodology. In accordance with FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, DRPT 

identified major changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed 

environment as a result of this Project. The assessment considers the visual changes associated 

with the Preferred Alternative, such as track improvements, bridges, grade 

crossings/separations, roadway improvements, stations and maintenance facilities, and other 

permanent improvements associated with the Project. 

As described in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIS, the Project corridor was divided into a series of visual 

assessment units (VAU). Each visual assessment unit has its own visual character and visual 

quality. A High, Moderate, or Low Visual Impacts rating (as defined below) was assigned for 

each VAU. 

 Low Visual Impacts: The Project elements are consistent with the existing visual elements 

in the landscape, such as line, form, texture, and color, and the alternative blends with the 

existing visual character. Viewers are generally not very sensitive to these changes. 

 Moderate Visual Impacts: The Project elements are notably visible in the landscape but 

does not dominate or detract from the existing visual features. Viewers may notice these 

changes, but the changes are generally not seen as negative. 

 High Visual Impacts: The Project elements are obvious and dominate the landscape, 

detracting from the existing landscape characteristics or scenic qualities. Viewers are 

sensitive to these changes and may perceive them negatively. 

Visual effects within each VAU were described in detail in the Draft EIS Section 3.9, and included 

mapping and photos related to the visual environment. 

Visual Environs of Agricultural Lands in VAU 4-1 (Area 4, Central Virginia) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-37 

Results. Table 5.9-1 summarizes the visual impacts related to the Preferred Alternative. With the 

exception of the visual impact rating being reduced from moderate to low in Ashland, as the 

Preferred Alternative does not include improvements within town limits, the remainder of the 

ratings are the same as reported in the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.9-1: Visual Impact Rating by Visual Assessment Unit for the Preferred Alternative 

Visual Assessment Unit Visual Impact Rating 

Area 1: Arlington / Preferred Alternative 1B 

VAU 1-1 - CFP 110 to CFP 109.3 LOW 

Area 2: Northern Virginia / Preferred Alternative 2A 

VAU 2-1 - CFP 109.3 to CFP 100 LOW 

VAU 2-2 - CFP 100 to CFP 92 LOW 

VAU 2-3 - CFP 92 to CFP 85 MODERATE 

VAU 2-4 - CFP 85 to CFP 62 MODERATE 

Area 3: Fredericksburg / Preferred Alternative 3B 

VAU 3-1 - CFP 62 to CFP 48 HIGH 

Area 4: Central Virginia / Preferred Alternative 4A 

VAU 4-1 - CFP 48 to CFP 19 LOW 

Area 5: Ashland / Preferred Alternative 5A 

VAU 5-1 - CFP 19 to CFP 9 LOW

Draft EIS Impacts1 MODERATE 

Area 6: Richmond / Preferred Alternative 6F 

VAU 6-1 - CFP 9 to CFP 2 MODERATE 

VAU 6-2 - CFP 2 to SRN 0 HIGH 

VAU 6-3 - SRN 0 to A 11 (via S-Line) HIGH 

VAU 6-4 - CFP 2 to A 11 (via A-Line) LOW 

VAU 6-5 - SRN 0 to CA 87 LOW 

VAU 6-6 - SRN 0 to CA 80 LOW 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: LOW: 8 MODERATE: 3 HIGH: 3 

Note: 1. With the exception of the one rating in this Alternative Area, there are no other changes from what was reported in the Draft EIS along 

the length of the Preferred Alternative, so the range of impacts is not repeated in this table. VAU 3-2 (Bypass) and VAU 5-2 (Bypass) are not 

included in this table as the Preferred Alternative is not located within it. Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font. 

Three VAUs along the Preferred Alternative are identified as having a high visual impact: 

 In Area 3, the Preferred Alternative has a high impact rating for VAU 3-1 (CFP 62 to CFP 

48) through Fredericksburg. There will be a new raised station platform, parking deck, 

and station building. These facilities will generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of the existing facilities to minimize the visual impacts. The Preferred Alternative 

adds one additional track to the east and an additional bridge over the Rappahannock 

River. The new bridge will be constructed with one additional track and include width 

for two tracks. The new bridge will generally reflect the horizontal and vertical profiles of 

the existing bridge to minimize the visual impacts. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-38 

 In Area 6, the Preferred Alternative has a high visual impact rating in two VAUs: 

- In VAU 6-2 (CFP 2 to SRN 0) due to extensive trackwork coupled with sensitive visual 

resources 

- In VAU 6-3 (SRN 0 to A 11 via S-Line) due to the additional bridge across the James 

River 

Sensitive resources and the aesthetics of the surrounding area will be considered during the final 

design of these features. 

5.9.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Aesthetics and Visual 

Environment 

DRPT will continue to work with affected communities during the final design process on the 

nature and style of design for visually-significant structures, such as the major waterway 

crossings of the Occoquan River, Neabsco Creek, Rappahannock River, and James River. In the 

case of historic properties, additional coordination will be completed with consulting and other 

interested parties, as discussed in Section 6.7, Appendix E, and Appendix K of this Final EIS. 

DRPT anticipates that new bridges and buildings will generally reflect the horizontal and vertical 

profiles of existing bridges and building in their environs to minimize the visual impact. 

The full length of the Preferred Alternative constructs tracks adjacent to the existing tracks, which 

will minimize visual impacts. DRPT has determined that most of the Preferred Alternative will 

have low to moderate visual impact ratings. Visual impact mitigation strategies that DRPT will 

consider during the final design process include: 

 Incorporating landscaping to screen undesirable features 

 Using other screening techniques for undesirable features 

 Adding architectural design features in character with existing visual environs 

 Minimizing tree and shrub removal 

 Enhancing or creating visually pleasing designs 

Visual Environs of Triple Crossing in VAU 6-3 (Area 6, Richmond) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-39 

5.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

All practicable measures will be taken to avoid and minimize impacts with the implementation 

of the Preferred Alternative; however, due to the extent and linear nature of the DC2RVA Project, 

impacts to some biological habitats will be unavoidable. 

For this Final EIS, DRPT calculated estimated impacts to habitats and natural communities using 

a conservative assumption and categorized all impacts as permanent or temporary. 

The analyses summarized in this section assume the design changes associated with the Preferred 

Alternative, as presented in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS. Notable changes in impacts to biological 

resources as compared to the impacts reported in the Draft EIS for the Build Alternatives are 

identified within the individual subsections below. 

5.10.1 Habitat and Natural Communities 

The Preferred Alternative will affect terrestrial natural communities and associated wildlife 

habitat through conversion of existing land coverage to railroad or roadway structures and 

maintained right-of-way. 

As shown in Table 5.10-1, depending on the combination of Build Alternatives in the Draft EIS, 

DRPT estimated that between 132 and 453 acres of habitat would be permanently converted by 

the proposed improvements. The Preferred Alternative presented in this Final EIS will convert 

approximately 191 acres, which is within the approximate mid-range reported in the Draft EIS. 

The increased impact to urban/developed lands in Alternative Area 2 can be attributed to the 

Potomac Yard area. In the Draft EIS, it was identified as CSXT right-of-way and was excluded 

from the calculations; however, since then it has been determined that the property is not owned 

by CSXT but rather by the Potomac Yards Development, and therefore is now included as an 

impact. Otherwise, there are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in 

response to public and agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the remainder of the 

habitat and natural communities; rather, narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases 

in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length 

of the 123-mile corridor compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. 

Station upgrades will occur in urban areas. Although the LOD are wider in these locations than 

the rest of the Project corridor, only small additional amounts of urban tree canopy will be 

affected. The largest amounts of habitat conversion reported in the Draft EIS were associated with 

the bypass alignments considered in Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Area 5 (Ashland). Neither 

bypass alternative is part of the Preferred Alternative. 

Both permanent (converted to transportation use by the Project) and temporary (able to 

renaturalize after construction completion) impacts to general habitat types within the LOD of 

the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 5.10-1. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-40 

Table 5.10-1: Habitat Impacts (acres) of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 

Area 

Preferred Alternative Agriculture (pasture/row crop/ grassland) Aqueous Habitat (wetlands/streams/ open water) Upland Forest Crosses Internal Forest Habitat1Shrub Area/Old Field Riparian/Bottomland Forest/PFO Urban/Developed Lands Total 

Area 1: 

Arlington 1B P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 No P: 0 T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.0 

T: 0.6 

P: 0.0 

T: 0.6 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 No P: 0 T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.0-1.5 

T: 0.6-0.9 

P: 0.0-1.5 

T: 0.6-0.9 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

2A P: 2.3

T: 1.7

P: 1.1 

T: 2.1

P: 13.1 

T: 6.4 No P: 0.2 T: 0.1 

P: 1.5

T: 1.0

P: 39.9

T: 39.0

P: 58.1

T: 50.3

Draft EIS Impacts P: 2.1 

T: 1.6 

P: 1.1 

T: 2.0 

P: 15.0 

T: 7.2 No P: 0.2 T: 0.1 

P: 1.3 

T: 0.9 

P: 13.2 

T: 11.8 

P: 32.9 

T: 23.6 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 3B P: 1.8T: 1.4 

P: 1.7

T: 0.9 

P: 1.4

T: 3.5 No P: 0 T: 0 

P: 0.2

T: 1.6

P: 10.1

T: 5.5

P: 15.2

T: 12.9

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.1-32.7 

T: 1.1-8.2 

P: 0.1-8.5 

T: 0.4-3.1 

P; 0.4-66.9 

T: 3.2-17.4 

Yes 

and 

No 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.1-

13.2 

T: 1.4-4.0 

P: 1.5-19.3 

T: 3.4-5.4 

P: 2.2-140.6 

T: 9.5-38.1 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 4A P: 0.8

T: 7.4 

P: 0.3 

T: 4.9

P: 0.6

T: 8.9 No P: 0.0T: 0.8

P: 0.0

T: 9.0

P: 0.6

T: 7.5

P: 2.3

T: 38.5

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.9 

T: 7.4 

P: 0.3 

T: 5.1 

P: 0.5 

T:10.1 No P: 0.1 T: 1.0 

P: 0.1 

T: 9.4 

P: 0.7 

T: 7.6 

P: 2.6 

T: 40.6 

Area 5: 

Ashland 5A P: 1.8

T: 0.5 

P: 0.0 

T: 0.2 

P: 2.6

T: 1.5 No P: 0.0 T: 0.2 

P: 0.6

T: 0.7

P: 25.3

T: 8.5

P: 30.3

T: 11.6

Draft EIS Impacts P: 1.2-29.3 

T: 0.5-5.7 

P: 0-2.3 

T: 0.2-0.3 

P: 2.4-64.0 

T: 4.7-20.7 No P: 0-11.0 T: 0.2-2.4 

P: 0.2-4.7 

T: 0.6-0.9 

P: 16.4-36.5 

T: 6.7-9.1 

P: 20.2-147.8 

T: 12.9-38.9 

Area 6: 

Richmond 6F P: 0.0 T: 0.1

P: 0.6

T: 1.1

P: 4.9 

T: 2.1 No P: 0.1 T: 0.0 

P: 3.0

T: 0.6 

P: 74.5

T: 19.4

P: 85.4

T: 23.4

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0-0.7 

T: 0-0.7 

P: 3.7-6.7 

T: 2.7-3.5 No P: 0 T: 0 

P: 1.5-2.5 

T: 0.6-0.7 

P: 63.9-122.1 

T: 17.6-57.1 

P: 73.6-128.0 

T: 22.2-61.4 

Total for the Preferred 

Alternative: 

P: 6.7 

T: 11.1 

P:3.7 

T: 9.2 

P: 22.6 

T: 22.4 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.3 

T: 1.1 

P: 5.3 

T: 12.9 

P: 150.4 

T: 80.5 

P: 191.3 

T: 137.3 

Note: 1. Areas of internal forest that are a minimum of 300 feet from the edge of the forested area. 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-41 

5.10.1.1 Conservation Areas 

Due to the linear nature of the Project and the location of the existing tracks through rural areas, 

DRPT determined some of the habitat areas adjacent to the DC2RVA corridor worthy of 

conservation for a variety of qualities. Unavoidable impacts to these areas are outlined in Table 

5.10-2. As previously mentioned, impacts listed are the total area of predicted temporary and 

permanent impacts within the LOD of the Preferred Alternative. There are no impacts to County 

and Private Wildlife Lands in the Preferred Alternative, the impacts to State Wildlife Lands have 

not changed since the Draft EIS, and Priority Conservation Areas have increased slightly in 

several locations due to refinements of the LOD for the Preferred Alternative in areas of wildlife 

corridors, as described further below. The values fall within the range of impacts reported in the 

Draft EIS for the various Build Alternatives. A more detailed discussion of conservation area 

impacts can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M of the Draft EIS). 

State Wildlife Lands 

DRPT anticipates that the Preferred Alternative in the Central Virginia area (Alternative 4A) will 

result in unavoidable temporary impacts to Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area. This resource 

is located to the west of the CSXT railroad corridor from mileposts CFP 39 and 42. The Preferred 

Alternative includes the construction of a third mainline track through this area on the west side of the 

CSXT mainline, but within the existing railroad right-of-way. Consistent with the findings presented in 

the Draft EIS, approximately 2.54 acres adjacent to existing railroad right-of-way will be disturbed 

for construction and then replanted and encouraged to renaturalize. Coordination with the 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) will be necessary. 

County Wildlife Lands 

The Pohick Seeps Conservation Area crosses the CSXT railroad corridor with Pohick Creek near 

milepost CFP 93 in Lorton, VA. As part of a separate project and included in the No Build 

Alternative, DRPT and VRE plan to construct a third mainline track through this area (Franconia 

to Occoquan) on the east side of the CSXT mainline, but within the existing right-of-way. DRPT 

therefore anticipates that there are no permanent or temporary impacts to Pohick Seeps 

Conservation Area as part of the Preferred Alternative, which is no change to impacts estimated 

for Build Alternative 2A as presented in the Draft EIS.19

Priority Conservation Areas including Wildlife Corridors 

The 123-mile DC2RVA rail corridor traverses several conservation areas and wildlife corridors. 

These have developed over time in the presence of the railroad infrastructure. Details about 

unavoidable impacts to Priority Conservation Areas for the Build Alternatives evaluated in the 

Draft EIS were described in the Natural Resources Technical Report (Appendix M of the Draft 

EIS). Priority Conservation Areas, as defined by Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries, are open spaces that provide agricultural, natural resource, scenic, recreational, and/or 

ecological values and ecosystem functions. As noted in the technical report, temporary impacts 

may end up becoming permanent depending on the type of impact and the potential to disrupt 

sensitive resources that may not have the ability to recover (e.g., clearing and grubbing of an area 

with a rare plant community). 

 

19 The original Draft EIS documented 0.55 acres of temporary impact to Pohick Seeps Conservation Area; however, 

DRPT determined that Build Alternative 2A would not result in any permanent or temporary impacts to this resource 

and corrected the impact to zero acres, as shown in the errata for the Draft EIS (Appendix A of this Final EIS). 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-42 

Table 5.10-2 presents the potential temporary and permanent impacts to conservation areas 

associated with the Preferred Alternative. Impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative are 

considerably less than other Draft EIS Build Alternatives that included the bypass alignments in 

Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Area 5 (Ashland). However, there have been increases in impacts to 

priority conservations areas including wildlife corridors since the Draft EIS, notably in Area 5 as 

the Preferred Alternative requires the replacement of the existing rail overpass at Washington 

Highway (Route 1) north of Ashland, which was not part of any of the original Build Alternatives. 

Otherwise, there are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to 

public and agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the remainder of the priority 

conservation areas; rather, narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the 

permanent and temporary LOD resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 

123-mile corridor compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.10-2: Conservation Area Impacts (acres) of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

USFWS 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuges 

State 

Wildlife 

Lands 

County 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Private 

Wildlife 

Lands 

Priority 

Conservation 

Areas, 

including 

Wildlife 

Corridors 

Area 1: Arlington 1B P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0

P: 0 

T: 0

P: 0 

T: 0

P: 0 

T: 0

P: 0 

T: 0

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.01

T: 0.81 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.00 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.01 

T: 0.78

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.11

T: 1.75

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0-22.31 

T: 0-5.69 

P: 0.03-83.36 

T: 1.52-18.63 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 2.54 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 2.52

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 2.54 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 2.48 

Area 5: Ashland 5A P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 5.45 

T: 1.27 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

Area 6: Richmond 6F P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.15 

T: 0.05 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 2.54 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 5.72 

T: 6.40 

Source: VDOT-CEDAR, 2016. 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-43 

Potential impacts to existing wildlife corridors, many of which terminate at one side or the other 

of the 100-year old railbed, will result from widening the existing rail corridor. In some areas, 

wildlife is able to travel under bridges that span waterways and through culverts. Wildlife 

passage across (through) the railbed can potentially be improved with proposed rail 

improvements by the Project, including increased clearances at bridges and more and/or larger 

culverts. EPA suggested inclusion of natural bottom culverts as an example of a mitigation 

measure to improve wildlife passage, which will be determined during final design. 

Countersinking of culvert extensions will be designed in accordance with specifications 

contained in USACE’s nationwide permit. Larger animals should continue to be able to 

successfully cross existing tracks since no fencing or other additional barriers are proposed along 

the corridor by the Project; however, an increased track area and increased and faster train traffic 

could result in a decreased ability for wildlife crossing. Although DRPT does not anticipate any 

substantial interruption to wildlife movements under the Preferred Alternative, DRPT will 

continue to consider special design features to improve wildlife corridors during final design. 

5.10.1.2 Invasive Species 

There is potential for the Preferred Alternative to inadvertently introduce additional invasive 

species into the corridor during construction; however, with implementation of the mitigation 

measures identified in Section 5.10.1.4, including prompt seeding of disturbed areas with seeds 

that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law and implementation of appropriate 

BMPs, DRPT does not anticipate temporary and/or permanent impacts from invasive species. 

Biological Habitat adjacent to the DC2RVA Corridor (Area 2, Northern Virginia) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-44 

5.10.1.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Due to the need to expand existing bridge crossings of major waterways where beds of 

submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) exists, the Preferred Alternative will have unavoidable 

impacts on these plant communities. Permanent impacts will include bed or bottom areas 

converted for the use of piers or infrastructure, while temporary impacts will include disturbed 

areas that regain the ability to support SAV again after construction completion. 

Table 5.10-3 presents the estimated acres of temporary and permanent impacts to SAV for the 

Preferred Alternative; updated locations of SAV in relation to the Preferred Alternative LOD are 

shown in Appendix M of this Final EIS. In general, permanent impacts to SAV have minimally 

decreased (less than 1 percent change) and temporary impacts have minimally increased (less 

than 3 percent change) since the Draft EIS in Area 2 only. 

DRPT anticipates permanent impacts to SAV to only occur with Alternative 2A (Northern 

Virginia) in the Preferred Alternative. No SAV beds occur in the DC2RVA corridor south of Aquia 

Creek, and the proposed improvements included with Alternative 1B (Arlington) as part of the 

Preferred Alternative will only require work along the fringe of waters containing SAV beds, 

resulting in minimal temporary impacts. 

During final design, DRPT will submit a request to remove SAV from, or plant SAV on, stateadministered benthic surfaces as part of a JPA to the VMRC. In determining whether to grant 

approval for SAV removal or planting, VMRC shall be guided by §28.2-1205 of the Code of 

Virginia and the SAV Transplantation Guidelines, or any new and improved methodologies as 

approved by VMRC. 

Table 5.10-3: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Impacts (acres) of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative Existing Historic Total 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.01 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.01 

Draft EIS Impacts

P: 0.00 

T: 0.01-0.03 

P: 0 

T: 0 

P: 0.00 

T: 0.01-0.03 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 

P: 1.31

T: 1.92

P: 0.37 

T: 0.36

P: 1.68

T: 2.28

Draft EIS Impacts 

P: 1.33 

T: 1.91 

P: 0.37 

T: 0.35 

P: 1.70 

T: 2.26 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 

P: 1.31 

T: 1.93 

P: 0.37 

T: 0.36 

P: 1.68 

T: 2.29 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. However, there is no SAV south of Aquia Creek; therefore, there are no impacts listed for the Preferred Alternative in Areas 3, 4, 

5, and 6. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-45 

5.10.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Habitat and Natural 

Communities 

Minimization measures to protect habitat and natural communities could involve modifications 

to future designs such as: 

 Minor alignment shifts to avoid or minimize impacts 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing, in particular in riparian areas 

 Development of a mitigation plan that includes landscaping and planting detail for onsite 

replacement of any trees removed 

 Native revegetation, including native shrub plantings and native reseeding of disturbed 

areas, to prevent the spread of invasive species and additional erosion during storm 

events due to exposed soil 

 Using bridges or open/natural bottom culverts in streams to minimize the disruption of 

natural stream bottoms 

Invasive Species 

To avoid the introduction of new invasive species and prevent the spread of existing populations, 

appropriate BMPs will be followed, including washing machinery before it enters the area to 

prevent the spread of seeds and minimizing ground disturbance. Prompt seeding of disturbed 

areas with native seeds or seeds that are tested in accordance with the Virginia Seed Law to ensure 

that seed mixes are free of noxious species will decrease the ability for invasive species to take 

root and outcompete native species. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Mitigation for areas of temporary disturbance to SAV will be coordinated with the VMRC. The 

following SAV area protection procedures are suggested by the Chesapeake Bay Program: 

 Protect existing, historic, and potential SAV areas from physical disruption 

 Avoid or minimize dredging within SAV areas 

 Avoid nearby construction activities that create additional turbidity 

 Avoid reduction in Secchi depths (water clarity) compared to predisturbance levels 

 Establish an undisturbed buffer around SAV beds 

 If construction must occur near or in beds, avoid activities during the growing season 

(April–October for most species) 

 Preserve natural shorelines through stabilization with marsh plantings 

Further efforts to avoid and/or minimize disturbance and removal of SAV will be made during 

final design as part of obtaining the VMRC permit. Erosion and sediment control measures will 

minimize potential impacts to water quality within adjacent SAV areas. Construction within or 

adjacent to SAV areas will avoid the prescribed Time-of-Year growing season restrictions for 

representative plant species to the extent practicable, as required by the VMRC permit. Mitigation 

for SAV loss will be developed in coordination with VMRC and may include enhancement 

(increase aerial coverage of SAV beds or improvement in habitat quality) or restoration (return 

SAV to unvegetated bottom that historically supported SAV) of SAV beds. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-46 

5.10.2 Wildlife 

Impacts to migratory birds and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat are quantified in the 

sections below. Construction activities associated with the Preferred Alternative may result in the 

disturbance of local wildlife species such as birds, reptiles and amphibians, deer, foxes, squirrels, 

rabbits, raccoons, groundhogs, and other common mammals. Mobile species, such as adult birds, 

mammals, and some reptiles, may be displaced, and loss of less mobile animals may also result 

from construction. These species would return and repopulate the area after construction and the 

process of regrowth of plants and brush offers habitat favorable to the wildlife.20 

5.10.2.1 Migratory Birds 

The migratory birds of primary concern in the Project area are migratory songbirds, commonly 

referred to as Neotropical migrants. Short-term adverse impacts from construction noise and 

disturbance may mask territorial vocalizations of birds and breeding calls, and they may 

temporarily disturb breeding pairs. Important stopover habitat for migratory songbirds includes 

forested areas with dense undergrowth that provides cover from predators. Migratory birds may 

be affected through habitat degradation and loss associated with this Project. Most of the lost 

habitat associated with this Project will be directly adjacent to the existing rail line and consists 

of lower quality edge habitat already impacted by local activities. Nearby conservation areas, 

such as federal, state, and private wildlife lands, are more likely to provide optimal habitat for 

these species. 

5.10.2.2 Aquatic and Marine Life 

Due to the number and type of water crossings involved, direct disturbance of aquatic 

communities will be unavoidable. In-stream work and use of wetland areas will result in the 

elimination of some aqueous habitat and species that may be unable to relocate. 

Fisheries, Anadromous Fish, and Trout Waters 

Permanent and temporary impacts to waters with reported anadromous fish movements for the 

Preferred Alternative are detailed in Table 5.10-4. Anticipated impacts to waters containing 

anadromous fish movements are dependent on the size of the water body and the type of crossing 

required; anadromous fish waters were shown in Figure 3-8 of Appendix M of the Draft EIS. 

Depending on the combination of Build Alternatives, DRPT estimated in the Draft EIS that there 

would be between 3.26 and 4.76 acres21 of permanent impacts to the anadromous fish waters. The 

Preferred Alternative will permanently impact 4.51 acres of surface area of anadromous fish 

waters (i.e., shadow effect), with slightly higher or lower impacts within individual waters based 

on refinements to the LOD since the Draft EIS. However, there are no noteworthy changes to the 

conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency comments since the Draft EIS that 

modified these impacts; rather, narrow changes in the width or length of bridge structures 

resulted in minor increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD. 

 

20 Virginia Wildlife, November/December 2017, “Nature’s Way,” pages 25, 28., VDGIF. 

21 The Draft EIS table originally reported anticipated impacts in linear feet, and has been updated to reflect anticipated 

impacts in acreage to better account for both physical impediments as well as shadowing effects which could 

potentially interrupt anadromous/migratory movements. Refer to the errata table for the Draft EIS (Appendix A of 

this Final EIS). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-47 

Table 5.10-4: Impacts to Anadromous Fish Use Waters of the Preferred Alternative

Water 

Preferred 

Alternative Confirmed Species 

Anticipated Impacts (Acres) 

Permanent Temporary 

Four Mile Run 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.03 T: 0.29 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.03 T: 0.29 

Occoquan River 2A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.56 T: 0.66 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.54 T: 0.66 

Neabsco Creek 2A Striped Bass P: 0.54 T: 0.74

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.55 T: 0.70 

Powells Creek 2A Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.75 T: 0.96

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.75 T: 0.97 

Aquia Creek 2A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.96 T: 1.24 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 1.03 T: 1.23 

Claiborne Run 3B Potential anadromous fish use waters P: 0.32 T: 0.08 

Draft EIS Impacts (in this Water) P: 0.06 – 0.28 T: 0.03 – 0.08 

Hazel Run 3B Alewife, Blueback Herring P: 0.02 T: 0.01 

New since Draft EIS -- -- 

Rappahannock 

River 3B Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.42 T: 0.47 

Draft EIS Impacts (in this Water) P: 0 – 0.48 T: 0 – 1.09 

Mattaponi River 4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Striped 

Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.06 T: 0.30

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.11 T: 0.26 

North Anna 

River 4A American Shad, Blueback Herring, Hickory 

Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.04 T: 0.08

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.08 T: 0.04

Little River 4A Yellow Perch P: 0.04 T: 0.02 

Draft EIS Impacts P: 0.04 T: 0.02 

South Anna River 5A Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass P: 0.03 T: 0.06

Draft EIS Impacts (in this Water) P: 0.07 T: 0.03 

James River 6F Alewife, American Shad, Blueback Herring, 

Hickory Shad, Striped Bass, Yellow Perch P: 0.74 T: 1.74 

Draft EIS Impacts (in this Water) P: 0 – 0.80 T: 0 – 1.31 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: P: 4.51 T: 6.65 

P = Permanent Impact, T=Temporary Impact. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-48 

5.10.2.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Wildlife 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

DRPT will evaluate further minimization of impacts to wildlife during the final design process 

by decreasing LOD in habitat areas. This will include considering conservative use of staging 

areas and limiting access roads to reduce habitat loss. Wildlife passage can be facilitated through 

wildlife crossings. Wildlife crossings are man-made structures that allow animals to safely cross 

barriers. These crossings allow the connection or reconnection between habitats mitigating the 

impacts of habitat fragmentation, allow greater access to resources, and avoid wildlife/train 

collisions. DRPT will evaluate providing oversized culverts and extended bridges in areas where 

habitat fragmentation would occur. If pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of 

three inches for pipes under 24 inches and a minimum of six inches for pipes 24 inches or greater 

to allow natural bottoms to be created in the pipes. 

Migratory Birds 

General time of year (TOY) restrictions on construction activities to avoid impacts on migratory 

and resident songbirds in Virginia are from mid-March through mid-August and for migrant 

passerines and non-passerines from the beginning of May through the end of July. To the 

maximum extent practicable, DRPT will avoid grading and construction during the breeding 

season. If construction is necessary during the breeding season, DRPT will conduct nest surveys, 

if necessary, and will avoid activities within 100 feet of active nests, where possible. DRPT will 

not plant food sources within the right-of-way, which will make the right-of-way less attractive 

to birds and decrease the likelihood of collisions with trains. 

Aquatic and Marine Life 

DRPT will work with VDGIF, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) during the design process to develop specific measures for 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to aquatic wildlife. DRPT will implement 

BMPs, including use of silt curtains and limiting overflow from dredging equipment, which will 

minimize increases in turbidity of waters downstream of in-water activities. Erosion and 

sediment control measures will minimize potential impacts to water quality during construction. 

Bottomless culverts and single-span bridges will be considered at smaller streams to maintain 

fish passage and channel morphology and to avoid instream work to the extent practicable. If 

pipes are used, they should be countersunk a minimum of three inches for pipes under 24 inches 

and a minimum of six inches for pipes 24 inches or greater. Preconstruction sediment quality 

assessments and water quality monitoring during construction will be considered to address 

potential resuspension of contaminants and nutrients into overlying waters. 

TOY restrictions will be considered to avoid or minimize impacts on fish during early life stages. 

VDGIF typically recommends restrictions on all in-stream work within Anadromous Fish Use 

Areas and their tributaries between February 15 and June 30. Exact restrictions will vary 

depending on the species, type of work, and location and will be developed with VDGIF and 

NMFS. Stormwater management measures, including detention basins, vegetative controls, and 

other measures, will be implemented to minimize water quality impacts, if necessary. These 

measures will reduce or detain discharge volumes and remove pollutants, thus avoiding 

substantial further degradation of impaired water bodies in and downstream of the Project 

corridor. With implementation of these BMPs, DRPT anticipates the Preferred Alternative will 

not adversely affect downstream species. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-49 

5.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential impacts to federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species could occur for the 

Preferred Alternative where planned improvements affect areas where species or their habitat 

may be found. 

Based on updated research through regulatory agency online databases, agency input regarding 

threatened and endangered species that may be present along the Project corridor, and field surveys 

of potentially suitable habitat, DRPT determined that the Preferred Alternative could potentially 

impact eight federally endangered and/or threatened species, one proposed federally threatened 

species, and eight state-listed endangered and/or threatened species, as shown in Tables 5.10-5 

and 5.10-6, respectively. One federally endangered and one proposed federally threatened 

species have been added since the preparation of the Draft EIS: the rusty patched bumble bee 

(Bombus affinis) was listed as endangered on January 11, 2017, and the yellow lance (Elliptio 

lanceolata) was proposed for listing as threatened on April 5, 2017. 

Potential impacts depend on the species and range, including, but not limited to, elimination of 

the species from the area, removal or alteration of habitat, elimination of access to important life 

stage areas, disruption of breeding season, or disturbance resulting in a species leaving the area. 

Impacts to threatened and endangered species habitats are expected to be minimal as the 

Preferred Alternative includes mostly urban or already disturbed, although in some cases 

naturalized, areas adjacent to the existing tracks. 

Coordination with USFWS, VDGIF, and NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA),22 as amended, for potential impacts to federally listed species will be conducted 

if required during final design and permitting. Preliminary coordination with USFWS has 

consisted of obtaining the current list of federally listed threatened and endangered species that 

could potentially be found in the Project corridor. DRPT anticipates that future coordination will 

cover the need for additional field surveys and discussion regarding the potential Project effects. 

Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary (Area 2, Northern Virginia) 

 

22 16 USC §1531 et seq. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-50 

Table 5.10-5: Potential Preferred Alternative Effect on Federally Listed Species 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status1 Conclusion Notes 

Alternative 1B: Add Two Main Tracks on the West 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the Roaches Run Waterfowl Sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for 

sensitive joint-vetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted. 

Alternative 2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

Known or likely to occur within the 

Lower Aquia Creek subwatershed 

(VDGIF, 2018). 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum)

FE Potential habitat does not appear 

to be present, and no suitable 

habitat was identified during field 

surveys; not likely to adversely 

affect. 

Known or likely to occur only in 

Stafford County (USFWS-ECOS, 2018) 

in the Lower Potomac (02070011) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2016). 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

No known occurrences in Fairfax, 

Prince William, or Stafford Counties 

(USFWS-ECOS, 2018). 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found 

throughout Virginia. 

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) 

FE Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

Historically documented in Annandale, 

within 2.0 miles of the Project area 

(VDCR, 2017). Within Virginia, not 

currently known outside of Bath, 

Clarke, Fauquier, and Loudoun 

Counties (USFWS-ECOS, 2018). 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys. 

There are historic records of this 

species occurring in the Potomac 

River-Tank Creek and Lower Aquia 

Creek-Austin Run subwatersheds 

(VDCR, 2018), which are crossed by 

this area. 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys. 

There are historic records of this 

species occurring in the Accotink 

Creek-Gunston Cove and Accokeek 

Creek subwatersheds (VDCR, 2018), 

which are crossed by this area. 

Yellow Lance 

(Elliptio lanceolata) 

FT Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project area. 

Not listed as occurring within the 

watersheds crossed by this area 

(USFWS, 2017). 

Alternative 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through City 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

Existing populations in the Lower 

Rappahannock (02080104) watershed 

(NatureServe, 2016). 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum)

FE Species not known to be present, 

and no suitable habitat was 

identified during field surveys; not 

likely to adversely affect. 

Not listed as occurring in the 

watershed crossed by this area 

(NatureServe, 2016). 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-51 

Table 5.10-5: Potential Preferred Alternative Effect on Federally Listed Species 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status1 Conclusion Notes 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline 

County (USFWS-ECOS, 2018). 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found 

throughout Virginia. 

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) 

FE Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

In Virginia, not currently known 

outside of Bath, Clarke, Fauquier, and 

Loudoun Counties (USFWS-ECOS, 

2018). 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

FT Habitat present, and no current 

survey conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys. 

There are historic records of this 

species within the Massaponax Creek 

subwatershed (VDCR, 2018). 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

There are historic records of this 

species in the Poni River subwatershed 

(VDCR, 2018), which is crossed by this 

area. 

Yellow Lance 

(Elliptio lanceolata) 

FT Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

This species has not been observed 

within the watersheds crossed by this 

area in over 22 years (USFWS, 2017). 

Alternative 4A: Add a Third Main Track 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Species present; may affect. Existing populations in the Mattaponi 

(02080105) and Pamunkey (02080106) 

watersheds (NatureServe, 2016); Po 

River, upstream of this Project, listed by 

VDGIF as endangered waters for the 

dwarf wedgemussel; this species is 

known or likely to occur within the Poni 

River subwatershed (VDGIF, 2018) and 

within the South Anna River–Cedar 

Creek subwatershed (VDGIF, 2018 and 

VDCR, 2018). 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis)

FE Species potentially present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

Known or likely to occur in Caroline 

County (USFWS-ECOS, 2018). 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential bat habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found 

throughout Virginia. 

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) 

FE Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

In Virginia, not currently known 

outside Bath, Clarke, Fauquier, and 

Loudoun Counties (USFWS-ECOS, 

2018). 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

FT Potential habitat present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

There are historic records of this 

species occurring in the Poni River, 

Campbell Creek-Mattaponi River, and 

Polecat Creek subwatersheds (VDCR, 

2018) crossed by this alternative area. 

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

5-52 

Table 5.10-5: Potential Preferred Alternative Effect on Federally Listed Species 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status1 Conclusion Notes 

Yellow Lance 

(Elliptio lanceolata) 

FT Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

This species has not been observed 

within the watersheds crossed by this 

area in over 13 years (USFWS, 2017). 

Alternatives 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements) 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon)

FE Species present; may affect. South Anna River has been listed by 

VDGIF as endangered waters for the 

dwarf wedgemussel; this species is 

known or likely to occur within the 

South Anna River–Cedar Creek 

subwatershed (VDGIF, 2018 and 

VDCR, 2018). 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Potential bat habitat present, and 

no current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

Bat habitat was noted during field 

surveys in Carter Park; it is generally 

agreed by the regulatory agencies that 

this species can be found throughout 

Virginia. 

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) 

FE Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

Within Virginia, not currently known 

outside of Bath, Clarke, Fauquier, and 

Loudoun Counties (USFWS-ECOS, 

2018) 

Yellow Lance 

(Elliptio lanceolata) 

FT Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

This species has not been observed 

within the watersheds crossed by this 

area in over 22 years (USFWS, 2017). 

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

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis)

FT Species potentially present, and no 

current survey conducted; may 

affect. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found 

throughout Virginia. 

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee 

(Bombus affinis) 

FE Species unlikely to be present 

within the Project corridor. 

Within Virginia, not currently known 

outside of Bath, Clarke, Fauquier, and 

Loudoun Counties (USFWS-ECOS, 

2018). 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

FT Species unlikely to be present in 

the Project corridor. 

It is generally agreed by the regulatory 

agencies that this species can be found 

throughout Virginia, but no habitat in in 

the Richmond area will be affected. 

Notes: 1. FE – Federal Endangered; FT – Federal Threatened 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-53 

Table 5.10-6: Potential Preferred Alternative Effect on State Listed Species 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status1 Conclusion Notes 

Alternative 1B: Add Two Main Tracks on the West 

No species indicated; however, the tidal wetland in the waterfowl sanctuary may provide suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch and is recommended for future surveys, if impacted. 

Alternative 2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

ST Species potentially present; 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

This species has been recorded in Huntly Meadows Park 

(CEDAR-VDGIF); the Project is separated from Huntly 

Meadows Park by more than 1.5 miles of urban development. 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

There are historic records of this species occurring in the 

Potomac River-Tank Creek and Lower Aquia Creek-Austin 

Run subwatersheds (VDCR, 2018), crossed by this area. Four 

wetlands recommended for further sensitive joint-vetch 

survey. 

Small Whorled 

Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides)

SE Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys. There are historic 

records of this species occurring in the Accotink CreekGunston Cove and Accokeek Creek subwatersheds (VDCR, 

2018), which is crossed by this area. 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta)

ST Species potentially present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Known or likely to occur in the Cameron Run, Accotink 

Creek-Gunston Cove, Pohick Creek, Occoquan Bay-Potomac 

River, Lower Occoquan River-Belmont Bay, and Neabsco 

Creek subwatersheds (VDGIF, 2018 and VDCR, 2018). 

Alternative 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through City 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis)

ST Species present; may 

affect; coordination with 

VDGIF required. 

The Rappahannock River has been listed by VDGIF as 

endangered waters for the green floater; coordination with 

VDGIF is required. 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Poni River subwatershed (VDCR, 2018) in 

Caroline County (USFWS-ECOS, 2018 and NatureServe, 

2016) and the Lower Rappahannock (02080104) and 

Mattaponi (02080105) watersheds (NatureServe, 2016). 

Small Whorled 

Pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

SE Habitat present, and no 

current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

Habitat recorded during field surveys. There are historic 

records of this species within the Massaponax Creek 

subwatershed (VDCR, 2018). 

Alternative 4A: Add a Third Main Track 

New Jersey Rush 

(Juncus caesariensis)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

There are historic records of the potential of this species 

occurring in the Poni River and Campbell Creek-Mattaponi 

River, Reedy Creek, and Polecat Creek subwatersheds 

(VDCR, 2018) in Caroline County (USFWS-ECOS, 2018 

and NatureServe, 2016) within the Mattaponi (02080105) 

watershed and the Lower Rappahannock (02080104) 

watershed (NatureServe, 2016). 

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

There are historic records of this species occurring in the 

Poni River, Campbell Creek-Mattaponi River, and Polecat 

Creek subwatersheds (VDCR, 2018) crossed by this 

alternative area. 

Alternatives 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements) 

No species indicated. 

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

5-54 

Table 5.10-6: Potential Preferred Alternative Effect on State Listed Species 

Species/ 

Resource Name Status1 Conclusion Notes 

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

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa)

ST Potential habitat present, 

and no current survey 

conducted; may affect. 

This species is known or likely to occur in the Falling Creek 

(VDCR, 2018 and VDGIF, 2018) and Proctors Creek-James 

River (VDGIF, 2018) subwatersheds in Chesterfield County 

(NatureServe, 2016). 

Peregrine Falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

ST Species present; may 

affect; coordination with 

VDGIF required. 

Several active nests were recorded in 2009 within three miles 

of this alternative area near River Front Plaza in Richmond. 

Sensitive Joint-vetch 

(Aeschynome virginica)

ST Species unlikely to be 

present in the Project 

corridor. 

It is generally agreed by the different regulatory agencies that 

this species can be found throughout Virginia, but no habitat 

in in the Richmond area will be affected. 

Notes: 1. SE – State Endangered; ST – State Threatened 

5.10.3.1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act23

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed under Tier II of the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 

for “Very High Conservation Need.” While the bald eagle is no longer federally-listed as 

threatened, it is still protected under some laws, including the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Lacey Act. 

Table 5.10-7 lists bald eagle nests that will have their buffer zones encroached on by the 

permanent LOD of the Preferred Alternative. Since the publication of the Draft EIS, there are 

fewer nests within all buffer zones in Alternative Area 2 (Northern Virginia). Updated mapping 

of these locations in relation to the Preferred Alternative LOD is provided in Appendix M of this 

Final EIS. There are no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to 

public and agency comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to these buffer zones; 

rather, narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary 

LOD resulted in incremental changes in impacts within the corridor in the Northern Virginia area 

compared to those reported in the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.10-7: Number of Bald Eagle Nests within Buffer Zones of the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Between 0.5 mile and 1 mile 

in open areas1

Within 660 

feet2

Within 330 

feet3

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 12 1 1

Draft EIS Impacts 18 8 4 

Source: CCB, 2016. 

Notes: 1. For projects that have blasting or other loud noise components. 

2. Clearing, external construction, and landscaping between 330 and 660 feet should be done outside breeding season. 3. 330 feet, or as close as 

existing tolerated activity of similar scope. 

This table reports the resource for the entire Preferred Alternative. There are no bald eagle nests within the buffer zones in Alternative Areas 

1, 3, 4, 5, or 6, so they are not reported in this table. Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font.

 

23 16 U.S.C. § 668 et seq. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-55 

5.10.3.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation – Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

DRPT will coordinate with USFWS, EPA, VDGIF, Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation (VDCR), and other regulatory agencies regarding rare, threatened, and endangered 

species to ensure impacts are avoided to the extent practicable through the final design process 

and appropriate mitigation is developed where impacts are unavoidable. DRPT will reduce the 

likelihood of adverse effects through use of these measures: 

 Further minimizing the LOD through final design 

 Following appropriate BMPs for sediment and erosion control during construction 

 Using infiltration stormwater management 

 Minimizing clearing and grubbing 

 Prompt reseeding of disturbed areas with native vegetation 

 TOY restrictions, which are summarized in Table 5.10-8 

Table 5.10-8: Listed Time of Year Restrictions for Threatened and Endangered Species with 

Potential to Occur in the DC2RVA Corridor 

Species Status1 Recommended Time-of-Year Restrictions 

Dwarf Wedgemussel 

(Alasmidonta heterodon) 

FE March 15–May 31; August 15–October 15 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

FE The standard TOY restrictions are June 1–July 31 for the “pup season,” April 

15–September 15 outside of the 5.5-mile-radius buffer for hibernacula, and 

April 1–November 15 within a hibernaculum buffer 

Northern Long-eared Bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis) 

FT Compliance with the USFWS ESA 4(d) rule. VDGIF’s standard 

recommendations are to prohibit tree removal within 150 feet of a 

documented maternity roost from June 1–July 31 and to prohibit tree 

removal within 0.25 mile of a documented hibernaculum 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

ST Nest Sites: December 15–July 15; Concentration Areas and Roost Sites: 

Summer: May 15–August 31; Winter: December 15–March 15 

Barking Treefrog 

(Hyla gratiosa) 

ST None listed 

Green Floater 

(Lasmigona subviridis) 

ST April 15–June 15 (release of glochidia); August 15–September 30 (spawning) 

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) ST February 15–July 15 for activities within 600 feet of nest 

Wood Turtle 

(Glyptemys insculpta) 

ST For instream work: October 1–March 31; For work within 900 feet of stream 

(zone of concern): April 1–September 30. Maintain undisturbed naturally 

vegetated buffer of at least 300 feet (preferably larger) on stream 

Source: VDGIF, 2016. 

Notes: 1. FE – Federal Endangered; FT – Federal Threatened; SE – State Endangered; ST – State Threatened 

Bald Eagle. Disturbance of nesting bald eagles is unlikely to occur if the following general 

guidelines per VDGIF are followed: 

 Clearing, grubbing, and construction activities within 660 feet, but outside 330 feet, is 

restricted to outside of the breeding season (December 15th through July 15th), even if these 

activities are occurring within railroad right-of-way. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-56 

 A buffer of at least 660 feet is maintained between all activities and the nest (including 

active and alternate nests). If a similar activity is closer than 660 feet, then a distance buffer 

as close to the nest as the existing tolerated activity would be maintained. 

 A buffer of at least 0.5 mile, or one mile in open areas, is maintained for blasting and other 

activities that produce extremely loud noises or restricted to outside the breeding season. 

These are general guidelines that will be further refined through coordination with VDGIF 

through the permitting process, including VDGIF’s concern that the eagle’s attraction to carrion 

present along the tracks and its effect on fledging eagles. During the final design stage of this 

Project, detailed maps depicting the location of new structures, including areas of pile driving 

and detailed descriptions of the proposed work, will be provided to VDGIF for review and 

comment. Proposed TOY restrictions will be incorporated in the Virginia DEQ and/or VMRC 

permit conditions. 

Construction activities in Bald Eagle Concentration Areas, shoreline areas that are used by bald 

eagles during both the summer and winter periods as shown in the updated mapping in 

Appendix M of this Final EIS, may also negatively affect bald eagles. Bald eagles congregate in 

these locations for feeding and sheltering (roosting) because of their proximity to food sources. 

Construction activities may prevent bald eagles from foraging and roosting in these locations, 

resulting in disturbance that may stress or relocate the species to less optimal habitat. Permanent 

alterations at these sites can eliminate or reduce essential feeding and sheltering habitat. 

According to the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, to minimize disturbance, 

activities should be conducted outside of the breeding season, if possible, and kept as far away 

from nests as possible. Loud and disruptive activities should be limited to periods when eagles 

are not nesting, and activity between the nest and nearest foraging area should be avoided. 

General guidance for Category A activities, such as constructing roads and other linear facilities, 

and Category H, such as blasting and other loud, intermittent noises, is outlined in Table 5.10-9. 

It may be necessary to also obtain a permit issued under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act (16 United 

States Code [U.S.C.] 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended, for activities located in Bald Eagle 

Concentration Areas. The need for this permit will be determined during the final design phase. 

Specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation will be developed in coordination with USFWS 

and VDGIF and may require development of an eagle conservation plan. 

Table 5.10-9: Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

Guideline Category 

If there is no similar activity 

within 1 mile of the nest 

If there is similar activity closer 

than 1 mile from the nest 

Category A activities, 

such as constructing 

roads and other linear 

facilities 

If the activity 

will be visible 

from the nest 

660 feet. Landscape buffers are 

recommended. 

660 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Landscape buffers are recommended. 

If the activity 

will not be 

visible from the 

nest 

330 feet. Clearing, external 

construction, and landscaping 

between 330 and 660 feet should 

be done outside breeding season. 

330 feet, or as close as existing 

tolerated activity of similar scope. 

Clearing, external construction, and 

landscaping within 660 feet should be 

done outside breeding season. 

Category H, such as 

blasting and other loud, 

intermittent noises 

Avoid blasting and other activities that produce extremely loud noises within 0.5 mile of active 

nests (or within 1 mile in open areas), unless greater tolerance to the activity (or similar activity) 

has been demonstrated by the eagles in the nesting area. 

Source: USFWS, 2007. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-57 

5.11 COMMUNITY RESOURCES24 

DRPT assessed relocations and associated impacts based on potential right-of-way acquisition or 

partial acquisition, as summarized in Section 5.11.1. These were evaluated separately for 

commercial facilities, residential properties, and community facilities, as presented in Sections 

5.11.2, 5.11.3, and 5.11.4, respectively, as well as compatibility with land use planning, which is 

presented in Section 5.11.5. 

As previously discussed in the introduction to this chapter, the impacts are assessed based on 

conceptual engineering (approximately 10 percent level of design) and are subject to future 

decisions that could further minimize the property impacts presented in this section. As indicated 

in the sections below, total and partial acquisition of parcels will take place throughout the 

corridor as a result of the Project. The right-of-way acquisition process, including property owner 

notification, appraisal, acquisition, and relocation, would be conducted by VDOT in accordance 

with Federal and state regulations and would occur during future design stages of the Project 

(see Chapter 7 of this Final EIS for an overview of future steps, including property acquisition). 

5.11.1 Right-of-Way and Relocation Policy and Procedures 

The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of displacees will take place in accordance with 

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4601). Potential relocations were determined based on overlaying the LOD 

of the Preferred Alternative on county/city tax parcel digital data through the use of Geographic 

Information System (GIS) mapping. The individual parcel data were then compiled, and the area 

that may be acquired with implementation of the Preferred Alternative was computed. 

Potential relocations were identified as commercial (see Section 5.11.2), residential 

(individuals/families) (see Section 5.11.3), and community facilities (see Section 5.11.4). The 

relocations can be classified as total acquisitions or partial acquisitions: 

 Total Acquisition. This occurs when the primary improvement (house, business, 

nonprofit, or farm) is within the right-of-way or access to the parcel is removed and cannot 

be restored. The owner is compensated for the fair market value of the entire parcel and 

provided relocation assistance. 

 Partial Acquisition. This occurs when a portion of a parcel is acquired, and that portion 

does not include a primary improvement. The owner is compensated for the fair market 

value of the portion of their parcel and minor improvements that would be acquired. 

Right-of-way impacts of the Preferred Alternative are summarized in Table 5.11-1 and may be 

further minimized as design progresses in the future. Easements may be used in lieu of acquiring 

new right-of-way for some properties. Temporary easements may also be needed on adjacent 

property to gain access to the existing rail line and right-of-way during construction activities and 

for construction staging. If necessary, these temporary easements could be obtained for a short 

duration, and the land would be returned to its original condition before easement lease 

termination. The number of parcels for each Alternative Area in Table 5.11-1 does not equate to 

the number of relocations; rather, it is the total number of parcels affected. 

 

24 To improve readability of this section, the order and names of the subsections 5.11.1 through 5.11.4 has been switched 

slightly since the publication of the Draft EIS; however, no sections have been removed or added. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-58 

Table 5.11-1: Right-of-Way Impacts1 of Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Number of 

Parcels Total Acreage 

Area 1: Arlington 1B P: 2 

T: 5 

P: 0.03 

T: 0.68 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A P: 98 

T: 248 

P: 53.77 

T: 47.50 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B P: 38 

T: 107 

P: 14.02 

T: 11.46 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A P: 31 

T: 143 

P: 1.27 

T: 41.88 

Area 5: Ashland 5A P: 85 

T: 145 

P: 23.45 

T: 14.79 

Area 6: Richmond 6F P: 281 

T: 337 

P: 56.58 

T: 19.87 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: P: 535 

T: 985 

P: 149.12 

T: 136.18 

Note: P=Permanent; T=Temporary. This a new table provided since the Draft EIS, so it does not include any comparison color-coding or rows. 

1. Parcel and acreage data developed from GIS data for property boundaries and conceptual designs for improvements. Actual numbers will vary 

when boundary surveys and detailed engineering are developed in the future. The number of parcels is the total number of parcels affected as 

either total or partial acquisitions. 

DRPT has the ability and, if necessary, is willing to provide housing of last resort, including the 

purchase of land or dwellings; repair of existing dwellings to meet decent, safe, and sanitary 

conditions; relocation or remodeling of dwellings purchased by DRPT; or construction of new 

dwellings. DRPT assures that all displaced families and individuals will be relocated to suitable 

replacement housing, and that all replacement housing will be fair housing available to all 

persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and will be within the 

financial means of the displacees. Each person will be given enough time to negotiate for and 

obtain possession of replacement housing. No residential occupants will be required to move 

from property needed for the Preferred Alternative until comparable decent, safe, and sanitary 

replacement dwellings have been made available to them. 

5.11.2 Commercial Relocations 

Direct effects of the Preferred Alternative on economic activity through business/commercial 

relocations are shown in Table 5.11-2, and on the maps in Appendix L of this Final EIS (parcel 

boundaries are shown; buildings and/or property access shown within the limits of disturbance 

lines on the maps could indicate a right-of-way impact or relocation). 

Some relocations have been eliminated and additional relocations have been identified since the 

publication of the Draft EIS, as described further below. Otherwise, there are no noteworthy 

changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency comments since 

the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to community relocations; rather, narrow linear 

refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted in 

incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to those 

reported in the Draft EIS. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-59 

Table 5.11-2: Commercial Relocations for the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

City of Fredericksburg Stafford County Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond 

 Total 

S/W O GC GC GC M/A GC S/W M/A 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0-1 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-1 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 2 2 1 11

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 5 0 0-2 0-4 2-7 0-3 10-18 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 1 0 0 2 5 1 0 2 2 1 14 

S/W=Storage/Warehousing; O=Other; GC=General Commercial; M/A=Manufacturing/Auto Repair 

The warehousing and storage facilities include food and container storage. The category “Other” includes government property within the City 

of Richmond, that is a City of Richmond Department of Public Works property. The manufacturing facilities include auto service/repair and 

electrical manufacturing/repair. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. There are no commercial relocations in Areas 1, 2, or 4. 

In Area 1 (Arlington), Area 2 (Northern Virginia), and Area 4 (Central Virginia), there are no 

commercial relocations associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

In Area 3 (Fredericksburg), a Stafford County pumping station will no longer be affected by the 

Preferred Alternative; however, a storage facility in the City of Fredericksburg will be relocated 

by the Preferred Alternative improvements. 

In Area 5 (Ashland), an entertainment company and a hotel north of Ashland (which is a new 

impact since the Draft EIS) will be relocated by the Preferred Alternative improvements. 

In Area 6 (Richmond), among the 11 relocations required by the Preferred Alternative 

improvements are the Transflo facility and CSXT yard offices in the Acca Yard that will be 

relocated as a result of the construction of a two-track passenger bypass on the east side of Acca 

Yard from milepost CFP 1.7 to 3.4. The yard is located on the border of Henrico County and the 

City of Richmond. Most of the facility is in Henrico County. The impact to the Transflo facility is 

new information since the publication of the Draft EIS, and will require either acquisition of rightof-way or an easement on CSXT-owned property for the construction of the bypass. FRA 

considers the impact to the Transflo facility as a right-of-way action under this Final EIS; however, 

if any potential environmental review associated with the relocation or construction of a 

replacement Transflo facility is required, it will be the responsibility of CSXT as the facility owner. 

Based on the number and type of commercial relocations, adequate replacement properties will 

be available for relocation purposes. The acquisition of right-of-way and the relocation of 

displaced persons and businesses will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-60 

24 Virginia Administrative Code (VAC) 30– 41. DRPT assures that relocation resources will be 

available to all displaced businesses and nonprofit entities without discrimination. Relocation 

costs and property acquisition costs are included in the revised capital cost estimates for the 

Preferred Alternative (presented in Section 4.5 of this Final EIS). 

5.11.3 Neighborhood and Community Effects 

5.11.3.1 Residential Relocations and Associated Effects 

The potential relocations are summarized in Table 5.11-3 and are shown on the maps in Appendix 

L of this Final EIS (parcel boundaries are shown; buildings and/or property access shown within 

the limits of disturbance lines on the maps could indicate a right-of-way impact or relocation). 

Total right-of-way impacts were previously quantified in Section 5.11.1. The number of 

residential relocations for the Preferred Alternative have decreased since the Draft EIS and are 

limited to Alternative 2A (Northern Virginia) and Alternative 6F (Richmond). However, there are 

no noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency 

comments since the Draft EIS that modified the impacts to residential relocations; rather, narrow 

linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD resulted 

in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to those 

reported in the Draft EIS. 

Table 5.11-3: Residential Relocations by the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred Alternative 

City/County 

Arlington County City of Alexandria Fairfax Count

y

Prince William Count

y

Stafford County City of Fredericksburg Spotsylvania Count

y

Caroline County Hanover County Henrico County City of Richmond Chesterfield Count

y

Total 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern 2A 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0-1 0 0-18 0 0 0 0 0 0-19 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-21 0 0 0 0-21 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0-105 0 7-112 

Total for the Preferred

Alternative: 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-61 

The direct effects as a result of the residential relocations for each area are detailed below; 

discussions include impacts to communities based on potential right-of-way acquisition of 

residences and community facilities, partial acquisitions of parcels, potential changes in 

community cohesion, changes in access to community facilities, and changes in access for 

emergency services 

In Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to communities from relocations and 

right-of-way acquisition. There are no residential relocations, and none of the partial acquisition 

of individual parcels that are required for the Preferred Alternative in Alternative Area 1 (as 

shown in Table 5.11-1) are residential properties. There are no adverse effects to community 

facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

In Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the Preferred Alternative will require two residential relocations 

in part of the Belmont Bay community along Railroad Avenue (Prince William County), which 

will be relocated with no adverse effects to the remaining residences. Access to this community 

is currently through the condominiums at Belmont Bay and will not change under the Preferred 

Alternative. DRPT has determined that there will be no adverse effects to community facilities, 

access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. 

The community of Brooke (Stafford County) will be affected by the Preferred Alternative. Partial 

acquisition of residential property will occur due to an additional roadway connection north of 

and parallel to the CSXT line to continue to provide access to the street network for residents via 

Brooke Road and Andrew Chapel Road. DRPT has determined that access to and from the area 

for emergency services, school transportation, and religious facilities on Andrew Chapel Road 

will not be adversely affected by the Preferred Alternative. Additional effects to this community 

include partial acquisition of residential property around the Eskimo Hill Road crossing of the 

CSXT line. 

In Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Preferred Alternative will not require any residential relocations; only 

partial acquisition of primarily residential parcels, which will not impact the function of the remaining 

property, will be required in communities in this area. 

In Area 4 (Central Virginia), to the east and south of Carmel Church and Patersons Corner, access 

to the residential development along Railroad Lane (Caroline County) will not be affected by the 

Preferred Alternative. DRPT has determined that there will be no adverse effects to community 

facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services. There are adequate alternate 

routes that will provide access. 

In Area 5 (Ashland), within the Town of Ashland, the proximity of the community to the existing 

CSXT rail line makes adverse effects to the community difficult to avoid. However, there will be 

no residential relocations in Area 5 required as part of the Preferred Alternative (refer to Section 

5.11.1.2 for commercial relocations, which include an entertainment company and a motel). 

Within Area 6 (Richmond), direct effects to communities from three residential relocations 

(reduced from seven in the Draft EIS) will occur in Laurel Park in Henrico County. No other 

adverse effects to community facilities, access to these facilities, or access for emergency services 

are expected. 

More detailed information on community effects can be found in the Community Impact 

Assessment Technical Report (Appendix Q of the Draft EIS). 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-62 

5.11.3.2 Community Effects from Changes to the Transportation Network 

The effects of the Preferred Alternative on communities from changes to the transportation network 

have been assessed based on physical changes to the roadway network and increased intercity 

passenger rail service in the DC2RVA corridor. Section 5.15.2 of this Final EIS presents the crossing 

improvements that are proposed at each at-grade highway-rail crossing in the corridor to 

improve safety and road and rail traffic flow for the Preferred Alternative, which includes seven 

grade separations and seven at-grade crossing closures, as well as details on all traffic-related 

impacts of the Preferred Alternative. DRPT proposes to maintain most existing public at-grade 

crossings with the addition of four-quadrant gates or gates with center median treatment. 

This purpose of this section on community effects is to analyze the potential effects of proposed 

changes on the community, including community cohesion, emergency services access, and 

community facility access. DRPT and VDOT are committed to coordinating with emergency 

service providers, schools, and other local entities, as appropriate, to ensure that no service 

interruptions will occur under the Preferred Alternative. During construction, there is the 

potential for temporary impacts to the operation of local roads and streets crossed by the rail line. 

DRPT and VDOT will work with the localities and communities to minimize these temporary 

impacts. 

In Area 1 (Arlington), DRPT does not expect direct effects to the community as a result of 

construction of the Preferred Alternative because there are no at-grade crossings. 

In Area 2 (Northern Virginia), the Preferred Alternative will not change access to the 

communities of Harbor View and Colchester (Fairfax County) via Furnace Road and will 

therefore not adversely affect these communities. The community of Brooke (Stafford County) 

will be affected by the Preferred Alternative. Mount Hope Church Road will be closed at the 

CSXT rail line, and an additional roadway connection will be added north of and parallel to the 

CSXT line to provide access to the street network for residents via Brooke Road and Andrew 

Chapel Road. More detail appears in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S of the 

Draft EIS). DRPT has determined that access to and from the area for emergency services, school 

transportation, and the religious facilities in Brooke will not be adversely affected by the Preferred 

Alternative in Area 2. 

In Area 3 (Fredericksburg), DRPT expects that the Preferred Alternative will result in some direct 

effects to the community in Area 3 as a result of proposed changes to the transportation network. 

The improved station at Fredericksburg will provide better access to the transportation network 

with a larger station building, additional parking, and improved handicapped parking, which 

are all positive effects. An additional positive effect for the community is the change of the 

existing at-grade intersection at Lansdowne Road to a grade-separated crossing under the 

Preferred Alternative. 

In Area 4 (Central Virginia), the Colemans Mill Road (Caroline County) crossing of the CSXT rail 

line will be closed under the Preferred Alternative. DRPT does not expect adverse effects to access 

for emergency response, school transportation, or the roadway network as a result of this road 

closure. The north side of Colemans Mill Road will continue to be accessed by Rogers Clark 

Boulevard. The south side will maintain access through Dry Bridge Road to Colemans Mill Road. 

Access to the eastern section of Railroad Lane (Caroline County) will remain in place under the 

Preferred Alternative in Area 4. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-63 

In Area 5 (Ashland), no changes are proposed to the existing at-grade crossings in the Town of 

Ashland between Vaughan Road (Archie Cannon Drive) and Ashcake Road, both of which are 

proposed to be grade separated as part of the Preferred Alternative. Grade-separating these two 

locations will improve access across town for police and emergency medical service vehicles. 

In Area 6 (Richmond), DRPT expects that the Preferred Alternative will result in direct effects to 

the community as a result of proposed changes to the transportation network. The station 

improvements at Staples Mill Road and Main Street Stations will increase mobility and provide 

better access to the transportation network with an expanded building, additional parking, and 

a designated pick-up and drop-off area, which will all be positive effects of the Project. In Area 6, 

under the Preferred Alternative, four public at-grade crossings will be grade-separated: Hungary 

Road, Hermitage Road (RF&P, Henrico County), Hospital Street/North Seventh Street, and East 

Commerce Road (see Section 5.15 for details). In general, these grade separations will have a 

positive effect on safety within the individual communities. Five public at-grade roadway 

crossings will also be closed under the Preferred Alternative in the Richmond area: St. James 

Street; North Second Street/Valley Road; Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue; Brinkley Road; and Old 

Lane. More specific community effects of these closings are summarized in the following 

paragraphs. 

Between Main Street Station and Centralia, the Preferred Alternative will close the St. James Street 

and North Second Street/Valley Road at-grade crossings between the communities of Gilpin and 

Southern Barton Heights. Based on the proximity and connections to the existing roadway 

network via North First Street and North Fifth Street, access to and from the communities for 

emergency services and school transportation will not be adversely affected by the Preferred 

Alternative. The Preferred Alternative also includes the closure of the at-grade crossing at Dale 

Avenue/Trenton Avenue in the community of Ampthill Heights; however, this crossing 

primarily provides back-gate access to the DuPont plant and alternate access is available. Brinkley 

Road in Chimney Corner will be closed as part of the Preferred Alternative; however, access will 

still be available via Dorsey Road and Thurston Road via Hopkins Road. 

Old Lane in the community of Centralia will be closed under the Preferred Alternative in this 

area. Access to and from the community for school transportation will not be adversely affected 

by the closure. An increase in response time for emergency services could occur if the response 

were from Fire Station 17 in Centralia, but it will be less than a five-minute increase. If the 

response were from Fire Station 1, there will be no difference in response time. 

5.11.4 Community Facilities and Services 

Community facilities were shown in Figure 3-1 of Appendix Q of the Draft EIS. The Preferred 

Alternative will have no direct effects on community facilities in Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and will 

directly impact one community facility in Area 5: 

 The Preferred Alternative in Area 5 (Ashland) will require a minor temporary easement 

of two parcels from the Gwathmey Baptist Church. The temporary easement will not 

affect activities at the church, and DRPT does not expect the temporary easement to have 

adverse effects to the church. The Preferred Alternative in Area 5 will also require a 

temporary easement from the Patrick Henry Branch of the YMCA in Ashland due to 

alignment changes along Ashcake Road. DRPT does not expect that the temporary 

easement will adversely affect access to the facility or the facility itself. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-64 

While the Preferred Alternative in Area 2 (Northern Virginia) will require the removal of a marina 

dock on Neabsco Creek, the dock is not a public community facility and currently encroaches into 

CSXT right-of-way (based on GIS property data). The dock is located on the west side of the 

bridge and will be removed to construct the new bridge as part of the Project. The remainder of 

the docks at the marina will be undisturbed, and navigation through the bridge to the Potomac 

River will also be maintained during construction. 

5.11.5 Land Use Planning 

5.11.5.1 Changes in Land Use 

The Preferred Alternative requires right-of-way acquisition, and the associated land use 

transitions are summarized in Table 5.11-4. 

Table 5.11-4: Land Use Transition for the Preferred Alternative (acres) 

Alternative Area 

Preferred Alternative Agricultural Commercial/Office Industrial Institutional Transportation Preserved Open Space Residential Vacant 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-1.5 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 5.0 5.0 16.2 2.0 0.6 10.9 14.8 6.9

Draft EIS Impacts 4.3 1.9 0.63 1.96 0 10.2 12.1 0.1 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0.1 6.8 0 1.3 2.1 1.7 2.9 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0.2-66.4 0.3-22.0 0 1.9-2.0 0 0.05-5.6 0.4-75.2 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 1.0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0.9 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 0 0.1 0 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 9.0 0 6.2 0 17.7 0 4.6 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 4.2-150.8 0.1-0.5 2.7-7.6 0.5-2.2 9.7-37.3 0 0.5-6.3 0 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 10.4 23.0 0.2 0 0 5.8 14.9 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 8.5-38.6 17.1-

25.7 0.2-7.1 0 0.01-0.4 4.6-21.3 6.8-14.1 

Total for the Preferred 

Alternative: 15.1 22.2 45.4 3.5 20.6 12.6 28.2 21.8 

Source: City and County Land Use GIS databases. 

Notes: Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color 

coding reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for 

all Build Alternatives. 

The transition of these land uses to transportation use is a direct effect, but it is an extension of 

the existing adjacent transportation land use and generally is not out of character with the area. 

Major changes in land use reported in the Draft EIS were primarily associated with the bypass 

alignments in Alternative Area 3 (Fredericksburg) and Area 5 (Ashland). The Preferred 

Alternative does not include the bypass alignments and the land use changes are generally 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-65 

consistent with the values reported in the Draft EIS, with the exception of Alternative Area 2. In 

this area, land that was originally identified as CSXT right-of-way and excluded from the 

calculations has since been determined to be property not owned by CSXT, but rather by the 

Potomac Yards development. It is therefore now identified as a change in land use, thereby 

resulting in larger increases in the industrial and vacant categories. Otherwise, there are no 

noteworthy changes to the conceptual engineering made in response to public and agency 

comments since the Draft EIS that modified the remaining impacts to land use transitions; rather, 

narrow linear refinements with increases and decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD 

resulted in incremental changes in impacts over the length of the 123-mile corridor compared to 

those reported in the Draft EIS. 

In Area 1 (Arlington), the only land use in transition to a transportation use as part of the 

Preferred Alternative is currently designated as vacant land use. The transition of this vacant land 

use to a transportation use will be compatible with the current use. 

In Area 2 (Northern Virginia), in addition to the change from the Draft EIS identified above, the 

greatest amount of land use transitioning to a transportation use as part of the Preferred 

Alternative is from industrial and residential uses. The transition of industrial use to a 

transportation use is compatible with regional and local comprehensive plans and land use 

planning. The transition of residential use to a transportation use is not compatible; however, it 

is an extension of the existing adjacent transportation land use and is not out of character with 

the area. 

In Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Preferred Alternative passes through downtown and involves 

transition from commercial/office and residential uses to a transportation land use. This 

conversion is compatible with the current land use because it is an extension of the existing 

adjacent transportation land use. 

In Area 4 (Central Virginia), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to transportation use 

as part of the Preferred Alternative is currently in agricultural use. The transition of this land to 

a transportation use will be incompatible with regional and local comprehensive plans and land 

use planning; however, it is an extension of the existing adjacent transportation land use and is 

not out of character with the area. 

In Area 5 (Ashland), land required for the Preferred Alternative is already in transportation use, 

which mainly occurs at the proposed grade separations of Vaughan Road (Archie Cannon Drive) 

and Ashcake Road. The transition of this land to a transportation use will be compatible with the 

current use. 

In Area 6 (Richmond), the greatest amount of land use transitioning to transportation use for 

most of the Preferred Alternative is currently in commercial and industrial use. The transition of 

this land to a transportation use will be compatible with the current use. 

5.11.5.2 Compatibility with Future Land Use 

Many of the local jurisdictions within the Project corridor have directly addressed the importance 

of rail service, and in some cases this particular Project, to local and regional mobility in their 

respective comprehensive planning processes. 

In Area 1 (Arlington), future land use adjacent to the Preferred Alternative is expected to remain 

in a similar use to current uses. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-66 

In Area 2 (Northern Virginia), in Prince William County, future land use is projected to intensify 

within the Development Area (where development has already occurred) and remain similar to 

existing land uses within the Rural Area. The Preferred Alternative lies within the Development 

Area, where development will intensify, and will therefore be compatible with these future land 

uses. Within Stafford County, future land use is expected to stay similar to existing land use, with 

development intensifying in the Urban Service Areas. 

In Area 3 (Fredericksburg), the Preferred Alternative, which passes through Fredericksburg, is 

compatible with future land uses. In the City of Fredericksburg, future land use is expected to 

remain similar to existing land use due to the city’s developed nature. The Preferred Alternative 

is compatible with these land uses. In Spotsylvania and Caroline Counties, future land use within 

the Preferred Alternative is expected to remain similar to the existing rural residential and 

agricultural/forested uses. In both counties, I-95 and the CSXT rail line are acknowledged as 

important transportation corridors. 

In Area 4 (Central Virginia), future land use in Caroline County is discussed in Alternative Area 

3 above. In Hanover County, future land use as part of the Preferred Alternative is projected to 

remain similar to existing land uses, while providing “orderly growth” prescribed in the Hanover 

County Comprehensive Plan. 

In Area 5 (Ashland), the Preferred Alternative is compatible with future land uses. 

In Area 6 (Richmond), existing land uses surrounding the Preferred Alternative are expected to 

remain similar; thus, the Preferred Alternative is compatible with these uses. 

5.11.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal Transportation Planning 

Many of the intercity passenger stations along the DC2RVA corridor have direct connections to 

local and regional transit, and all intercity passenger rail stations in Northern Virginia share 

service with VRE. Other stations in Northern Virginia have convenient or direct connection to 

WMATA Metrorail stations, including Franconia-Springfield, Alexandria, Crystal City, L’Enfant 

Plaza, and Washington Union Station. In Richmond, Main Street Station serves multiple local and 

regional bus services and the recently constructed GRTC Pulse BRT system. These multimodal 

connections can help offset vehicular traffic at these stations. 

Many of the local jurisdictions within the Project corridor have recognized the importance of rail 

and multimodal transportation options within their transportation networks to residents, local 

businesses, regional connections, and economic vitality. In several of the jurisdictions, improved 

passenger rail is specifically mentioned in planning documents (Fairfax County, Prince William 

County, Stafford County, the City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, Caroline County, the 

Town of Ashland, the City of Richmond, and Chesterfield County). Localities that have existing 

rail stations are prioritizing new development in these areas, with a focus on transit-oriented 

development. 

5.12 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The environmental justice analysis performed for this Final EIS is based on whether the 

percentage of minority or low-income populations within a census tract impacted by the 

Preferred Alternative is greater than the percentage of minority or low-income populations 

within that census tract’s county. Details of the EPA-approved methodologies were presented in 

Section 4.12 of the Draft EIS. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-67 

5.12.1 Corridor-Wide Impacts 

Under the Preferred Alternative, more frequent and reliable intercity passenger rail service in the 

DC2RVA corridor will provide better access and mobility to all communities and populations, 

including environmental justice populations. Access to a wider geographic area for educational, 

medical, and employment opportunities will be improved as well. 

5.12.2 Community-Level Impacts 

U.S. Census information and preliminary relocation data was supplemented with information 

from public involvement activities for this Project, from federal education statistical information, 

and from regional and local agency planning information to assess impacts on communities for 

environmental justice effects. 

5.12.2.1 Relocations and Displacements 

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative will not result in acquisition or displacement impacts 

to communities with environmental justice populations. The acquisition of right-of-way and the 

displacement of residences is shown in Table 5.12-1. In Area 6, the number of relocations has 

decreased since the Draft EIS due to design refinements of the LOD for the Preferred Alternative; 

an updated mapbook showing environmental justice census tracts in relation to the Preferred 

Alternative LOD are provided in Appendix M of this Final EIS. 

Table 5.12-1: Residential Relocations within Environmental Justice Census Tracts 

Alternative Area 

Preferred Alternative 

City/County 

Prince William Count

y

Stafford Count

y

Spotsylvania Count

y

Hanover Count

y

Henrico Count

y

City of Richmond 

Tract 9001 Tract 105.04 Tract 202.05 Tract 3205 Tract 3204 Tract 2005.03 Tract 2009.06 Tract 402 Tract 706.02 Tract 710.02 Total 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 2 – – – – – – – – – 2 

Draft EIS Impacts 2 – – – – – – – – – 2 

Area 6: Richmond 6F – – – – – 3 0 0 0 0 3

Draft EIS Impacts – – – – – 3 4 0-1001 0-4 0-1 7-112 

% Minorities in City/County 52 33 28 15 44 61 – 

% Minorities in Census Tract 42 9 36 7 17 20 25 50 84 83 – 

% Low-Income in City/County 6 5 8 5 11 26 – 

% Low-Income in Census Tract 5 10 9 2 10 10 6 46 14 21 – 

Notes: Above 50%; Greater than respective jurisdiction. 

1. This is an apartment building with 100 units. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding reflects the increase 

or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build Alternatives. 

Alternative Areas 1, 3, 4, and 5 have no residential relocations; therefore, they do not appear in this table. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-68 

5.12.2.2 Noise and Vibration 

DRPT analyzed the Preferred Alternative to determine whether the Project will result in any 

disproportionate and adverse noise and vibration effects to environmental justice populations. 

The noise receptors that were assessed for this analysis were residential receptors and other 

places for sleeping (Category 2) that could experience moderate or severe impacts due to the 

Preferred Alternative. A full discussion of noise impacts appears in Section 5.7, Noise and 

Vibration. 

Additional information on the environmental justice analysis can be found in the Community 

Impact Assessment Technical Report (Appendix Q of the Draft EIS). The suitability of the 

methodology and analysis of environmental justice was reviewed and discussed with EPA 

during both the Draft EIS review process and prior to publication of this Final EIS. EPA agreed 

that the methodology and analysis were appropriate for the DC2RVA Project as presented. 

Area 1 (Arlington). There are no affected noise receptors, environmental justice or otherwise, 

associated with the Preferred Alternative in Area 1. 

Area 2 (Northern Virginia). There are approximately 650 affected noise receptors in Area 2. Many of 

these noise receptors occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income 

populations in the communities of Springfield Forest, Lorton, Colchester, Marumsco Acres, 

Marumsco Woods, and Leeland. As evaluated in the Draft EIS, Build Alternative 2A will not have 

a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in 

these communities as compared to the noise receptors affected in census tracts with a low 

proportion of minority and low-income populations. These effects are not predominately borne 

by a minority population and/or a low-income population and are not appreciably more severe 

or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority 

population or non-low-income population. The Preferred Alternative has further reduced 

impacts in Area 2 in comparison to those reported in the Draft EIS, which did not account for the 

horn restrictions through Crystal City that reduced the number of locations where the sounding 

of locomotive horns is required (see Section 5.7.1.2 for details). 

Alexandria Station (Area 2, Northern Virginia) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-69 

Area 3 (Fredericksburg). There are less than 100 affected noise receptors by the Preferred 

Alternative in Area 3; however, 88 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion 

of minority and low-income populations. These occur in the communities of Mayfield, Hazel Hill, 

Patriot Lane, Summit, and Claiborne Crossing, and result in a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on potential environmental justice populations in these communities. However, 

these cannot be avoided as the other Build Alternatives as evaluated in the Draft EIS would have 

equivalent or worse effects: 

 Build Alternative 3A as evaluated in the Draft EIS, which had the same amount of noise 

impacts as the Preferred Alternative, retained the existing two-track railroad alignment 

through Fredericksburg and would not provide sufficient operating capacity to meet the 

Purpose and Need of the Project; and 

 Build Alternative 3C as evaluated in the Draft EIS would avoid these 100 noise impacts 

but would cause almost 4,000 noise impacts in total. 

Mitigation for the above effects of the Preferred Alternative in Area 3 could include noise barriers 

for affected receptors. Additional information regarding noise mitigation is provided in Section 

5.7.1.3, Noise Mitigation Measures. Detailed recommendations for noise mitigation will be 

developed during final design. 

Area 4 (Central Virginia). There are less than 100 affected noise receptors in Area 4. Seventy-nine 

percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income 

populations in the communities of Claiborne, Woodford, Milford, Penola, and Doswell. This 

represents a disproportionately high and adverse effect on potential environmental justice 

populations in these communities. All of the Build Alternatives considered in Area 4 in the Draft 

EIS included equivalent noise impacts, which could not be avoided. 

Area 5 (Ashland). There are almost 160 affected noise receptors in Area 5; however, 80 percent of 

these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income populations. 

These occur in the communities of downtown Ashland, Gwathmey, and Elmont. Build 

Alternative 5A as evaluated in the Draft EIS will have a disproportionately high and adverse 

effect on potential environmental justice populations in these communities. Build Alternatives 

5B, 5B–Ashcake, and 5D–Ashcake in the Draft EIS had similar noise impacts as the Preferred 

Alternative. Build Alternatives 5C and 5C–Ashcake would avoid these 160 noise impacts, but 

would cause more than 300 noise impacts along the proposed bypass alignment. 

Based on the information and analyses of the seven Build Alternatives presented for Area 5 in the 

Draft EIS, public comments on the Draft EIS, information and comments developed through the 

Ashland/Hanover Area Community Advisory Committee (CAC) process, and subsequent 

refined rail operations analyses, Build Alternative 5A was selected by FRA and DRPT as the 

Preferred Alternative for Area 5. 

Area 6 (Richmond). There are approximately 440 affected noise receptors on the S-line in Area 6; 

54 percent of these occur in census tracts with a high proportion of minority and low-income 

populations in the communities of Newtowne West, Chamberlayne, Gilpin, Davee Gardens, and 

Bellwood. The Preferred Alternative will not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect 

on potential environmental justice populations in these communities. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-70 

5.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ABOVE GROUND CULTURAL AND 

HISTORIC RESOURCES25

5.13.1 Summary of the Section 106 Process and Determinations of Effect 

Background. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended 

(54 U.S.C. 306108), and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), require federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment if the action would result in an adverse 

effect on any property listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Effects are defined as: 

 Adverse Effect. The Project would diminish the characteristics that render a property 

eligible for the NRHP. This could be a direct impact, such as physically disturbing an 

archaeological site or physically modifying a historic building, structure, or district; or an 

indirect impact, where the modifications would not physically touch a resource, but the 

Project would result in a negative impact to a resource’s integrity (defined as its location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association). 

 No Adverse Effect. The Project may alter an aspect of the resource’s integrity but the 

character-defining features that rendered it eligible for the NRHP would remain intact, 

such as the limits of disturbance being within the general viewshed of a historic property 

but the primary view would not be negatively altered and result in diminished NRHP 

eligibility; or the APE including the boundaries of a resource but the historic property is 

eligible for the NRHP under a criterion other than C (architectural merit), such as a 

railroad or battlefield. 

 No Effect. The Project does not have the potential to alter or diminish aspects of the 

historic property that render it eligible for the NRHP, such as a building being located 

within the APE, but the Project area is not visible from the resource. 

The Section 106 process informs the separate Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, which is Chapter 6 of 

this Final EIS. 

Summary of Section 106 Process for the Project. FRA and DRPT initiated the Section 106 process 

in the Fall of 2014 and invited consulting parties, such as the ACHP, National Park Service (NPS), 

local historical societies, and localities, to participate. All federally recognized tribes in Virginia 

and tribes outside of Virginia but who have a stated vested interest in cultural properties in the 

state were also invited. Appendix E of this Final EIS contains additional data on invited 

consulting parties and communication that has occurred since the publication of the Draft EIS. 

FRA defined an Area of Potential Effects (APE)26 after the Section 106 process was initiated. The 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources—i.e., the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

for the Commonwealth of Virginia—concurred on the APE in an email dated February 2, 2015. 

Cultural resource studies to identify and evaluate all buildings, structures, objects, districts, and 

 

25 Since the Draft EIS, a new summary subsection was added to the beginning of Section 5.13 for readability, requiring 

the renumbering of the subsequent subsections. 

26 The APE is defined before the identification of historic properties for areas where the Project could impact characterdefining features, directly or indirectly. While the Project Limits of Disturbance are the physical boundary of Projectrelated construction and construction-related activities, the APE considers all locations where a project may result 

in ground disturbances, visible or audible disturbances, or changes in public access, traffic patterns, or land use. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-71 

sites in the APE that are 48 years in age or greater have been ongoing since that time (48 years 

was selected to allow two years for the environmental process to reach the 50-year NRHP 

threshold). Appendix R of the Draft EIS and Appendix D of this Final EIS consist of the Cultural 

Resources Reports, which includes additional details on the cultural resource studies and 

mapping of the historic properties. 

Within the APE for the Preferred Alternative, DRPT identified 120 historic properties,27 defined 

as any resource that is eligible for, assumed eligible for, or listed on the NRHP: 

 13 archaeological sites 

 96 above ground resources 

 1 resource with an above ground and below ground component 

 10 battlefields 

A detailed summary of the 120 historic properties is presented in Appendix D1 of this Final EIS. 

DHR has reviewed and commented on the technical reports, and they have concurred with 

resource eligibility determinations. DHR letters corresponding to the 23 technical reports can be 

found in Appendix U of the Draft EIS and Appendix E of this Final EIS. Following their 

concurrence of resource eligibility, the DHR reviewed and commented on Project effect. 

FRA made determinations of effect for each of the 120 historic properties, as summarized in each 

of the sections within this chapter. In letters dated June 28, 2018, July 18, 2018, and January 4, 

2019, the DHR concurred with FRA’s determinations of effect. Copies of these letters are provided 

in Appendix E of this Final EIS. 

The Section 106 Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which is Appendix K of the Final EIS, 

has been developed based on feedback from consulting parties, property owners, and involved 

agencies and includes a roster of tasks to be completed on all adversely affected resources, such 

as public interpretation, additional research, National Register documentation, archaeological 

data recovery, and more, to mitigate any adverse effects caused by the undertaking. Acquiring a 

signed Section 106 MOA is the final step in the Section 106 process; a final, signed Section 106 

MOA will be part of the Project ROD. 

Historic Battlefield: Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm (Area 3, Fredericksburg) 

 

27 The Draft EIS reported 158 historic properties within the APE. Since the publication of the Draft EIS, cultural resource 

studies and engineering refinements to minimize impacts have resulted in the removal of 53 properties and the 

addition of 15, resulting in the new total of 120. In this Final EIS: Appendix D1 provides details of the resources that 

were removed and/or added since the publication of the Draft EIS; and Appendix D2 through D7 provide the 

updated cultural resource reports that include locations of the 120 properties in the APE of the Preferred Alternative. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-72 

Summary of Determinations of Effect. In sum and as shown in Table 5.13-1, FRA determined 

that the Preferred Alternative for the DC2RVA Project will have: 

 No adverse effect on 69 historic properties 

 No effect on 30 properties 

 An adverse effect on 21 historic properties (maps showing the 13 non-archaeological28

historic properties in relation to the Project are provided in Chapter 6) 

Refer to Appendix D1 of this Final EIS for the details of the effect determinations on each 

individual resource, including the NRHP eligibility criterion. 

Table 5.13-1: Summary1 of Section 106 Project Effect Determinations 

Historic Property 

Effect Determination 

(Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Archaeological Resources 8 6 0 

Architectural Resources 13 54 30 

Battlefields 0 10 0 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 21 692 30 

Notes: 1. Comparison to Draft EIS findings are provided in the individual tables in this section for each of the three historic property types. 

2. Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive (111-0147) is both an above and below ground 

resource, and it is counted in the table twice in the “No Adverse Effect” column, as both an Archaeological Resource and a Historic Resource. 

Therefore, while the numbers in the three historic property categories under “No Adverse Effect” add to 70, the total for the Preferred 

Alternative is 69 individual resources. 

The adverse effects were further categorized as direct impacts or indirect/cumulative impacts. A 

direct impact is a modification to the physical fabric of a resource. An indirect or cumulative 

impact is when a resource will not be physically modified but the viewshed or other characterdefining feature is notably diminished in integrity. 

For the 21 historic properties that will be adversely affected, the Project will have: 

 A direct impact on 8 resources (all archaeological resources); 

 Both a direct and indirect impact on 12 historic properties (all architectural resources); and 

 An indirect/cumulative impact on 1 resource (an architectural resource). 

The following sections summarize the determinations of effect for archaeological, architectural, 

and battlefields separately. The 20 properties that will experience direct impacts are described 

further in this section, and the 1 that will experience only an indirect or cumulative impact is 

described in Section 5.20.1.3. 

 

28 Locations for archaeological resources are not provided in public documents per guidelines set forth in the 

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and other applicable legislation; contact DRPT for details. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-73 

5.13.2 Archaeological Resources 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), DRPT implemented a phased approach for archaeological 

studies. A Phase IA archaeological reconnaissance and predictive model was first done of the 

corridor and all alternatives. A Phase IB survey was then completed on the primary alignments 

and ensuing Preferred Alternative. All sites that were determined to be potentially eligible for the 

NRHP assumed to be eligible for the purposes of the DC2RVA Project; no Phase II eligibility 

testing has been conducted. DHR agreed with this approach for this Project in a meeting on 

August 10, 2016. 

Within the APE, there are 3 NRHP-listed and 11 NRHP-eligible or potentially eligible 

archaeological sites, including 13 archaeological sites and 1 resource that has both an 

archaeological and an architectural component. FRA’s determinations of effect for 

archaeological resources in Virginia are summarized in Table 5.13-2. None are National Historic 

Landmarks (NHL). 

Table 5.13-2: Summary of Project Effect Determinations on Archaeological Sites 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Effect Determination 

(Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 1 0 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0 0 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 4 2 0

Draft EIS Impacts 0-1 0-1 0-3 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 3 3 0

Draft EIS Impacts 0-3 4-7 2-4 

Total1 for the Preferred Alternative: 8 5 0 

Notes: 1. Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive (111-0147) is both an above and below

ground resource and is included in the above totals as “No Adverse Effect.” 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build

Alternatives. There are no archaeological sites within the APE in Alternative Areas 1, 4, and 5; therefore, they do not appear in this table. 

Details on each individual property can be found in Appendix D of this Final EIS and the eight 

sites with a determination of adverse effect that will experience a direct impact are described 

below (from north to south). 

The DHR has concurred on these recommendations in letters dated June 28, 2018, July 18, 2018, 

and January 4, 2019. Data recovery excavations will be completed on any segment of these sites 

that will be impacted by the Project. Details on the data recovery are included as stipulations in 

the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement, which is produced as part of the Section 106 process 

and a draft of which is Appendix K of this Final EIS.
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-74 

Civil War Campsite (44ST1223). This resource was recorded in the Spring of 2018 based on 

revised Project plans after the publication of the Draft EIS. The rail corridor was an extremely 

important component of transportation logistics associated with the Civil War, and war-related 

resources were often located near the tracks. This site represents one of many Union army winter 

encampments in the area, occupied during the winter of 1862–1863. The addition of new track as 

part of the Preferred Alternative will require disturbances to the subsurface matrix within the 

site, thus potentially destroying data-bearing strata that contribute to the site’s eligibility. 

Marye’s Mill Site (44SP1087). The site represents the remains of a large mill, located on the banks 

of the Rappahannock River, which was in operation during the second half of the nineteenth and 

first decades of the twentieth centuries. It is a prominent visual element in many Civil War-era 

representations of Fredericksburg. Construction of the Preferred Alternative, including rail 

modifications and a new bridge spanning the river, will result in subsurface disturbances 

throughout the majority of the site, thus adversely affecting the data potential of this resource. 

Block 49/Train Station (44SP0688) and Block 48/Train Station (44SP0687). These resources were 

recorded in the Spring of 2018 based on revised Project plans after the publication of the Draft 

EIS. These two archaeological sites comprise two city blocks in Fredericksburg, stretching from 

Sophia Street on the east to Princess Anne Street on the west and bounded by Lafayette Street on 

the north and Frederick Street on the south. Archaeological work has uncovered numerous 

foundations and other extant features below the ground surface. Construction of the new parking 

deck and new station, platform modifications, and other structural changes as proposed as part 

of the Preferred Alternative will result in subsurface disturbances throughout both blocks, which 

have the potential to damage intact archaeological remains. 

Earthwork/Jackson’s Earthwork (44SP0468). This archaeological site includes the remains of a 

large series of earthworks constructed during the First Battle of Fredericksburg (1862) and reused 

during other periods of the Civil War. They are located predominantly west of the rail tracks and 

have a notable connection to military actions during the war. The addition of a third rail as part 

of the Preferred Alternative may result in the destruction of small segments of these earthworks. 

Sites 44HE1098, 44HE1097, and 44HE1094. All three of these archaeological sites are located in 

downtown Richmond. They were recorded based on map projections showing the locations of 

post-Civil War warehouses and other rail-related buildings that have been demolished; their 

exact composition and integrity is unknown as no archaeological studies have been conducted. 

Modifications to the structural support system for rail infrastructure of the Preferred Alternative, 

as well as the proposed parking deck in this area, will result in minor subsurface disturbances 

within the recorded boundaries of these sites. Should these sites contain significant deposits, this 

work will negatively impact data-bearing strata. 

Earthwork/Jackson’s Earthwork (Area 3, Fredericksburg) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-75 

5.13.3 Architectural Resources 

There are 97 eligible or listed buildings, districts, structures, and objects located within the APE 

of the DC2RVA Project96 above ground resources and 1 that has an above ground and below 

ground component. The resources range from single-family rural dwellings to significant historic 

districts along the rail corridor. Main Street Station (127-0172) in Richmond is also an NHL. FRA’s 

determinations of effect for architectural resources in the Project APE are listed in Table 5.13-3; 

details on all resources can be found in Appendix D of this Final EIS. 

Table 5.13-3: Summary of Project Effect Determinations on Architectural Resources 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Effect Determination (Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Corridor Wide1 All 1 0 0 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 2 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 11 2 0 

Area 2: Northern 

Virginia 2A 2 5 3

Draft EIS Impacts 1 10 4 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 2 8 4

Draft EIS Impacts 1-4 0-11 0-15 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 2 8 3

Draft EIS Impacts 3 12 4 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 3 2 11

Draft EIS Impacts 0-7 0-10 0-16 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 3 29 9

Draft EIS Impacts 7-16 42-60 2-11 

Total for the Preferred Alternative:2 13 54 30 

Notes: 1. The historic RF&P Railroad (500-0001) traverses the Project corridor from the Potomac River on the north to Main Street Station in

Richmond on the south. In the Draft EIS, this resource was reported under Alternative Area 1; for clarity based on comments on the Draft EIS,

it has been moved to a separate corridor-wide category here. 

2. Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive (111-0147) is both an above and below ground

resource and is included in the above totals as “No Adverse Effect.” 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build

Alternatives. 

Of the 13 resources with a determination of adverse effect, the 12 resources that will experience a 

direct impact are described below, north to south; the remaining 1 resource will experience 

indirect or cumulative impacts and it is discussed separately in Section 5.20.1.3. DHR has 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-76 

concurred with these determinations in letters dated June 28, 2018, July 18, 2018, and January 4, 

2019. Discussions of the coordination of these determinations with DHR and relevant consulting 

parties is provided in Appendix E of this Final EIS.

Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac Railroad (RF&P) (500-0001). The historic rail corridor 

traverses the majority of all six alternative areas, from the Potomac River on the north to Main 

Street Station on the south. The resource includes the main rail line, spurs, and associated 

elements such as station houses, bridges, and other structures. The Preferred Alternative will 

require the replacement of several contributing elements to this rail district (such as the bridge 

over Naomi Road [089-0080] and numerous culverts) and construction of new bridges adjacent 

to extant contributing resources (such as the Bridge over the Occoquan River [500-0001-0022]). 

The physical removal of these contributing elements to the linear district will diminish the 

characteristics that render this resource eligible for the NRHP. As such, the Project will have a 

direct effect on this resource. 

RF&P Bridge over Occoquan River (500-0001-0022): This resource is a through-truss, camelback 

railroad bridge constructed in 1915. It is both individually eligible for the NRHP and a 

contributing element to the RF&P Railroad. The Preferred Alternative includes constructing a 

second bridge directly east of the existing span, thus introducing a new element adjacent to the 

current bridge. It also includes physical modifications to the approach to the bridge, which are 

included in the NRHP boundaries and are a character-defining feature to this resource. The 

Project has the potential to diminish the property’s integrity of design, workmanship, setting, 

materials, feeling, and association through the introduction of this large new element and 

physical changes to the approach, resulting in a direct effect to this resource. 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge and Associated Structures/Platform (111-0132-0025). This 

1927 multiple-span, open-spandrel, concrete arch bridge was built across the Rappahannock 

River in 1927 when the rail tracks in Fredericksburg were elevated to allow for vehicular traffic 

below. The system also includes a series of rail structural supports and the passenger platform to 

the west, built at the same time. This structure is both individually eligible and a contributing 

element to both the RF&P Railroad (500-0001) and the Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132). 

The Preferred Alternative includes the construction of a new bridge immediately south of the 

existing span and physical changes to the structural supports and rail platform. These alterations 

will diminish the resource’s integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association, resulting in a direct effect. 

Rappahannock River Railroad Bridge (Area 3, Fredericksburg) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-77 

Fredericksburg Historic District (111-0132). This 200-acre district comprises the city’s historic 

core and includes hundreds of residential, commercial, educational, ecclesiastic, and industrial 

buildings. The Preferred Alternative includes the construction of a multi-story parking deck to 

the south of the extant rail tracks, construction of a new rail station to the north of the tracks, and 

minor roadway modifications. Contributing elements to the district, such as the Rappahannock 

River Bridge and rail structural system, will be physically modified during the work. The work 

will introduce new large-scale elements to the district, and the physical changes will diminish 

character-defining features of this resource. The work will be a direct effect to the district. 

Doswell Historic District (042-5448) and Doswell Depot and Tower (042-0093). The Doswell 

district encompasses a rural community that was once a center of major activity along the nearby 

road and rail networks. The Doswell Depot is located at the center of this district on the west side 

of the RF&P tracks, and the associated tower is just south of the district on the east side of the 

tracks. While similar depots and towers were once located throughout this stretch of the RF&P 

corridor, most have been destroyed or notably altered. The Doswell Depot and Tower are in 

excellent condition. The Preferred Alternative includes the installation of a third track through 

this area to the east of the current track. This action will not alter the depot, as it is on the west 

side of the tracks, but it will require moving the tower from its original site to a new location, 

likely to the east of the tracks. Moving the tower has the potential to cause physical damage to 

the tower’s structural system. In addition, the Project requires physical alterations to area roads. 

These activities will diminish character-defining features of both resources and will diminish 

their integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, 

resulting in a direct effect. 

Berkleytown Historic District (166-5073). This early-twentieth century development was created 

when segregated planning doctrines in nearby Ashland pushed African-American residents 

outside of the town’s boundaries. The Preferred Alternative includes raising Archie Cannon Road 

(i.e., a grade separation of the existing at-grade condition), which comprises the northern 

boundary of the district. Associated changes also include physically altering the original road 

plan within the district and construction of new roads and landscape elements. The construction 

of the new grade-separated roadway structure will introduce a new visual element and the road 

and landscape changes will physically modify character-defining features, thus diminishing 

critical elements of the district. This work will result in a direct effect to the district. 

Laurel Industrial School Historic District (043-0292) and Main Building/Robert Stiles Building 

of the Laurel Industrial School (043-0292-0001). The Laurel Industrial School, founded in 1892, 

was one of several reform campuses built in Virginia by the Prison Association of Virginia. The 

Preferred Alternative includes grade-separating (i.e., raising) Hungary Road over the rail 

corridor. This action will result in the construction of a new road overpass structure within the 

footprint and viewshed of both resources, physical modifications of the road system within the 

district boundaries and surrounding the main building, and introduction of new landscape 

elements. Together, these physical changes will diminish the integrity of character-defining 

features of both resources and be direct effects to both properties. 

Shockoe Valley & Tobacco Row Historic District (127-0344), Main Street Station and Trainshed 

(127-0172), and Seaboard Air Line Railroad (127-6271). These three resources are all located in 

Richmond’s Shockoe Bottom. This area was the site of Richmond’s earliest residential, 

commercial, and industrial activities, commencing in the eighteenth century. Due to its location 

near notable transportation hubs, it was also the location of numerous holding pens and markets 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-78 

specializing in the sale of enslaved individuals in the years prior to the Civil War. In 1900, the 

area was selected as the northern terminus of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad, a new rail route 

between Richmond and Florida, and Main Street Station and the Railroad Y.M.C.A. were built to 

cater to rail travelers and train crews. The Preferred Alternative includes several physical changes 

to the existing rail infrastructure, including: elongating the passenger platforms at the station, 

creating new structural elements (piers) to support the platforms, and the construction of a new 

platform for train repairs. These changes will modify the existing viewshed from all three of these 

resources and physical alter character-defining features of all three resources. The work will 

result in a direct effect. 

5.13.4 Battlefields 

There are 10 battlefields located in the APE, all of which are associated with Civil War activities 

located in areas that were sites of numerous troop engagements during the war, notably the 

localities from Stafford County to the southern terminus of the Project. The resources were 

defined and mapped based on the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP)-defined 

Potential National Register (PotNR) boundaries, as determined in 2009. If PotNR boundaries 

were not available, DHR boundaries were used. In February 2016, DHR agreed to use these 

boundaries in the current analysis. 

FRA’s determinations of effect for battlefield resources in Virginia are listed in Table 5.13-4. 

Table 5.13-4: Summary of Project Effect Determinations on Battlefields 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Effect (Number of Resources) 

Adverse No Adverse No Effect 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0 4 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 0-3 0-3 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 0 1 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 1 0 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 5 0 

Draft EIS Impacts 0 4-6 0-2 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 0 10 0 

Notes: Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color

coding reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for

all Build Alternatives. There are no battlefields within the APE in Alternative Areas 1, 2, and 5; therefore, they do not appear in this table. 

Details on each battlefield are presented in Appendix D of this Final EIS. The DHR concurred 

with these determinations in letters dated June 28, 2018, July 18, 2018, and January 4, 2019. Based 

on dialogues with DHR, the Project will have no adverse effect on any of the 10 battlefields within 

the APE. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-79 

5.13.5 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Archaeological and 

Aboveground Cultural and Historic Resources 

In summary, FRA’s determination is that 21 historic properties will be adversely affected by the 

Preferred Alternative: 8 of these impacts will be direct, 1 indirect/cumulative, and 12 both direct 

and indirect. Another 69 properties will have no adverse effect resulting from the Preferred 

Alternative and the remaining 30 historic properties in the APE will have no effect resulting from 

the Preferred Alternative. Where FRA has determined that the Preferred Alternative will have an 

adverse effect on historic resources, and DHR has concurred with that determination, efforts have 

been undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Efforts have been made by 

DRPT to identify a Preferred Alternative that avoids adverse effects to Section 106 resources 

identified in this section. Where avoidance is not possible, through the Section 106 consultation 

process, FRA, DRPT, DHR, ACHP, and the consulting parties have identified measures to 

minimize and mitigate for impacts. All mitigation measures are noted in the Section 106 Draft 

MOA, which is Appendix K of this Final EIS. 

5.14 PARKLANDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND WILDLIFE REFUGES 

5.14.1 Permanent and Temporary Impacts 

This section presents the effects to public and private parklands, recreational areas (including 

trails), and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, which are collectively referred to as parkland 

resources. These effects were determined through overlay of the parkland boundaries with the 

permanent and temporary LOD of the Preferred Alternative; DRPT assumed that the proposed 

right-of-way will match the permanent LOD, and these areas will be permanently removed from 

use as a park, recreational area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge. 

Table 5.14-1 identifies the permanent and temporary impacts to parkland resources for the 

Preferred Alternative, and includes both public and private facilities. As shown in the table, 16 

parkland and recreational trail resources will be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Maps of 

these resources in relation to the Project can be found in Chapter 6. Only 1 of the 16 facilities will 

have permanent impacts while the remainder will have temporary impacts. In Alternative Area 

6 (Richmond), permanent impacts to one parkland resource are minimal but unavoidable: a 0.21-

acre permanent encroachment on Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park. 

There have been changes to the number of park resources since the publication of the Draft EIS: 

 Two of the parks (Potomac Yard Landbay N and Rail Park) were added subsequent to the 

Draft EIS based on comments from the City of Alexandria that identified new parks. 

 The boundaries of Potomac Yard Park were expanded since the Draft EIS based on 

comments from the City of Alexandria; Potomac Yard Park was not previously impacted 

but the expanded park boundaries result in unavoidable temporary impacts. 

 Revisions to the temporary LOD since the Draft EIS resulted in temporary impacts to 

Laurel Recreation Area and Four Mile Run Trail, both of which were previously 

unimpacted, and avoidance of Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields, which was 

previously impacted. These changes were narrow linear refinements with increases and 

decreases in the permanent and temporary LOD made in response to public and agency 

comments on the Draft EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-80 

Table 5.14-1: Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Parklands for the Preferred Alternative 

Park Name 

Impacts 

(Parks in acres; Trails in feet) Draft EIS Impacts 

Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary 

Alternative 1B: Add Two Main Tracks on the West 

Long Bridge Park 0.00 0.67 0.00-1.45 0.51-0.88 

Alternative 2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

Crystal City Water Park1 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 

Old Town Greens Homeowners Association1 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08 

Dog Run Park at Carlyle 0.00 0.18 0.04 0.14 

George Washington Memorial Parkway 0.00 1.20 0.00 1.04 

Mount Vernon Trail 0.00 feet 20 feet 0.00 feet 20 feet 

Potomac Yard Park 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 

Four Mile Run Trail 0.00 feet 43 feet 0.00 feet 0.00 feet 

Potomac Yard Landbay N 0.00 1.41 New since Draft EIS 

Rail Park 0.00 0.60 New since Draft EIS 

Veterans Memorial Park 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.05

Alternative 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through City 

Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm1 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.17

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military 

Park (Prospect Hill Area) 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.02 

Alternative 4A: Add a Third Main Track 

Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military 

Park (Stonewall Jackson Shrine Area) 0.00 1.10 0.00 1.09 

Mattaponi Wildlife Management Area 0.00 2.54 0.00 2.54 

Alternative 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements) 

North Ashland Park 0 0 0 0 

Railside Park 0 0 0 0 

Carter Park 0 0 0 0 

Ashland Trolley Line 0 0 0 0 

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

Laurel Recreation Area 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Maggie Walker Governor’s School Fields 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-0.01 

Walker’s Creek Retention Basin Park 0.21 0.27 0-0.17 0-0.23 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 0.21 9.07 / 63 feet – 

Notes: 1. Crystal City Water Park, Old Town Greens Homeowners Association, and Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm are private facilities. 

P: Permanent Impacts in Acres; T: Temporary Impacts in Acres 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build

Alternatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-81 

In addition to the direct effects shown in the table above, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) designations 

apply to some of the public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges along the 

Project corridor and afford additional protection to these resources; Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) 

do not apply to private facilities that do not allow public access. Parks and recreational trails must 

be on publicly owned lands to qualify as a Section 4(f) resource. The resources in Table 5.14.1 

above are all located on publicly owned lands and have protection under Section 4(f) with the 

exception of Crystal City Water Park, Old Town Greens Homeowners Association, and 

Pierson/Slaughter Pen Farm. These are privately owned and as such do not qualify for additional 

protection under Section 4(f). See Chapter 6 for the Section 4(f) Evaluation and discussion of 

Section 4(f) uses and mitigations. 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act prohibits the conversion of 

property acquired or developed with LWCF to a nonrecreational purpose without approval of 

the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI) NPS. State and local governments often obtain grants 

to acquire or make improvements to parks and recreation areas through this Act. Section 6(f) 

directs the DOI to assure that replacement lands of equal value, location, and usefulness are 

provided as conditions to such conversions. Consequently, where conversions of Section 6(f) 

lands are proposed for transportation projects, replacement lands would be necessary. The 

Preferred Alternative does not have any permanent impacts to Section 6(f) resources. 

5.14.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Parklands, 

Recreational Areas, and Wildlife Refuges 

Impacts to parklands, recreational areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges were avoided and 

minimized to the maximum extent possible. Only one park resource has permanent impacts, and 

these impacts are unavoidable and have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible. 

Temporary impacts to 16 parkland and trail resources were also minimized to the greatest extent 

feasible. The connectivity of the Mount Vernon and Four Mile Run Trails will be maintained 

throughout construction. DRPT will return temporary easements back to pre-construction 

conditions and to avoid impacting the essential park functions during construction. 

5.15 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 

This section summarizes the anticipated effects of the Preferred Alternative on the transportation 

network at two scales: the Regional Scale, which includes rail stations and highways (namely I95 and U.S. 1) that connect Washington, D.C. and Richmond, and the Corridor Scale, which 

includes the roadway-rail crossings in the Project corridor. Refer to the Transportation Technical 

Report (Appendix S of the Draft EIS) for a full inventory of the methodologies, data, and analyses. 

All analyses summarized in this section incorporate the design changes to the conceptual 

engineering for the Preferred Alternative as presented in Chapter 4 of this Final EIS, which 

include the following changes in improvements at at-grade crossings (presented in Section 

5.15.2.1 below), listed north to south: 

 DRPT revised the proposed at-grade crossings treatments to align with decisions made as 

part of the separate Powells Creek to Arkendale project (see Section 4.3.2 for details). 

There are now no proposed crossing treatments (i.e., no action) as part of the DC2RVA 

Project at one public at-grade crossing (Potomac Avenue) and at four private at-grade 

crossings (Cherry Hill Road, Henderson Road/Epperson Avenue, Flemming Street, and 

Lees Private Crossing). 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-82 

 DRPT re-evaluated the proposed closure of the College Avenue crossing as part of Draft 

EIS Build Alternative 5A (Ashland). The previously proposed closure will not occur, and 

the crossing will remain open as part of Preferred Alternative 5A in this Final EIS. 

 DRPT revised the proposed treatment for all public at-grade crossings within the Town 

of Ashland between Vaughan Road (Archie Cannon Drive) and Ashcake Road to no 

action (i.e., retain existing) as part of Preferred Alternative 5A. In the Draft EIS, for all 

Build Alternatives, DRPT proposed four-quadrant gate treatments for these crossings. 

 DRPT revised the four-quadrant gate treatment at the Hermitage Road (RF&P Line, 

Henrico County) crossing proposed as part of the Draft EIS Build Alternative 6F 

(Richmond) to be a grade separation as part of Preferred Alternative 6F in this Final EIS. 

The proposed crossing improvements at both public and private at-grade crossings are shown in 

the Preferred Alternative mapbook, which is Appendix L of this Final EIS. DRPT anticipates that 

the above changes in crossing improvements will have no effect on the Regional Scale analyses 

(presented in Section 5.15.1 below) and a minimal effect on the Corridor Scale analyses (presented 

in Section 5.15.2 below) in comparison to the Draft EIS. The analyses in these sections has been 

revised accordingly and include notes as to what results have changed since the Draft EIS. 

Additionally, changes in parking facilities that are included as part of the Preferred Alternative 

as they relate to the parking demand analysis are summarized in Section 5.15.1.4. 

5.15.1 Regional Scale 

This section presents how the annual ridership associated with the Preferred Alternative train 

service are anticipated to affect the greater roadway network. 

5.15.1.1 DC2RVA Train Service and Ridership 

The Preferred Alternative will add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per 

day) to the Project corridor (refer to Chapter 4 of this Final EIS). Table 5.15-1 presents the annual 

ridership at each station, represented as a total number of boardings and alightings (i.e., total 

number of train passengers getting on and off of the train). This year 2025 data was used to 

estimate the effects of DC2RVA ridership on regional roadways (see Section 5.15.1.2 below). 

Table 5.15-1: Annual DC2RVA Ridership1 at Stations for the Preferred Alternative (2025) 

Alexandria Woodbridge Quantico Fredericksburg Ashland Staples Mill Road Main Street Total 

230,840 83,057 45,257 303,303 44,165 417,774 370,238 1,951,631 

Note: 1. The annual ridership represents the DC2RVA Project intercity passenger trains in year 2025. It excludes passengers on VRE, the Auto

Train, and the long-distance trains to Georgia/Florida. These values are presented as boardings and alightings, which represent train passengers

getting on and off of the train, respectively, and have not changed since the Draft EIS. 

5.15.1.2 Ridership Effects on Regional Roadways 

DRPT expects that the Preferred Alternative improvements will result in an increase of up to 

854,000 annual rail passenger trips to, from, and through the study corridor in 2025, as compared 

to if the Project was not implemented (i.e., the No Build). By shifting this travel to rail, DRPT 

anticipates that up to 2,050 vehicles per day and 250,000 daily vehicle miles will be removed from 

the parallel roads of I-95 and U.S. Route 1 in the 123-mile Project corridor in 2025; annually, this 

equates to removing 656,000 vehicles per year and 80 million annual vehicle miles from the 

system. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-83 

5.15.1.3 Ridership Effects on Roadway Network at Stations 

The annual DC2RVA passenger train ridership for the Preferred Alternative, as presented in 

Table 5.15-1, was used to estimate daily vehicle trips by mode to determine the percent change in 

traffic due to increases in DC2RVA ridership, which is shown in Table 5.15-2. 

Increases in train ridership do not directly correlate to the same increases in vehicle traffic at train 

stations, as not every rider arrives and/or departs by single occupant vehicle. The DC2RVA 

Project will approximately double the frequency of intercity passenger rail service offered at each 

station; however, the increases in service will be distributed throughout the day and vehicular 

traffic increases on most adjacent roadways to stations will experience nominal increases in traffic 

(under one percent increase in total daily traffic) as part of the Preferred Alternative. DRPT 

anticipates that the adjacent roadways at stations have sufficient carrying capacity that could 

accommodate increases in vehicular trips due to the DC2RVA Project. The highest increases in 

daily traffic on adjacent roadways due to the DC2RVA ridership are anticipated at the 

Fredericksburg Station where traffic is projected to increase approximately seven to eight percent 

across the span of a day on Princess Anne Street and Caroline Street, both of which carry some of 

the lowest daily volumes on roadways adjacent to stations within the Project corridor. The 

Preferred Alternative equates to approximately 2,000 new daily motor vehicle trips to the Staples 

Mill Road and Main Street Stations; near Main Street Station, traffic is projected to increase one 

to two percent across the span of a day on the adjacent roadways of East Main Street and East 

Broad Street. Likewise, traffic on Staples Mill Road is projected to increase less than one percent 

across the span of a day under the Preferred Alternative. 

Table 5.15-2: Effect on Adjacent Roadways1 at Stations for the Preferred Alternative 

Alexandria Woodbridge Quantico Fredericksburg Ashland Staples Mill Road Main Street 

0.1% 0.4% 0.8% 7.3% 0.1% 0.1% 1.8% 

Notes: The % changes shown in this table represent the increases in traffic for the Preferred Alternative in the year 2025 as compared to the

condition where the Project was not implemented (i.e., the No Build), and have not changed since the Draft EIS. 

1. Adjacent roadway(s) at stations were defined as those that vehicles (including personal motor vehicle, transit, or drop-off service such as taxis)

could use to access the station. 

5.15.1.4 Ridership Effects on Parking Needs at Stations 

As detailed in Section 4.5.2 of the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S of the Draft EIS), 

DRPT used an Amtrak-provided method to determine parking demand that utilized as inputs 

the station size (based on ridership) and type of location (development density) at each station: 

 Station size. Large (fully staffed, multiple transit services and amenities, multiple tracks 

and platforms); Medium (lower levels of staff, supporting transit services); and 

Caretaker (enclosed waiting areas, limited amenities, not fully staffed). 

 Type of location. Stations to be served by the Preferred Alternative are designated as 

Suburban, based on density and multimodal accessibility of the areas surrounding each 

station. 

During the alternatives development process, DRPT calculated a range of daily parking space 

demand (a high and low range) based on projected DC2RVA ridership, as shown in Table 5.13-3, 

for stations to be served the by Project. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-84 

Table 5.15-3: Daily Parking Space Demand by Station for the Preferred Alternative 

Station1 Station Size / Type 

Daily Parking Space 

Demand: Low 

Daily Parking Space 

Demand: High 

Alexandria Medium / Suburban 140 190 

Woodbridge Caretaker / Suburban 35 47 

Fredericksburg Medium / Suburban 142 191 

Ashland Caretaker / Suburban 29 39 

Staples Mill Road Large / Suburban 301 406 

Main Street Large / Suburban 199 269 

Notes: 1. While it is proposed to be served by DC2RVA intercity passenger trains and VRE is pursuing expanded parking facilities separate from

this Project, there are no station modifications at Quantico Station as part of the Preferred Alternative. Ridership analyses indicate that many 

riders currently using the Quantico Station would choose the Woodbridge Station in the future due to its receiving increased service levels in

the Preferred Alternative, and its more convenient access to the roadway network. 

There are no changes to the daily parking space demand since the Draft EIS.

However, the conceptual layouts for each station site shown in the station figures in Chapter 4 of 

this Final EIS are also based on the physical characteristics of the station site, the DC2RVA Basis 

of Design, the functional requirements of Amtrak, and/or Project refinements to the Preferred 

Alternative that have occurred since the alternatives development process and the publication of 

the Draft EIS. The conceptual layouts include the following additional considerations: 

 At Alexandria Station, the conceptual layout reflects the existing property constraints and 

not the calculated parking space demand shown above. Due to available transit service at 

the adjacent Metro station and several public parking decks in the vicinity, DRPT is not 

recommending additional parking infrastructure improvements outside of the existing lot. 

 At Woodbridge Station, free parking is provided through a combination of surface parking 

and a parking deck, with a combined capacity of 730 spaces shared by Amtrak and VRE. 

The parking lot is at approximately 65 percent capacity per day, with ample capacity to 

absorb the DC2RVA daily parking space demand as projected above. Accordingly, DRPT 

is not recommending additional parking infrastructure improvements as part of the Project. 

 At Ashland Station, free parking is available on the street and town lots, with ample 

capacity to absorb the DC2RVA daily parking space demand as projected above. Since the 

publication of the Draft EIS, DRPT is not recommending additional parking infrastructure 

improvements as part of the Project. In addition, there was no local support for additional 

parking infrastructure dedicated to intercity passenger rail customers during review of 

Project Build Alternatives (see Appendix G of this Final EIS for details on the CAC). 

 At Richmond’s Staples Mill Road Station, DRPT, in coordination with Amtrak and VDOT, 

completed an expansion of the existing surface parking lot in June 2018 (i.e., since the 

publication of the Draft EIS). The completed project more than doubles the amount of 

available parking from 288 to 600 parking spaces. The entire existing lot was repaved, 

with improved taxi and ride share parking, pedestrian access and bus loading. Along with 

these improvements, a second entrance off of Bremner Boulevard was added to improve 

parking lot access. This expanded parking lot meets the projected parking demand 

estimated for the DC2RVA Project, and no further parking improvements are 

recommended as part of the Project. Refer to Section 4.3.6 for full improvement details of 

the Preferred Alternative at Staples Mill Station. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-85 

 At Richmond’s Main Street Station, a conceptual parking deck layout was shown in the 

Draft EIS to address future parking demand; however, this conceptual parking deck was 

removed from consideration in this Final EIS to reduce impacts on cultural resources and 

property (refer to Section 4.3.6 for full details). Future parking needs for intercity 

passenger rail service at Main Street Station will be addressed by a parking plan to be 

developed by the City of Richmond for the multi-purpose Main Street Station complex. 

5.15.2 Corridor Scale 

This section presents the potential effects of the Preferred Alternative on the highway-rail 

crossings and roadways that connect adjacent crossings. It describes the improvements proposed 

at each crossing as well as analysis of the effects on: vehicles using the crossings and overall 

roadway connectivity. Changes since the Draft EIS are a result of the modifications to the 

proposed at-grade crossing improvements that are described at the beginning of this Section 5.15. 

At-Grade Crossing in the DC2RVA Corridor 

5.15.2.1 Preferred Alternative Crossing Improvements 

Existing at-grade crossings and existing grade-separated crossings for the Preferred Alternative 

are discussed separately in the sections below. 

Types of Crossing Treatments Considered for Existing At-Grade Crossings 

Recommendation of whether an existing at-grade roadway crossing should be eliminated (gradeseparated or closed) or improved (through installation of new or additional crossing treatments) 

was based on FRA and FHWA guidance and site-specific conditions, including rail operations, 

geometry of parallel/intersecting crossing roadway, safety and accessibility, environmental 

resources, and engineering feasibility. The complete methodology of the at-grade crossing 

evaluation process was provided in the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S of the Draft 

EIS). The following types of crossing treatments are proposed for existing at-grade crossings and 

are quantified in Table 5.15-4 and Table 5.15-5 in the next sections, and are shown in the Preferred 

Alternative mapbook, which is Appendix L of this Final EIS. 

Grade Separation. A highway-rail crossing that occurs at two different vertical levels (i.e., the 

roadway would pass over or under the rail corridor). The Preferred Alternative includes the 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-86 

construction of new grade separations29 at a total of seven existing public at-grade crossings. No 

private at-grade crossings will be grade-separated as part of the Project. 

Four-Quadrant Gates. A system of gates (entrance and exit gates on all roadway approaches) 

designed to provide full closure of the crossing when a train is approaching or occupying the 

crossing, thus eliminating the ability of vehicles to navigate into the crossing while the gates are 

lowered. The Preferred Alternative includes the installation of four-quadrant gates at a total of 13 

public at-grade crossings and 2 private at-grade crossings. 

Gates with Center Median Treatment. A system of physical improvements designed to impede 

approaching vehicles from traveling into the opposing traffic lane and around a lowered gate. 

Typical treatments include two-quadrant gates with non-traversable median treatment, such as 

wide raised medians or mountable raised curb systems with vertical median separators. The 

Preferred Alternative includes installation of gates with center median treatment at eight public 

at-grade crossings. No private at-grade crossings will have gates with center median treatment. 

Closure. Removal of an existing at-grade roadway crossing from the rail corridor. The DC2RVA 

Project includes the closure of seven public at-grade crossings. No private at-grade crossings will 

be closed as part of the Project. 

Locking Gate. A moveable barrier gate that is engaged (i.e., closed) and only opens on demand, 

either manually or in a more automated fashion (e.g., key card access to open and close the gate). 

The Preferred Alternative includes the installation of locking gates at 12 private at-grade 

crossings (in lieu of closure). Note that no public at-grade crossings will receive locking gates as 

part of the Project. 

No Action. Considered at crossings where the existing crossing treatment is sufficient to 

accommodate the DC2RVA Project, or per direction of the Commonwealth Transportation Board 

(CTB) as part of its resolution for the Preferred Alternative (Appendix H of this Final EIS). 

The Preferred Alternative does not propose any new at-grade crossings, the creation of which are 

restricted by Virginia state code.30 Dynamic crossing safety technology to control exit gates (such 

as embedded loops or radar) will be determined during final design of the Project and is subject 

to FRA Office of Railroad Safety approval at the time of that design. Other site improvements to 

improve overall roadway and/or railroad safety, as part of or in addition to these treatments, are 

not precluded from the final design of any of these treatments. 

Improvements at Existing Public At-Grade Crossings 

The proposed public at-grade crossing improvements for the Preferred Alternative are 

summarized in Table 5.15-4, and shown in the maps in Appendix L of this Final EIS. DRPT 

proposes that most of the existing at-grade public roadways remain at grade with the addition of 

four-quadrant gates or gates with center median treatment to enhance safety in the DC2RVA 

Project corridor. Changes to public at-grade crossing improvements since the Draft EIS are 

summarized at the beginning of Section 5.15, and include changes in downtown Ashland as well 

as one less four-quadrant gate in the Northern Virginia area and one additional grade separation 

in the Richmond area. 

 

29 Note that the construction of new grade separations are separate from modifications to existing grade-separated 

crossings that may be widened/replaced as part of the Project, which are discussed later in this section. 

30 The applicable state law can be found at: https://vacode.org/56-363/ 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-87 

Table 5.15-4: Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements for the Preferred Alternative

Grade Separation1 Crossing Closure 

Four-Quadrant 

Gates 

Gates with 

Center Median 

Treatment No Action2

Alternative 2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

0 

1 1 

0 

2 

Mount Hope Church 

Road3 Brent Point Road Featherstone Road; Potomac Avenue 

Alternative 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through City 

1 

0 

2 1 

0 

Lansdowne Road Mine Road; 

Summit Crossing Road 

Claiborne 

Crossing Road 

Alternative 4A: Add a Third Main Track 

0 

1 4 2 

0 

Colemans Mill Road 

Stonewall Jackson 

Road; 

Woodford Road; 

Penola Road; 

Doswell Road 

Woodslane Road; 

Paige Road 

Alternative 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements) 

2 

0 

3 1 5 

Vaughan Road (Archie 

Cannon Drive); 

Ashcake Road 

Gwathmey Church 

Road; 

Elmont Road; 

Cedar Lane 

Mill Road 

W Patrick Street; 

College Avenue / 

Henry Clay Street; 

England Street / 

Thompson Street; 

Myrtle Street; 

E Francis Street 

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

4 5 3 4 1 

Hungary Road; 

Hermitage Road (RF&P, 

Henrico County); 

Hospital Street / N 7th 

Street; E Commerce 

Road 

St James Street4; 

N 2nd Street / Valley 

Road; 

Dale Avenue / Trenton 

Avenue; Brinkley Road; 

Old Lane 

Maury Street; 

Goodes Street; 

Kingsland Road 

Hermitage Road 

(S-Line, 

Richmond); Brook 

Road; 

Ruffin Road; 

Bells Road 

Mountain Road 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 

7 7 13 8 8 

Notes: 1. Some existing grade-separated crossings will be widened/replaced as part of the Project; these crossings are separate from the proposed 

new grade separations of existing at-grade crossings that are quantified in this table. 

2. “No Action” in this table includes replacing the existing crossing improvement in-kind or no additional crossing improvement. 

3. The closure of Mount Hope Church Road will include a new parallel access road. 

4. St James Street will be closed for roadway traffic, but a new shared-use path will be grade-separated over the former at-grade crossing. 

There are no public at-grade crossings for Alternative 1B in Area 1 (Arlington, Long Bridge Approach). Changes to public at-grade crossing 

improvements since the Draft EIS are summarized at the beginning of Section 5.15. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-88 

Improvements at Existing At-Grade Private Crossings 

The Preferred Alternative maintains access to existing private crossings, albeit with additional 

safety measures, as shown in Table 5.15-5 and in the maps in Appendix L of this Final EIS. 

Changes to private at-grade crossing improvements since the Draft EIS are summarized at the 

beginning of Section 5.15, and include removal of previously proposed treatments in the 

Northern Virginia area (i.e., no action as part of the DC2RVA Project) to align with the separate 

Powells Creek to Arkendale project. 

DRPT proposes that most of the existing private at-grade crossings will be equipped with locking 

gates in the Preferred Alternative; however, DRPT proposes four-quadrant gates at two private 

crossing locations where site-specific safety, geometric, and/or operating conditions were 

determined to preclude use of locking gates. Locking gates will not remove owner’s access to the 

private crossing, but will provide an additional measure of safety for both vehicles and trains at 

the crossing. DRPT anticipates that locking gates will be tied to train control, and private property 

owners will need to “request” that their crossing gate be opened. However, details of technology 

used and design of the track circuit interlock will be determined as part of the final design of the 

Project and is subject to FRA and CSXT approval at the time of that design. DRPT will coordinate 

with property owners to determine means of access to each property during final design. 

Table 5.15-5: Private At-Grade Crossing Improvements for the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

# / Type of Private Crossing Treatment 

Total 

Crossing 

Closure 

FourQuadrant 

Gates Locking Gate 

No Action 

Required 

Area 1: Arlington 1B 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 0 0 0 5 5 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 0 0 10 0 10 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 0 0 0 0 0 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 0 2 2 0 4 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 0 2 12 5 19 

Improvements at Existing Grade-Separated Crossings 

All existing grade-separated crossings (both public and private) in the rail corridor will be 

maintained as part of the Preferred Alternative, as shown in the maps in Appendix L of this Final 

EIS. The proposed crossing improvements at the existing grade-separated crossings consist of one 

of the following: 

 No action required (i.e., the existing structure is sufficient to accommodate the DC2RVA 

Project) 

 For roadway overpasses, widen/replace the existing roadway structure over the railroad 

to meet the vertical and/or horizontal clearances required to construct and operate on the 

additional track, at seven crossings: Dawson Beach Road (Prince William County), Eskimo 

Hill Road (Stafford County), Leeland Road (Stafford County), Primmer House Road 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-89 

(Stafford County), Kings Highway (Stafford County), Dumbarton Road (Henrico 

County), and Elliham Avenue (Chesterfield County) 

 For roadway underpasses, build a new railroad bridge over the roadway so as to construct 

and operate on the additional track at 10 crossings: Furnace Road (Fairfax County), 

Private road (Prince William County), Andrew Chapel Road (Stafford County), Harrell 

Road (Stafford County), Sophia Street (Fredericksburg), Caroline Street (Fredericksburg), 

Princess Anne Street (Fredericksburg), Charles Street (Fredericksburg), Taylorsville 

Road (Hanover County), and Elletts Crossing Road (Hanover County) 

These modifications do not represent a change to the existing crossing type, and are separate from 

the proposed grade separations of existing at-grade crossings that are quantified in the at-grade 

crossing tables above. The above crossing improvements are functionally equivalent because the 

existing operations of the crossing roadway (i.e., the number and type of lanes) are not modified 

as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

At the existing grade-separated crossings where DRPT proposes that the Preferred Alternative 

extend the existing structure or build a new structure to accommodate the additional rail 

infrastructure through the crossing, DRPT will coordinate with VDOT and/or the responsible 

municipality during future phases of design and construction to ensure that the new structure 

will accommodate projected traffic volumes. The Project, however, does not increase traffic 

volumes to a level that will require additional travel lanes at any crossing and therefore DRPT 

has not included additional travel lanes in its compilation of impacts or Project costs. 

5.15.2.2 Preferred Alternative Effects on Roadway Connectivity and Accessibility 

The purpose of this section is to qualitatively identify locations where accessibility and 

connectivity of the roadway network may be affected by the Preferred Alternative and establish 

those locations where further quantitative analysis is required. 

Roadway Effects of Public At-Grade Crossing Improvements 

The Preferred Alternative crossing improvements that DRPT anticipates will have the greatest 

effect on existing accessibility and connectivity of the public network are the seven proposed 

closures of existing public at-grade highway–rail crossings (as previously described in Section 

5.15.2.1): 

 Mount Hope Church Road crossing, Stafford County (Preferred Alternative 2A) 

 Colemans Mill Road crossing, Caroline County (Preferred Alternative 4A) 

 St James Street crossing, City of Richmond (Preferred Alternative 6F) 

 N 2nd Street/Valley Road crossing, City of Richmond (Preferred Alternative 6F) 

 Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue crossing, City of Richmond (Preferred Alternative 6F) 

 Brinkley Road crossing, Chesterfield County (Preferred Alternative 6F) 

 Old Lane crossing, Chesterfield County (Preferred Alternative 6F) 

These closures require a permanent detour of vehicular traffic, which not only affects the vehicles 

that are making the detour, but also the traffic operations and vehicles along the alternate route, 

and therefore warrant further analysis of the proposed closure and associated diversion, which 

is presented in Section 5.15.2.3 of this Final EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-90 

For all proposed grade separations, four-quadrant gates, and gates with center median treatment, 

the Preferred Alternative maintains the existing functional characteristics of the crossing 

roadway. Characteristics to be maintained during construction and in the final configuration 

include the existing number and type of roadway lanes as well as the existing type of pedestrian 

access. The primary intent to modify existing at-grade crossings with four-quadrant gates or 

center median treatment is to reduce the probability of hazards due to interaction between 

roadway and railroad traffic at certain crossings. Therefore, DRPT expects that these proposed 

crossing improvements will have minimal effect on existing accessibility and connectivity as part 

of the Preferred Alternative and do not warrant further detailed operations analysis. 

The DC2RVA Project will approximately double the frequency of intercity passenger rail service 

operating along the corridor; while these increases in service will be distributed throughout the 

day, thus minimizing the impact to vehicles using at-grade crossings, DRPT evaluated the 

potential change in total daily vehicle delay, which is presented in Section 5.15.2.4. 

Roadway Effects of Private At-Grade Crossing Improvements 

The Preferred Alternative was designed to maintain existing accessibility and connectivity to 

private land parcels, except where full property acquisitions are required by Project design. DRPT 

does not anticipate that any of the Preferred Alternative private crossing improvements will have 

an effect on the overall connectivity and accessibility of the public transportation network; 

therefore, further detailed traffic operations analysis is not warranted. 

Roadway Effects of Grade-Separated Crossing Improvements 

The crossing improvements at existing grade-separated crossings (both public and private) 

include: extension of the existing crossing structure, construction of a new separate parallel 

grade-separated crossing structure, or no change required (i.e., the existing structure is sufficient 

to accommodate the Preferred Alternative). The Preferred Alternative includes modifications to 

grade-separated crossings where either the horizontal envelope below an existing overhead 

roadway bridge was insufficient to allow for the installation of a new track or curve alignment or 

an existing undergrade railroad bridge required structural remediation or realignment. The 

Preferred Alternative maintains the existing functional characteristics of the crossing roadway, 

including number and type of roadway lanes. Therefore, DRPT does not anticipate that any of 

the proposed modifications to existing grade-separated crossings of the Preferred Alternative will 

have an effect on the overall connectivity and accessibility of the transportation network. Further 

detailed traffic operations analysis of these crossings is not warranted. 

Relevance of Preferred Alternative to Quiet Zones 

FRA regulations (49 CFR Part 222) require locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings, but 

the regulations also include the procedures by which a local authority could establish a new quiet 

zone where locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings is not necessarily required because 

supplemental and alternatives safety measures (SSMs) are installed. SSMs include the following: 

 Closure of a highway-rail at-grade crossing (i.e., closure of the at-grade condition, which 

could include grade separation of the crossing or permanently closing the crossing to 

vehicular traffic) 

 Four-quadrant gates 

 Gates with traffic channelization arrangements (i.e., non-mountable curb or mountable 

curb with delineators) 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-91 

Under the regulations, local jurisdictions/municipalities initiate and manage the process for 

implementing the creation of new quiet zones. Therefore, the requirement for trains to routinely 

sound horns is dependent on the locality’s actions, in accordance with FRA standards and 

approved by FRA. Localities would also fund all improvements, equipment, and signage, and 

they would provide ongoing maintenance for all quiet zones within their jurisdictions. The FRA 

Office of Safety authorizes quiet zones on a site-specific basis, and observance of quiet zones by 

the operating railroad is voluntary. Train horns may be sounded in emergency situations or to 

comply with other operating railroad rules or conditions, even within a quiet zone, and use of 

wayside horns (i.e., those installed as part of a crossing treatment) may be used within quiet 

zones.31 Also, CSXT operating rules require all trains to sound their horn when approaching, 

passing, or departing a passenger (intercity or commuter) station along the mainline. 

DRPT does not anticipate that the Project will affect existing or future quiet zone designations, as 

Project improvements that qualify as SSMs are proposed at most public at-grade crossings. 

Effects on Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity 

The Preferred Alternative will maintain existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities at crossings (i.e., 

to the same level of existing treatment). If the Preferred Alternative impacts (i.e., crosses) an 

existing pedestrian and/or bicycle crossing, DRPT has designed that crossing to current safety 

standards in keeping with the Project’s Basis of Design and applicable FRA, Amtrak, CSXT, and 

VDOT safety standards and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Any 

crossings for which DRPT proposes no changes to the tracks as part of the Preferred Alternative 

will result in no changes to existing bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities. It is important to note 

that crossing the railroad tracks at locations other than designated crossings is unsafe and is a 

violation of §18.2-159 of the Code of Virginia. 

Opportunities for additional bicycle and pedestrian accessibility improvements, including new 

and/or additional ADA-compliant facilities beyond existing levels, will be incorporated during 

final design, in coordination with FRA and CSXT. As part of the CTB’s resolution recommending 

Alternative 5A as the Preferred Alternative for the Ashland/Hanover area, the CTB directed 

DRPT to explore the need for other safety improvements to pedestrian and vehicle at-grade 

crossings within the Town of Ashland. DRPT will continue to work with the FRA, VDOT, Town 

of Ashland, Randolph-Macon College, and CSXT to identify safety improvements for all users 

crossing the at-grade tracks in Ashland, separate from the DC2RVA Project. 

Trail through Railside Park (Area 5, Ashland) 

 

31 From FRA’s Quiet Zone Brochure, available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04781
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-92 

5.15.2.3 Crossing Closure Diversion Analysis (Traffic Operations) 

Closing an existing traffic movement requires vehicles to permanently use a different route, 

which not only affects the vehicles that are diverting, but also the traffic operations and vehicles 

along the diversion route. Diversion routes, consisting of multiple roadways and intersections 

along each side of the rail corridor, were identified for each crossing closure location; refer to the 

Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S of the Draft EIS) for the complete methodology, 

including graphics of the proposed detour routes at each crossing closure location. 

The closure diversion analysis included two evaluations for each closure location of the Preferred 

Alternative: 

1. Effects on the roadway traffic along the diversion route(s), including projected daily 

volumes and associated facility level of service (LOS).32

2. Effects on intersection capacity and operations along the diversion route(s). DRPT 

considered three threshold criteria: under capacity, near capacity, and over capacity, 

where intersections may be approaching but not yet exceeding capacity. The intersection 

capacity analyses are intended to generally correspond to LOS as follows: 

- Under capacity represents LOS A/B conditions 

- Near capacity represents LOS C/D conditions 

- Over capacity represents LOS E/F conditions 

The results of the closure diversion analysis for the seven public at-grade crossing closures that 

are part of the Preferred Alternative for the Project are presented in Table 5.15-6. 

Table 5.15-6: Closure Diversion Analysis Results for the Preferred Alternative 

Preferred 

Alternative Crossing Closure(s) 

Operations along the Diversion Route 

Roadway Traffic Volumes and 

Associated LOS 

Intersection 

Capacity 

2A Mount Hope Church Road Minimal Effect Minimal Effect 

4A Colemans Mill Road Minimal Effect Minimal Effect 

6F St James Street; 

N 2nd Street/Valley Road; 

Dale Avenue/Trenton Avenue; 

Brinkley Road; 

Old Lane 

Centralia Road: 

16,300 daily vehicles / LOS E (LOS B in No Build) 

Hopkins Road: 

8,000 daily vehicles / LOS C (LOS B in No Build) 

Kingsland Road:

4,200 daily vehicles / LOS B (LOS A in No Build) 

All other locations minimal effect.

Centralia Road at 

Chester Road: 

Near Capacity 

All other locations 

minimal effect. 

Notes: Preferred Alternatives 1B, 3B, and 5A do not have crossing closures that are part of the closure diversion analysis, so are not included in 

this table. There have been no changes to the closure diversion analysis for the alternatives shown since the Draft EIS; Preferred Alternative 5A 

is no longer included in this table as the College Avenue crossing remains open as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

Refer to Section 5.4 of the Transportation Technical Report (Appendix S of the Draft EIS) for details of diversion analysis for each closure. 

 

32 Level of service (LOS) is a measure of traffic operating conditions based generally on a comparison of traffic volumes 

to available capacity. LOS is described in terms of letter grades from A to F; LOS A represents free-flowing traffic 

conditions, while LOS F represents a breakdown in traffic flows, with stop-and-go conditions. Generally for roadway 

design standards, LOS C is considered acceptable in rural areas, and LOS D is considered acceptable in urban areas. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-93 

DRPT anticipates that most of the crossing closures of the Preferred Alternative will have minimal 

effect on both roadway and intersection operations; “minimal” is defined as the LOS on all 

roadway segments and through all intersections along the diversion route as being equivalent to 

the condition where the Preferred Alternative was not implemented (i.e., the No Build condition). 

Additionally, the LOS at these locations is considered acceptable by roadway design standards 

(at least LOS C in rural areas/LOS D in urban areas). There are no changes to the closure diversion 

analysis shown in Table 5.15-6 since the Draft EIS with the exception of the College Avenue 

crossing in the Town of Ashland, which is no longer included and will remain open as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

There are three roadway locations and one intersection identified in Table 5.15-6 in Area 6 

(Richmond) as locations where DRPT anticipates that the Preferred Alternative will reduce traffic 

operations along the diversion route (compared to the condition where the Project was not 

implemented, i.e., the No Build condition): Centralia Road, Hopkins Road, and Kingsland Road 

and the intersection of Centralia Road at Chester Road. However, the operations along Hopkins 

Road and Kingsland Road have LOS that are generally considered acceptable by roadway design 

standards (at least LOS C in rural areas/LOS D in urban areas). Centralia Road is located south 

of the Project limits and has a crossing of the rail corridor that is proposed to be grade-separated 

as a part of the separate Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Richmond to Raleigh Project (SEHSR 

R2R project), and therefore, Centralia Road in proximity to the diversion route is assumed to be 

redesigned and reconstructed (including the grade separation) to accommodate future volumes 

as part of the DC2RVA Project No Build condition. 

Vaughan Road Existing At-Grade Crossing (Area 5, Ashland) 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-94 

5.15.2.4 Preferred Alternative Effects on Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

The total vehicle delay per day is the amount of time that vehicles spend queuing at an at-grade 

crossing over a 24-hour period, based on the number of trains that are expected to pass through 

the crossing. Any combination of more trains, slower trains, or more motor vehicles can increase 

estimated total daily vehicle delay. Eliminating an at-grade crossing, which is defined as either a 

proposed grade separation or crossing closure, can reduce total daily vehicle delay at that 

crossing by physically separating or removing train traffic from roadway vehicle traffic. 

However, for crossing closures, those vehicles would then detour to use an adjacent existing 

crossing, the total daily delay of which would increase. Refer to Section 5.5 of the Transportation 

Technical Report (Appendix S of the Draft EIS) for details on the total daily vehicle methodology. 

Total daily vehicle delay results are presented in vehicle-hours, which represents the cumulative 

delay of all motor vehicles queuing at an at-grade crossing as a total for all train crossing events in 

a single average day. The summary of total daily vehicle delay for the Preferred Alternative is 

presented in Table 5.15-7, and results by individual crossing are presented in Table 5.15-8. The 

majority of the total daily vehicle delay experienced by motor vehicles at at-grade crossings in the 

Project corridor will result from freight trains that will operate in both the No Build and Preferred 

Alternatives. Freight train traffic represents between 80 to 90 percent of the total daily vehicle delay 

of the Preferred Alternative. Intercity passenger trains represent 10 to 13 percent of the total daily 

vehicle delay experienced at at-grade crossings in the Preferred Alternative. Changes in impacts to 

total daily vehicle delay since the Draft EIS are a result of the changes to the crossing improvements 

that are described at the beginning of this Section 5.15, and resulted in a slight change in total daily 

delay at specific crossings in Alternative Area 5 and 6, though these changes did not affect the total 

percent increase in total daily delay for all crossings due to the Project in either area. 

Table 5.15-7: Summary of Total Daily Vehicle Delay for the Preferred Alternative

Alternative Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

At-Grade 

Crossings 

Removed as part 

of the Project1

Total Daily 

Vehicle Delay2 

(Vehicle 

Hours) 

% of Total Daily Vehicle Daily 

Intercity 

Passenger 

Trains 

VRE 

Trains 

Freight 

Trains 

Area 1: Arlington 1B There are no at-grade crossings in this area. 

Area 2: Northern Virginia 2A 1 23.01 13% 5% 82% 

Draft EIS Impacts 1 23.01 13% 5% 82% 

Area 3: Fredericksburg 3B 1 6.59 13% 5% 82% 

Draft EIS Impacts 1 6.59-32.79 9-13% 0-5% 81-91% 

Area 4: Central Virginia 4A 1 3.35 13% 0% 87% 

Draft EIS Impacts 1 3.35 13% 0% 87% 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 2 56.33 11% 0% 89% 

Draft EIS Impacts 1-3 9.76-56.33 11-42% 0% 58-89% 

Area 6: Richmond 6F 9 64.22 10% 0% 90% 

Draft EIS Impacts 7-9 26.48-68.55 8-24% 0% 76-92% 

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 14 153.50 11% 1% 88% 

Notes: 1. “At-Grade Crossings Removed” includes proposed grade separations and crossing closures as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

2. Total Daily Vehicle Delay represents the cumulative delay for all at-grade crossings within each area. Refer to Table 5.15-8 for details on delays 

at individual crossings. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-95 

Total daily vehicle delay is one of FHWA’s 11 conditions33 for which grade separation of at-grade 

crossings should be considered (but is not required); the criteria threshold set by FHWA is 40 total 

vehicle hours of delay per day at a single crossing, which is the cumulative time all motor vehicles are 

delayed at a single crossing per day. As shown in Table 5.15-8, the 40-hour FHWA threshold for total 

daily vehicle delay is not exceeded by any single at-grade crossing as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

Table 5.15-8: Total Daily Vehicle Delay Results for the Preferred Alternative, By Crossing

Crossing Roadway (At-Grade 

Public Crossings) 

Crossing 

Treatment as part 

of Preferred 

Alterntaive1

Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

(Vehicle Hours and % of Total) 

Total Daily 

Vehicle 

Delay 

(Vehicle 

Hours) 

Intercity 

Trains VRE Trains 

Freight 

Trains 

Alternative 2A: Add a Third or Fourth Main Track 

Featherstone Road Existing Treatment 1.69 / 13% 0.71 / 5% 10.99 / 82% 13.39

Potomac Avenue Existing Treatment 1.22 / 13% 0.49 / 5% 7.4 / 81% 9.11

Brent Point Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.07 / 13% 0.03 / 5% 0.43 / 82% 0.52

Mount Hope Church Road Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Total 2.98 / 13% 1.22 / 5% 18.81 / 82% 23.01

Alternative 3B: Add a Third Main Track Through City 

Lansdowne Road Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Mine Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.77 / 13% 0.31 / 5% 4.7 / 81% 5.78

Summit Crossing Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.05 / 14% 0 / 0% 0.32 / 86% 0.37

Claiborne Crossing Road Median Treatment 0.06 / 13% 0 / 0% 0.38 / 87% 0.44

Total 0.88 / 13% 0.31 / 5% 5.39 / 82% 6.59

Alternative 4A: Add a Third Main Track 

Stonewall Jackson Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.24 / 13% 0 / 0% 1.58 / 87% 1.83

Woodford Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.04 / 12% 0 / 0% 0.3 / 88% 0.34

Woodslane Road Median Treatment 0.01 / 12% 0 / 0% 0.08 / 88% 0.09

Paige Road Median Treatment 0.05 / 12% 0 / 0% 0.38 / 88% 0.43

Penola Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.05 / 13% 0 / 0% 0.34 / 87% 0.38

Colemans Mill Road Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Doswell Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.03 / 12% 0 / 0% 0.25 / 88% 0.28

Total 0.43 / 13% 0 / 0% 2.92 / 87% 3.35

Alternative 5A: Maintain Two Tracks Through Town (No Station Improvements) 

Vaughan Road (Archie Cannon Drive) Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

W Patrick Street Existing Treatment 0.07 / 11% 0 / 0% 0.56 / 89% 0.63

Draft EIS Impacts2 Four Quadrant Gates 0.09 / 11% 0 / 0% 0.64 / 89% 0.72

 Continued – see end of table for notes.

 

33 FHWA’s Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition (Handbook) provides guidance criteria 

for physical/operational improvements for highway-rail at-grade crossings to enhance safety and operation. The 

Handbook outlines analysis methodologies and sets forth 11 conditions for which public at-grade crossings “should 

be considered for grade separation or otherwise eliminated” if any one or more of the set thresholds are met or 

exceeded. FHWA's handbook recommends the application of certain types of improvements relative to the 

calculated threshold; however, the guidelines are not explicit and are subject to evaluation and feasibility for 

implementation at the individual crossing. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/07010.pdf
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-96 

Table 5.15-8: Total Daily Vehicle Delay Results for the Preferred Alternative, By Crossing

Crossing Roadway (At-Grade 

Public Crossings) 

Crossing 

Treatment as part 

of Preferred 

Alterntaive1

Total Daily Vehicle Delay 

(Vehicle Hours and % of Total) 

Total Daily 

Vehicle 

Delay 

(Vehicle 

Hours) 

Intercity 

Trains VRE Trains 

Freight 

Trains 

College Avenue / Henry Clay Street Existing Treatment 0.31 / 11% 0 / 0% 2.51 / 89% 2.82

Draft EIS Impacts2 Crossing Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

England Street / Thompson Street Existing Treatment 4.30 / 11% 0 / 0% 34.88 / 89% 39.18

Draft EIS Impacts2 Four Quadrant Gates 4.59 / 11% 0 / 0% 37.62 / 89% 41.85

Myrtle Street Existing Treatment 0.43 / 11% 0 / 0% 3.52 / 89% 3.96

Draft EIS Impacts2 Four Quadrant Gates 0.43 / 11% 0 / 0% 3.52 / 89% 3.96

E Francis Street Existing Treatment 0.43 / 11% 0 / 0% 3.52 / 89% 3.96

Draft EIS Impacts2 Four Quadrant Gates 0.43 / 11% 0 / 0% 3.52 / 89% 3.96

Ashcake Road Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Gwathmey Church Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.02 / 13% 0 / 0% 0.13 / 87% 0.15

Elmont Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.27 / 13% 0 / 0% 1.76 / 87% 2.03

Cedar Lane Four Quadrant Gates 0.24 / 13% 0 / 0% 1.58 / 87% 1.83

Mill Road Median Treatment 0.36 / 13% 0 / 0% 2.3 / 87% 2.66

Total 6.34 / 11% 0 / 0% 49.99 / 89% 56.33

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

Mountain Road Existing Treatment 0.7 / 13% 0 / 0% 4.53 / 87% 5.22

Hungary Road Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Hermitage Road (RF&P, Henrico 

County) Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Draft EIS Impacts2 Four Quadrant Gates 0.57 / 13% 0 / 0% 3.76 / 85% 4.34

Hermitage Road (S-Line, Richmond) Median Treatment 2.17 / 8% 0 / 0% 26.01 / 92% 28.18

Brook Road Median Treatment 1.72 / 8% 0 / 0% 20.68 / 92% 22.40

St James Street Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

N 2nd Street / Valley Road Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Hospital Street / N 7th Street Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Maury Street Four Quadrant Gates 0.23 / 18% 0 / 0% 1.02 / 82% 1.25

Goodes Street Four Quadrant Gates 0.02 / 18% 0 / 0% 0.07 / 82% 0.09

E Commerce Road Grade Separate 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Ruffin Road Median Treatment 0.16 / 18% 0 / 0% 0.69 / 82% 0.85

Bells Road Median Treatment 0.79 / 18% 0 / 0% 3.5 / 82% 4.29

Dale Avenue / Trenton Avenue Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Kingsland Road Four Quadrant Gates 0.37 / 19% 0 / 0% 1.56 / 81% 1.93

Brinkley Road Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Old Lane Closure 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 0.00

Total 6.15 / 10% 0 / 0% 58.06 / 90% 64.22

Total for the Preferred Alternative: 16.78 / 11% 1.53 / 1% 135.18 / 88% 153.50 

Notes: 1. Crossing treatments of grade separation and closure result in a total daily vehicle delay of “0” by physically separating or removing train 

traffic from roadway vehicle traffic. Crossing treatments of “existing treatment” are existing four quadrant gates at Featherstone Road and 

Mountain Road, existing gates at Potomac Avenue (subject to the separate Powells Creek to Arkendale project), and existing gates in Ashland. 

2. With the exception of the four locations noted, there are no other changes in total daily vehicle delay results from what was reported in the 

Draft EIS along the length of the Preferred Alternative, so the range of impacts is not repeated in this table. 

Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. For Alternative Areas 1, 3, 5, and 6, the color coding 

reflects the increase or decrease from the corresponding Build Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS, not the range of impacts shown for all Build 

Alternatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-97 

5.16 UTILITIES 

Utility impacts for the Preferred Alternative vary widely throughout the length of the Project 

corridor. Table 5.16-1 summarizes the estimated utility impacts and costs for the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Table 5.16-1: Estimated Utility Relocations and Costs for the Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 

Area 

Preferred 

Alternative 

Relocations (in feet, except Major Facility) 

Cost 

Fiber Water ($2017) 

Sanitary 

Sewer 

Electric 

Dist. 

Electric 

Trans. Gas 

Major 

Facility 

Area 1: 

Arlington 1B 235 115 165 170 – 50 – $194,300 

Area 2: 

Northern 

Virginia 

2A 162,286 860 2,300 520 – 81,891 – $70,333,100 

Area 3: 

Fredericksburg 3B 24,729 90 110 80 – 19,269 1 $15,954,800 

Area 4: 

Central Virginia 4A 389,160 1,300 – 2,105 – 8,155 – $25,371,300 

Area 5: Ashland 5A 61,776 – – 400 – 600 – $3,472,300 

Area 6: 

Richmond 6F 147,255 5,280 1,215 21,320 17 6,125 – $36,704,800 

Total for the Preferred

Alternative: 785,441 7,645 3,790 24,595 17 116,090 1 $152,030,600 

Note: Cost estimates do not include engineering costs or contingency. Electric transmission relocations are provided by number of towers, not 

feet of transmission line. Major utility facility relocations are defined as pump houses, electrical substations, or other individual utility facilities, 

and are provided by number of facilities, not feet. Note that this table is new since the Draft EIS based on the selection of the Preferred Alternative, 

so no comparison rows are shown. 

5.17 SAFETY AND SECURITY 

FRA’s Track Safety Standards (49 CFR 213) are based on classifications of track that determine 

maximum operating speed limits, inspection frequencies, and standards of maintenance, among 

other factors. Higher track classes require more-stringent maintenance standards to support 

higher allowable maximum operating speed. The proposed maximum speed for intercity 

passenger trains in the Project corridor is 90 mph, or FRA Class 5. The proposed maximum 

authorized speed is variable by segment, with increased speeds of 80 to 90 mph in some sections 

where practicable. Maximum authorized speeds are based on curve and track geometry. Actual 

operating speeds will be refined during future phases of design and future modeling of train 

operations. The existing maximum speed for intercity passenger trains is 79 mph, or FRA Class 

4. The corresponding maximum operating speed for freight trains is 60 mph and 80 mph on Class 

4 and Class 5 track, respectively; however, the maximum operating speed for freight trains is 

planned to remain at 60 mph throughout the DC2RVA corridor. The proposed improvements 

described in Chapter 4 will bring rail infrastructure in the selected corridor into compliance with 

the appropriate FRA standards. FRA will require the preparation of a System Safety Plan upon 

the completion of this Final EIS and prior to authorization to implement the infrastructure and 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-98 

service improvements proposed under the DC2RVA Project. Refer to the Basis of Design 

(Appendix B of the Draft EIS). 

As detailed in Section 5.15 above, DRPT analyzed each at-grade highway-rail crossing to 

determine which safety mechanisms or treatments will be proposed as part of the Preferred 

Alternative. These treatments include grade separation, closure/consolidation, four-quadrant 

gates, median treatment, other treatment, or no action. The Project will improve safety of the 

private at-grade crossings with either locking gates or signalized four-quadrant gates and will 

improve safety at the pedestrian at-grade crossings. 

Safety of the existing public at-grade crossings in the DC2RVA corridor will be improved as part 

of the Preferred Alternative and is discussed in Section 5.15 of this Final EIS (also see 

Transportation Technical Report, Appendix S of the Draft EIS).

5.18 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

Most of the rail lines in the United States, including the DC2RVA corridor, are used for 

transportation of various freight, including hazardous materials. FRA and the United States 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulate the transportation of hazardous materials on 

railroads. Part of that regulation requires all Class I railroads to maintain a safety plan for 

transporting such materials. Spills of hazardous materials that may occur during operation would 

be handled in accordance with the emergency management and response plans of CSXT, Amtrak, 

and VRE in coordination with local, state, and federal emergency response agencies as 

appropriate, depending on the situation and location. 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of DHS determines the routes for shipment of 

certain hazardous materials. For security reasons, TSA does not share this information outside 

specific agencies and freight rail carriers; however, freight rail carriers regularly communicate 

with emergency management agencies and DHS about materials of concern. 

The Preferred Alternative will add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains per 

day) on the DC2RVA corridor. The Preferred Alternative will not add any hazardous materials 

trains on the DC2RVA corridor; however, under both the No Build and Preferred Alternatives, 

CSXT freight traffic is forecasted to nearly double the volume in operation in 2025. The types of 

freight trains in operation through the DC2RVA corridor is at the discretion of CSXT and the 

organic increase may include any type of train. The Preferred Alternative is designed in 

accordance with FRA regulations, industry standards, and CSXT requirements. DRPT expects 

that the proposed upgrades to facilities and added rail capacity associated with the Preferred 

Alternative will increase safety of all train traffic through the DC2RVA corridor by decreasing 

congestion, maintaining the rail line to current standards in locations where work is being 

conducted, and replacing older infrastructure. The modern infrastructure and new technologies 

that will be applied will provide a greater level of safety for all rail traffic, including 

transportation of hazardous materials. 

The DC2RVA Project will also address bike/pedestrian safety at public at-grade crossings along 

the DC2RVA rail corridor, in keeping with the Project’s Basis of Design and applicable FRA, 

Amtrak, CSXT, and VDOT safety standards. DRPT proposes to maintain existing bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities (provided in-kind, i.e., to the same level of existing treatment) as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. Accessibility across the tracks is addressed based on the improvements 

that are proposed at each crossing. If a Preferred Alternative alignment impacts (i.e., crosses) an 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-99 

existing pedestrian and/or bicycle crossing, the Project will be required to design that crossing to 

current safety standards and in compliance with the ADA; this compliance will be required for 

the entire crossing (and not just the side of the crossing closest to the Project track work). 

Alternatives that propose no changes to the tracks will result in no changes to the existing bicycle 

and pedestrian facilities. Bike/pedestrian safety is discussed in Section 5.15 of this Final EIS. 

As part of the CTB resolution recommending Alternative 5A as the Preferred Alternative for the 

Ashland/Hanover area, the CTB directed DRPT to explore the need for other safety 

improvements to pedestrian and vehicle at-grade crossings within the Town of Ashland, separate 

from the DCRVA Project. DRPT will continue to work with FRA, VDOT, Town of Ashland, 

Randolph-Macon College, and CSXT to identify safety improvements for pedestrians, bicycles, 

and vehicles crossing the tracks in Ashland. Opportunities for additional bicycle and pedestrian 

accessibility improvements, including new and/or additional ADA-compliant facilities beyond 

existing levels, could be incorporated during final design, in coordination with FRA, which will 

occur after funding is obtained. 

5.18.1 Children’s Health and Safety 

Comments on the Draft EIS from EPA suggested inclusion of information regarding potential 

effects of the Project on children’s health pursuant to Federal EO 13045,34 which directs Federal 

agencies to make a “high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety 

risks that may disproportionately affect children” and “ensure that policies, programs, activities, 

and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health 

risks or safety risks.” Environmental health risks and safety risks are defined as those risks to 

health or safety that are “attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to come in 

contact with or ingest (such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for 

recreation, the soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed to).” 

The primary activities of the Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to 

Children, which is the governing body of the EO, are asthma disparities among children, chemical 

exposures, climate change, healthy settings (primarily housing), and childhood lead exposure. 

These topics fall under impacts addressed in Sections 5.1 Water Resources; 5.2 Topography, 

Geology, and Soils; 5.4 Mineral Resources; 5.5 Solid Wastes and Hazardous Materials; 5.6 Air 

Quality; 5.11 Community Resources; and 5.14 Parklands, Recreational Areas, and Refuges. The 

primary action of the Project is to add 9 new daily intercity passenger round trips (18 total trains 

per day) to the DC2RVA corridor, which will not have an undue impact on children under the 

risk categories listed above. Notwithstanding, the relationship of these topics to EO 13045 is 

detailed below. 

Environmental health risks due to impacts to Water Resources are not expected under the 

Preferred Alternative. Surface waters (such as streams), wetlands, floodplains, and stormwater, 

all have temporary and permanent impacts, but the Preferred Alternative will incorporate BMPs 

and improved stormwater facilities, which will mitigate new conditions and may improve 

existing conditions in water quality. Avoidance and minimization of effects to drinking water 

will continue to occur through the final design process to the extent practicable. 

 

34 https://www.epa.gov/children/executive-order-13045-protection-children-environmental-health-risks-andsafety-risks
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-100 

Environmental health risks due to topography, geology and soils are not expected; the Preferred 

Alternative is not anticipated to affect local topography, geology, and soils. 

Environmental health risks due to solid wastes and hazardous materials are limited. Sites 

potentially containing these substances have been identified throughout the LOD and site 

investigations will occur before the acquisition of right-of-way and construction. Remediation of 

any sites will be conducted in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental 

laws and will be coordinated with EPA, Virginia DEQ, and other federal or state agencies as 

necessary. All waste material from construction and any additional hazardous materials sites 

discovered during construction will be disposed of in compliance with applicable federal, state, 

and local regulations. 

DRPT does not environmental health risks due to changes in air quality. Annual pollutant 

emissions generated by the trains added by this Project (NOx, VOCs, particulate matter) are all 

below general conformity minimal threshold values. Localized increases in MSAT emissions by 

vehicles other than trains could occur at maintenance facilities; the only maintenance facility 

along the DC2RVA corridor is proposed at the Bellwood Wye Yard, as detailed in Section 4.3.6.3 

of this Final EIS. Other maintenance facilities associated with increases in intercity passenger rail 

service extending from Hampton Roads or North Carolina and to destinations in Washington, 

D.C. or the Northeast Corridor (NEC) will be evaluated under separate environmental review 

documents, as required. However, no residential development or other sensitive land uses are 

directly adjacent to the proposed maintenance facilities. A hot-spot analysis of CO from highway 

vehicles operations resulted in concentrations well below the NAAQS. Carbon dioxide emissions 

under the Preferred Alternative are projected to be lower than the No Build Alternative. 

Community resources that could be affected by environmental health risks to children include 

schools, community facilities, and access to emergency services. There are no adverse effects to 

any of these resources under the Preferred Alternative. Parks and parklands are also resources 

that are used by children. Impacts to parkland and recreational facilities were avoided and 

minimized to the maximum extent possible. With the exception of one park, all potential impacts 

are temporary and will not affect park functions. 

Another potential concern may be traffic safety as it relates to pedestrian and bicycle travel by 

children, which for this Project would be at-grade roadway crossings of the railroad corridor. As 

described above, DRPT proposed that existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities be maintained as 

part of the Preferred Alternative, with safety improvements as needed. 

Based on the above, DRPT does not anticipate that the Project will pose an environmental health 

or safety risk that disproportionately affects children. 

5.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Construction impacts associated with a transportation project are those impacts that are 

temporary or short term and that occur only during construction. They can involve temporary 

changes in land use and access, air quality, noise levels, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The 

following provides an overview of the types and extent of potential construction impacts that 

may occur with the implementation of the Preferred Alternative. BMPs and other measures that 

can be used as appropriate to mitigate any temporary construction impacts are also presented. 

Refer to the Constructability Technical Report (Appendix L of the Draft EIS) for additional 

information regarding the construction of the Project. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-101 

5.19.1 Impacts 

5.19.1.1 Rail 

Track closures and shifts can have major effects on rail operations. New stations and station 

alterations can also have effects on transit users. Construction of the additional track, 

infrastructure additions and modification to control points, station infrastructure with additional 

platforms, and speed increases require a phased construction approach. 

5.19.1.2 Land Use and Access 

Construction activities for the Preferred Alternative could result in temporary and localized 

detours, modifications to access, and increases in truck traffic. Access to businesses and homes 

could be temporarily disrupted due to temporary detours that are necessary to allow ample space 

for equipment staging and construction. Additional information can be found in Section 5.11 

Community Resources. 

5.19.1.3 Air Quality 

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment-related particulate emissions in and around the Project corridor. Reasonable 

precautions will be taken during project construction to limit the emissions of VOC and NOx. The 

potential air quality effects will be short term, occurring only while demolition and construction 

work is in progress and local conditions are appropriate. The potential for fugitive dust emissions 

typically is associated with building demolition, ground clearing, site preparation, grading, 

stockpiling of materials, onsite movement of equipment, and transportation of materials. The 

potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity, and during high 

wind conditions. 

GHG emissions will also be generated during construction; however, as documented in Section 

5.6.5, these emissions will be relatively minor given the nature and size of the Project and the 

limited duration of construction activities. Additional information on air quality impacts can be 

found in Section 5.6. 

5.19.1.4 Noise 

Noise levels will not be substantially altered by construction, which includes noise generated by 

heavy equipment during construction activities. The potential for noise impacts during 

construction is correlated to the proximity of sensitive noise receptors to the proposed 

construction activity. The potential for noise impacts during construction typically increases in 

urban and suburban areas because of the higher population densities found in those areas; 

however, noise in urban areas might be less noticeable than in rural areas because ambient noise 

levels are higher in urban areas. Construction noise impacts are temporary and, typically, 

progress linearly along transportation corridor construction projects. As construction approaches 

an area, noise impacts to receptors in that area would begin to increase over a period of time, 

reach a peak, and then dissipate as construction moves past the area. Additional information on 

noise impacts can be found in Section 5.7. 

5.19.1.5 Water Resources 

Construction could potentially result in short-term effects such as increased sedimentation, 

increase in turbidity from in-stream work, and possible spills, or non-point source pollutants 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-102 

entering groundwater or surface water from stormwater runoff. Construction activities that could 

affect stormwater runoff include excavation to widen “cut” sections and to remove unsuitable 

(organic) material from “fill” sections; filling and placing ballast to support new track; relocating 

access roads; relocating or creating new trackside swales; and any substructure work required for 

bridge or culvert installation, or station improvements. Construction staging areas and haul 

roads, if needed, could also disturb the ground, potentially causing erosion and sedimentation. 

Additionally, culvert installation may require pump-around methods, resulting in a temporary 

cessation of flow through stream sections. Additional information on water resource impacts can 

be found in Section 5.1. 

5.19.1.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

Human presence during construction and the associated construction noise, such as from passing 

equipment, piling emplacement, and blasting of bedrock, may temporarily displace some species 

of wildlife. The noises associated with construction may also mask territorial vocalizations of 

birds, interfering temporarily with breeding. Amphibians, which breed more commonly at dusk 

or night, are less likely to be affected. Construction in forested areas may result in mortality of 

amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals within the work zone and the loss of nesting birds if 

construction is initiated during nesting season. The clearing of terrestrial and aquatic vegetated 

cover within the construction footprint will temporarily displace certain habitat areas, and the 

mechanical removal of cover will cause animal migration away from the disturbance, resulting 

in a temporary decrease in available habitat and increased competition for remaining habitat. 

Water quality and therefore aquatic species may be affected temporarily by runoff from 

construction areas and permanently through runoff from increased impervious surfaces. 

Anadromous fish movements could be interrupted during construction. Opportunistic or 

invasive plant species may have a competitive advantage in colonizing disturbed areas during 

early construction activities. Many of these effects can be offset through application of BMPs. 

Additional information on wildlife and habitat impacts can be found in Section 5.10. 

5.19.2 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Evaluation—Construction Impacts 

5.19.2.1 Rail 

During construction, the goal will be to maintain two mainline tracks in operation wherever 

possible; however, there will likely be some track outages and service disruptions during 

construction. The Project’s Corridor Service Development Plan (SDP) defines the phased 

implementation of improvements relative to the incremental expansion of service, and the 

preliminary engineering includes a construction staging plan to minimize track outages during 

construction; refer to Chapter 7 for full details on the SDP and preliminary and final design. 

Station improvements for platform additions and pedestrian access will be constructed early to 

support the new track when placed in operation. 

5.19.2.2 Land Use and Access 

Temporary disruptions to driving patterns and access are often unavoidable but will be 

minimized to the extent possible by carefully planning for maintenance of traffic during the 

construction process. The Corridor SDP will define the phased implementation of improvements 

relative to the incremental expansion of service. Preliminary engineering and final design plans 

will include a construction staging plan to minimize roadway outages during construction. Safety 

concerns due to the presence of heavy construction equipment during Project construction will 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-103 

be mitigated using appropriate signage and fencing to separate pedestrians and vehicles from 

construction areas and equipment. All land use temporarily affected by construction activities 

will be returned to its original use after construction is complete. All temporary access for 

construction vehicles will be removed and returned to its original land use. 

5.19.2.3 Air Quality 

DRPT will identify the appropriate BMPs to minimize air quality effects during construction, 

including methods outlined in 9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq. of the Regulations for the Control and Abatement 

of Air Pollution (Air Regulations). The VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications also include provisions 

on fugitive dust control. Under these provisions, dust and airborne dirt generated by construction 

activities will be controlled through dust control procedures or a specific dust control plan, when 

warranted. The contractor and DRPT will meet to review the nature and extent of dust-generating 

activities and will cooperatively develop specific types of control techniques appropriate to the 

specific situation. Techniques that may warrant consideration include measures such as 

minimizing track-out of soil onto nearby publicly traveled roads, reducing speed on unpaved 

roads, covering haul vehicles, and applying chemical dust suppressants or water to exposed 

surfaces, particularly those on which construction vehicles travel. With the application of 

appropriate measures to limit dust emissions during construction, this Project will not cause any 

significant, short-term particulate matter air quality impacts. 

If open burning or use of incineration devices are to be used during construction, DRPT will comply 

with 9 VAC 5-130 et seq. of the Air Regulations for open burning and coordinate with VDEQ and 

local officials to determine whether permits or other requirements are applicable. DRPT will adhere 

to requirements of 9 VAC 5-80, Article 6, Permits for New and Modified Sources, for the installation 

of fuel-burning equipment or other air pollution generating equipment during construction. Finally, 

DRPT will adhere to limitations on the use of “cut-back” during construction consistent with 9 VAC 

5-45-780 et seq. 

5.19.2.4 Noise 

Practices to minimize the effects of construction noise will be in accordance with Section 

107.16(b)(3) of VDOT’s 2016 Road and Bridge Specifications. 

While construction noise is unavoidable in most cases, steps can be taken to minimize the impact, 

such as the following: 

 Keep all equipment well maintained, tuned, and properly lubricated to minimize atsource noise production 

 Use sound attenuation devices on exhaust ports 

 Substitute the use of flag persons to control construction vehicle movements, instead of 

using audible back-up alarms for vehicles 

 Minimize unnecessary idling of heavy equipment and machinery, especially diesel 

engines and generators, when not actively in use 

 Prohibit construction during sensitive nighttime, early evening, and early morning hours 

DRPT will evaluate construction noise mitigation measures in more detail when an analysis of 

construction noise based on an actual construction plan can be completed and will ensure that all 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-104 

appropriate mitigation measures are employed, including the above measures, in construction 

contracts. 

5.19.2.5 Water Resources 

All temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and water resources associated with 

construction activities are regulated by USACE and Virginia DEQ through Sections 404 and 401 

of the Clean Water Act, as well as by the Virginia Water Protection Program. DRPT will be 

responsible for ensuring that all Section 404 and 401 permit requirements are met by the Project 

contractors. 

Stormwater discharges to jurisdictional wetlands and waterways, such as discharges from 

construction sites, are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) 35 permit program. An NPDES construction permit would be required for any 

construction site that disturbs more than one acre (including sites that are smaller than one acre 

but are included as part of a larger project or development). Through issuance of an NPDES 

stormwater permit, the regulating agency would ensure that enough erosion and sediment 

control measures are specified for the activity and that impacts are further reduced by using 

construction BMPs. 

Erosion and sedimentation control plans for highway and rail improvements, including staging 

areas, will be required for work that will include ground disturbance, and they will describe the 

measures to be employed as erosion control, sedimentation control, temporary stormwater 

management measures, and dust control. Erosion control plans will also address in-water work 

at stream crossing locations. These plans must be approved before site construction can proceed 

and will be developed in accordance with regulations set forth by VDCR. Implementation of the 

Project-specific plan will be expected to minimize impacts of erosion and sedimentation during 

construction. Erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented throughout the 

construction period to minimize water quality impacts from increased levels of sedimentation 

and turbidity. Control measures may include berms, dikes, sediment basins, fiber mats, straw silt 

barriers, netting, mulch, temporary and permanent seeding, and other methods. Construction 

impacts to in-stream aquatic habitats will be minimized to the extent practicable by avoiding 

stream relocations and by crossing streams at right angles where possible. To the extent possible, 

construction equipment will be restricted from fording and otherwise disrupting in-stream 

habitats. Staging areas for heavy equipment, material storage, and short-term field offices will be 

chosen carefully and situated away from sensitive areas. 

5.19.2.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

DRPT anticipates that construction will be monitored to adhere to a strict schedule with possible 

time of year restrictions to avoid disrupting the critical life cycles of both aquatic and terrestrial 

wildlife, in particular, threatened and endangered species. In addition, DRPT will coordinate 

with the USFWS if necessary as the Project progresses. The spread of invasive plant species will 

be minimized during construction through cleaning of equipment and machinery between sites 

to reduce transport of undesirable plant species and prompt revegetation of disturbed areas. 

Temporary and permanent revegetation establishment, in accordance with VDOT’s Road and 

Bridge Specifications, will minimize the extent and duration of undesirable plant growth and 

 

35 The NPDES was made possible by the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (also 

referred to as the Clean Water Act, 33 USC 23 §§ 1251–1387). 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-105 

reduce sediment runoff. Work in streams and wetlands will also be minimized to the extent 

practicable, and necessary in-stream work will be done in the dry or with the use of sediment 

curtains and other measures to minimize impacts to aquatic species. Aquatic and terrestrial 

habitat will be restored in temporary construction areas as the native vegetation reestablishes 

over time. 

5.20 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The following section describes the potential indirect and cumulative effects associated with the 

Preferred Alternative. A number of comments regarding these topics were received on the Draft 

EIS and therefore the following discussion is more detailed than other sections of this condensed 

chapter. 

5.20.1 Indirect Effects 

Indirect effects are those that are caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but still are reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include: 

 Encroachment-alteration impacts: Alteration of the behavior and functioning of the 

affected environment caused by project encroachment (physical, biological, 

socioeconomic) on the environment 

 Induced growth impacts: Project-influenced development effects (land use) 

 Impacts related to induced growth: effects related to Project-influenced development 

effects (impacts of changed land uses on the human and natural environment) 

As described more fully in Section 4.20.1 of the Draft EIS, DRPT identified the specific issues and 

resources to be considered in the indirect effects analysis based on collaboration with 

stakeholders, review of Project direction and goals, and inventory of notable environmental 

features that might be affected by the Project directly or indirectly. DRPT determined that the 

following impact areas could potentially experience indirect effects from the Preferred 

Alternative. 

5.20.1.1 Socioeconomics and Land Use 

Section 5.11.5 of this Final EIS describes direct effects on land uses. All existing rail stations are in 

urban and suburban locations where considerable development already exists. Under the 

Preferred Alternative, further intensification of development densities could occur at these 

locations in response to demand for residential space and commercial services in areas convenient 

to the stations, generally within a 0.5-mile radius from the station. Government agencies and 

other entities often prepare planning documents to anticipate and guide the form and density of 

such development. For example, Amtrak prepared a Master Plan for Washington, D.C.’s Union 

Station (Amtrak, 2012). The Master Plan provides for relieving existing and future passenger rail 

congestion and accommodating triple the current number of passengers and double the current 

number of trains (including the new intercity passenger trains proposed by the Project) within 

the existing station footprint. This would be accomplished by improving existing facilities and 

constructing new facilities under and above the existing facilities, including air rights 

development of retail, hotel, commercial, and residential spaces. Construction of the elements 

proposed in the Master Plan would be phased over a 15- to 20-year period. Phase 4 of the Master 

Plan provides further expanded tracks and platforms on a lower level and creation of a new 

Amtrak lower-level concourse, which would accommodate increased intercity passenger rail 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-106 

service south to Virginia and the Southeastern United States. Aside from the facilities that would 

specifically be built to serve increased intercity passenger rail services, it is difficult to determine 

specific increments of other types of development that could be attributed to actual 

implementation of the services. The variety of other passenger rail services at the station (e.g., 

NEC, VRE, Metrorail), as well as the dense and dynamic existing and planned residential and 

commercial activities, also contribute to the overall development status of the station area and 

surrounding lands. 

The City of Alexandria’s Master Plan sets goals of encouraging quality, high-density mixed-use 

development near the King Street Metro Station, which is adjacent to the Alexandria Union 

Station served by Amtrak and VRE. The City of Richmond’s Downtown Master Plan (2009) calls 

for Main Street Station to be a multimodal transportation hub for downtown Richmond. Recent 

and ongoing construction at the Main Street Station is aimed at rehabilitating the condition of the 

facilities, furthering the multimodal functions of the station, and promoting retail and social 

activities within and around the station. 

Other stations in the DC2RVA corridor that will be served by the additional intercity passenger 

trains may also experience some increment of increased development to take advantage of the 

transportation benefits provided; however, such development will be consistent with the urban 

or suburban patterns already existing and will be consistent with local land use planning and 

goals. Moreover, such development will only enhance the utilization and effectiveness of the 

passenger rail services. 

The Preferred Alternative involves improvements along an existing rail facility. As such, the 

Preferred Alternative will not divide or segment existing communities or interfere with 

community cohesion. Existing communities adjacent to the rail corridor are accustomed to the 

presence of the rail facility, the train traffic on it, and the noise and visual effects associated with 

it. However, in sections where parallel track will be added, the rail facility will be in incrementally 

closer proximity to residences and businesses, which may increase noise levels and/or remove 

visual buffers. It is possible that some residents or businesses may leave the area because of such 

increased proximity effects. It is also possible, however, that some people may be attracted to 

communities adjacent to the rail stations because of the improved travel times and access. While 

the increases in population and development could occur as a result of improved access to 

intercity passenger rail transportation along the DC2RVA corridor, local officials generally 

perceive such development as positive in that it helps promote more robust use of mass transit, 

as opposed to personal vehicles. 

The Preferred Alternative could contribute positively to economic activity along the DC2RVA 

corridor in the short term by providing jobs during Project design and construction and in the 

long term by reducing congestion, improving intercity travel time and reliability, and improving 

accessibility to employment at other location within the region by rail. 

5.20.1.2 Parks and Recreation Areas 

Section 5.14.1 of this Final EIS describes direct effects of the Project on parks and recreation areas. 

Many publicly owned parks and recreation areas exist immediately adjacent to the rail corridor. 

None of these properties are at station locations where new or modified access will be provided 

to accommodate intercity passenger rail services. Accordingly, the Preferred Alternative will not 

result in induced growth effects on parks or recreation areas; however, these properties could 

potentially experience encroachment-alteration indirect effects due to ongoing proximity effects 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-107 

over time, such as air quality, noise, and visual impacts from the railroad and trains operating on 

it. DRPT expects that any impacts will be minor and will not differ substantially from the No 

Build Alternative. 

5.20.1.3 Historic Properties 

As described in Section 5.13, the Preferred Alternative will adversely affect 21 historic properties 

(8 archaeological sites and 13 above-ground resources); however, only 1 is an indirect/cumulative 

effect on a historic resource, as described below. There are no adverse effects to battlefields. 

Rippon Lodge (076-0023): One of the oldest houses in Prince William County, the vista from 

Rippon Lodge looking down Neabsco Creek (and current site of the railroad and associated 

bridge) was documented by Benjamin Latrobe in the late-eighteenth century. The waterway 

viewshed is a character-defining feature of this significant resource. A new railroad bridge across 

Neabsco Creek will be built as part of this Project. The new bridge will be west of the existing 

span and will be a new primary element within the viewshed from Rippon Lodge, thus impacting 

a character-defining element of the property. Because the Project will alter the viewshed but will 

not physically modify the resource, the Project will have an indirect effect on this historic 

property. 

Refer to Section 5.13 for discussion of the historic resources that are the subject of a direct effect 

due to physical modifications of the Preferred Alternative. Refer to Appendix D of this Final EIS 

for additional information on historic resources and the Section 106 determination of effect. 

Chapter 3 of this Final EIS includes additional information regarding the cultural resources in 

Fredericksburg, Ashland, and Richmond. These expanded discussions are intended to provide 

the reader with a better understanding of the historic context of these areas and avoidance 

measures taken to mitigate potential impacts. 

5.20.1.4 Water Resources 

Section 5.1 of this Final EIS describes the direct effects of the Project on water resources. The 

Preferred Alternative may also have incremental induced development effects on water resources 

near station areas; however, given the urban and suburban locations of these stations, land cover 

is relatively impervious, and the potential for increased runoff and diminished water quality is 

less than it would be if the induced development were to occur in more naturalized land cover 

types (e.g., forest). 

The Preferred Alternative involves direct losses of streams and wetlands as a result of track 

additions and modifications. Potential temporary indirect impacts of the Preferred Alternative 

during Project construction include increased downstream sedimentation and turbidity from instream work, and possible spills or non-point source pollutants entering groundwater or surface 

water from storm runoff. The Preferred Alternative will incrementally increase the amount of 

impervious surface, resulting in increased stormwater runoff flows from affected surfaces. If 

untreated, increased flows will incrementally increase the transport of sediments and roadway 

contaminants to streams crossed by or adjacent to the rail corridor. These pollutants can then be 

transported farther downstream and into wetland areas. Pollutant levels in runoff and the extent 

of downstream impacts are difficult to quantify because there are many variables surrounding 

land use and stream dynamics. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-108 

5.20.1.5 Floodplains 

Section 5.1.1.2 of this Final EIS describes the direct effects of the Project on floodplains. The 

Preferred Alternative could have induced development effects on the 100-year floodplains in the 

vicinity of three stations: Alexandria Station, Fredericksburg Station, and Richmond’s Main Street 

Station. However, development already exists within each of these floodplain areas. Furthermore, 

any new development or redevelopment in designated floodplains within all three potential 

impact areas will be subject to restrictions and conditions imposed under local floodplain 

ordinances and floodplain overlay districts. These ordinances and district designations are aimed 

at maintaining community safety from floods; protecting against loss of life, health, and property 

from floods; preserving and protecting floodplains; and requiring appropriate construction 

practices to minimize flood damage. With respect to encroachment-alteration indirect effects, the 

existing rail tracks displaced 100-year floodplains by placing bridges and culverts at stream 

crossings within the floodplains. The Preferred Alternative will require new or modified bridges 

and extensions of culverts, which could potentially cause indirect effects with respect to changes 

in flood flow elevations and changes in floodplain configurations. While floodplain 

encroachments are likely, Project design will be consistent with federal policies and procedures 

for the location and hydraulic design of encroachments on floodplains. Therefore, DRPT does not 

expect that the Preferred Alternative will cause notable increases in flood levels, increase the 

probability of flooding, or increase the potential for property loss and hazard to life. Furthermore, 

the Preferred Alternative is not expected to have substantial indirect effects on natural and 

beneficial floodplain values. 

5.20.1.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

Section 5.10 of this Final EIS describes the direct effects of the Project on wildlife and habitat, 

including threatened and endangered species. DRPT does not expect the Preferred Alternative to 

have notable induced development impacts on wildlife and habitat because all locations of 

potential induced development are in urban and suburban areas where available natural habitat 

is very limited. With respect to encroachment-alteration indirect effects of the Preferred 

Alternative, wildlife habitat along the rail corridor is highly variable. 

In some areas, development has entirely displaced or at least fragmented forested habitat. In other 

areas, sizable blocks of forested habitat remain, though in many cases it is fragmented by 

agricultural activities. The Preferred Alternative may incrementally increase ongoing habitat 

impacts due to expansion of the rail facilities. Adjacent habitats will be further fragmented by 

removal of habitat for construction of the proposed improvements. Such habitat disturbances and 

losses could incrementally increase competition for resources in diminished habitats by displaced 

populations. 

The indirect impacts to water quality discussed earlier will potentially affect habitat quality for 

aquatic species living in streams and wetlands downstream of the rail corridor. Sediments and 

pollutants in runoff may contribute to changes in macrobenthic community structure and 

composition, affecting fish and amphibian populations that rely on them as a food source, as well 

as birds and mammals higher on the food chain. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-109 

5.20.1.7 Summary of Indirect Effects and Mitigation 

DRPT expects that the consequences of the indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative will be 

limited because: 

 The proposed improvements will modify an existing rail facility within which the 

locations of potential induced development are limited to station areas where 

development already is prevalent. 

 Any induced development that may occur will be largely compatible with existing 

development and will actually be desirable in the context of promoting more compact 

development patterns consistent with rail mass transit, multimodal transportation hubs, 

and facilitation of intercity travel that does not rely on the automobile. 

 Any induced development will be consistent with local planning goals and land use plans. 

 The narrow linear nature of the Preferred Alternative presents a limited footprint of direct 

impacts and, therefore, a limited potential for expansive indirect impacts attributable to 

encroachment and alteration. 

 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative can be minimized and mitigated in many ways, 

including: 

- Implementation of temporary and permanent stormwater management features and 

erosion and sediment controls. 

- Compensation for unavoidable stream and wetland impacts. 

- Resolution of adverse effects on historic properties through design changes and other 

measures developed in consultation with DHR and other Section 106 consulting 

parties. 

5.20.2 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

FRA and DRPT consider reasonably foreseeable as planned and funded projects. Cumulative 

effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. The cumulative effects analysis used a five-part evaluation process based on 

FHWA guidance: 

 What is the geographic area affected by the Project? 

 What are the resources affected by the Project? 

 What are the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have impacted 

these resources? 

 What were those impacts? 

 What is the overall impact on these various resources from the accumulation of the actions? 

Using this process, the following cumulative effects of the Preferred Alternative were identified. 

5.20.2.1 Socioeconomics and Land Use 

Impact from Preferred Alternative. The land use and relocations impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative are relatively modest compared to the length of the Project, as described in Section 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-110 

5.11 of this Final EIS. The total number of residential relocations will be five. Acquisition of 

properties and relocations of families, businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations will occur 

in accordance with standards of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601). Any individual displaced as a result 

of the acquisition of real property, in whole or in part, will be eligible to receive reimbursement 

for the fair market value of the property acquired, as well as moving costs. Displaced property 

owners will be provided relocation assistance and advisory services together with the assurance 

of the availability of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Relocation resources will be made 

available to all relocatees without discrimination. 

Noise and vibration caused by trains currently operating on the corridor were considered as part 

of the existing noise environment. As discussed in Section 4.2 of this Final EIS, DRPT anticipates 

that there will be continued growth in freight volumes, and that this growth will result in a 

commensurate increase in number of freight trains as well as the effects of the freight trains on 

delay, energy use, air emissions, and noise. These effects will happen in response to regional and 

national economic activity independent of the DC2RVA Project, but will contribute to the 

cumulative effect. 

The Preferred Alternative will reduce congestion and improve reliability within the rail corridor. 

These improvements to mobility will generally contribute positively to the quality of life for local 

communities and support the anticipated continued economic growth. The Preferred Alternative 

could induce more or denser development at station locations as a result of the improved 

transportation services; however, such development generally will be desirable to enhance the 

effectiveness of passenger rail services. Furthermore, because the station locations are in already 

urbanized areas, such development will be consistent with local plans, policies, and goals. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past and present actions have changed the landscape 

dramatically and have resulted in the conversion of forest land to agricultural lands to residential, 

commercial, and industrial land uses as the populations and economies of localities along the 

DC2RVA corridor grew. It is presumed that in prehistoric times, forests once covered the entirety 

of the area surrounding the rail corridor. Those forests were displaced by agriculture and 

development long before modern times. Therefore, tree cover that exists today is due to multiple 

regenerations of tree growth. Agriculture, particularly tobacco farming, depleted the soil, and 

much of the soil that was not depleted washed away due to erosion of unprotected soil surfaces. 

Livestock waste contributed to water pollution. By the mid-1950s, development accelerated 

sharply in Northern Virginia, largely as a result of a growing federal government sector and postWorld War II prosperity. Housing booms in counties bordering Washington, D.C. were fed by 

postwar affluence and the desire of people to own their own homes and land. The Interstate 

Highway Act authorized construction of high speed roads that made living farther from work a 

possibility. By the time I-95 was completed between Richmond and Washington, D.C., several 

residential subdivisions had already been built in jurisdictions along the DC2RVA corridor. More 

recently, the City of Fredericksburg and portions of the surrounding Stafford and Spotsylvania 

Counties have become bedroom communities to the metropolitan Washington region, as well as 

becoming economic activity centers themselves. The City of Richmond and surrounding counties 

collectively have become the third largest metropolitan area in Virginia ranked by population. 

The urbanization of these areas has created neighborhoods, facilitated social interaction, 

provided business and employment opportunities, facilitated economies of scale in community 

services such as education and public safety, and provided connectivity through robust 

multimodal transportation systems. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-111 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Foreseeable future projects may 

have various socioeconomic and land use impacts throughout the Project corridor; however, 

there is not enough information to reasonably quantify them. The foreseeable transportation 

projects are all along existing transportation facilities. As such, disruptive socioeconomic and 

land use effects could be largely limited by containing construction within existing rights-of-way 

to the extent possible. The rail corridor parallels I-95, Route 1, and Route 60 along the primary 

north-south transportation corridor along the eastern seaboard. Roads and highways along this 

corridor are constantly undergoing improvements, repairs, and expansions, such as the I-95 

Express Lanes extension to Fredericksburg,36 and these projects are independent of the DC2RVA 

Project. VDOT also has a series of I-95 improvement projects underway in Richmond to improve 

safety and traffic movement and to modernize existing assets and information technology 

infrastructure.37 DRPT has coordinated with VDOT and the City of Richmond throughout the 

Project and will continue to do so through future phases of design. Note that these roadway 

projects also would be subject to NEPA (if federal actions are involved) and other regulatory 

processes that are designed to help avoid substantial impacts to communities. Future projects 

also would be guided by local comprehensive plans, which identify areas for compatible planned 

growth while accommodating future planned transportation improvements. Noise impacts 

associated with this future development are anticipated to occur mostly within existing urban 

and suburban environments, consistent with local community comprehensive plans. 

Another example of a reasonably foreseeable future project is the proposed Potomac Yard 

Metrorail Station to be served by the Yellow and Blue Metrorail lines. The FTA and the NPS 

issued their Records of Decision for the Potomac Yard Metrorail Station in Fall 2016; this being 

the last step in the review process under the NEPA. WMATA has let a contract for construction 

of the station, with completion projected as early 2022. 

Cumulative Effect. The nature and magnitude of the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred 

Alternative local land uses and socioeconomic elements are small in the context of the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

5.20.2.2 Parks and Recreational Areas 

Impact from Preferred Alternative. There will be direct effects of the Preferred Alternative on 

publicly owned parks and recreational areas. As discussed in Section 5.14 of this Final EIS, land 

at 16 parks/trails will be directly used either permanently or temporarily by the Preferred 

Alternative. None of these impacts will affect park activities. Noise levels under the Preferred 

Alternative will be higher than existing noise levels or No Build Alternative noise levels; however, 

such noise levels will not rise to a level as to render the parklands unsuitable for their designated 

public recreational uses. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past actions have preserved notable acreages of land 

throughout the Project corridor for conservation and recreational uses. At the same time, some 

past actions may have had direct physical encroachment impacts on some parks and recreation 

areas. Population increases and associated traffic increases may have caused higher levels of 

traffic noise within parks and placed greater wear and tear on park facilities due to greater use. 

 

36 http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/fredericksburg/i-95_express_lanes_fredericksburg_extension.asp

37 http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95_corridor_improvements.asp and 

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/richmond/i-95-64_overlap_study.asp 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-112 

Development adjacent to parks may have contributed to visual impacts to parks and increased 

volumes of stormwater flow to streams running through parks. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Foreseeable future projects may 

have various park and recreational area impacts throughout the Project corridor; however, there 

is not enough information to reasonably quantify them. Notwithstanding, the projects that would 

be subject to federal transportation agency approvals also would be subject to Section 4(f) 

provisions that require avoidance and minimization of uses of land from publicly owned public 

parks and recreation areas. 

Cumulative Effect. As discussed in Section 5.14 of this Final EIS, the Preferred Alternative will 

have only minor impacts to parks and recreation areas. Additionally, the legal protections 

afforded parks and recreation areas by Section 4(f) for federal-aid transportation projects and the 

plan review processes by local jurisdictions for other projects greatly limit the potential for 

impacts by future projects. Accordingly, no substantial adverse cumulative impacts to parks and 

recreation areas by the Preferred Alternative are anticipated. 

5.20.2.3 Historic Properties 

Impact from Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative will adversely affect 21 historic 

properties; refer to Section 5.13 for discussion of direct effects to historic properties and Section 

5.20.1.3 for discussion of indirect effects to historic properties. A formal effects determination has 

been coordinated with DHR. Where FRA has determined and DHR has confirmed that the 

Preferred Alternative will have an adverse effect on historic properties, Section 106 efforts have 

been undertaken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. As part of this process, FRA 

and DRPT have conducted ongoing consultation with DHR, ACHP and other consulting parties, 

such as the NPS, local historical societies, and localities Since a Programmatic Agreement was 

executed for the larger 2002 Tier 1 EIS, a Section 106 Draft MOA has been developed to outline 

tasks that will be undertaken to mitigate adverse effects (see Appendix K of this Final EIS); it will 

be finalized as part of the ROD. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Damage to or loss of historic properties was far more 

prevalent from past actions that occurred before the NHPA. The NHPA and the establishment of 

historic resource protection objectives at the local planning level have reduced the rate of impacts 

to historic resources. 

Potential Impact on Historic Properties from Potential Future Actions. Notwithstanding the 

protections now afforded, conflicts between protection of historic properties and development 

and transportation projects are expected to continue from potential future actions, primarily 

because non-federal actions, such as private developments, are not subject to the NHPA. Potential 

effects include permanent loss and proximity effects (noise and visual impacts) from present and 

planned future development and transportation projects. If federal or state actions are involved, 

however, the NHPA may be applicable and afford considerations. 

For example, DRPT and FRA fully understand the sensitivity and significance of the Shockoe 

Bottom area and potential effects of this Project as well as the I-95 improvement projects 

underway in Richmond, including the I-95/Broad Street interchange improvements. Studies to 

record and evaluate archaeological and architectural properties in this area have been ongoing 

since 2006. Above and below ground cultural resources in the Shockoe Bottom area of Richmond 

are referenced in the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and associated technical reports in a manner consistent 

with DHR guidelines on cultural resource studies and per the process set forth in Section 106 of 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-113 

the NHPA, ensuring that all effects of the proposed undertaking on historic properties were taken 

into consideration. This includes the Burial Ground for Negros, Lumpkins Jail/Devil’s Half Acre, 

and Grave Yard for Free People of Color and Slaves. Although a Richmond Slave District with 

associated boundaries has not been recorded at DHR, one of the mitigations for the adverse effects 

to the Shockoe Valley and Tobacco Row Historic District completed as part of this Project is the 

development of a roster of potential resources and a boundary for the district to be coordinated 

with the DHR (see the Section 106 Draft MOA, which is Appendix K of this Final EIS). Thorough 

development of such a district and potential NRHP nomination building from this data may be 

an appropriate future study to be completed by the City or another entity as described in Final 

EIS Chapter 3. In addition, a series of commitments have been made for the Grave Yard for Free 

People of Color and Slaves (44HE1203) near Hospital Street. Although the Project will have no 

adverse effect on this resource based on current designs, DRPT has committed to completing a 

thorough landscape study and boundary evaluation, additional archaeological testing, and 

archaeological monitoring during Project construction to assure that no human remains are 

impacted by the work. These approaches, as well as a robust dialogue on historic properties in 

the Shockoe Bottom area, has taken place during numerous meetings, telephone calls, and emails 

as a result of comments provided by several consulting parties, most notably the National Trust 

for Historic Preservation. Close coordination was conducted with DHR as well as other local 

stakeholders including the City of Richmond, Historic Richmond Foundation, Preservation 

Virginia, National Trust for Historic Preservation, NPS, Richmond Archaeology, Rivanna 

Archaeology, VCU, and the ACHP. 

Cumulative Effect. The Preferred Alternative will adversely affect historic properties; however, 

feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm to historic 

properties have been incorporated into the Preferred Alternative. 

5.20.2.4 Water Resources 

Impact from Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative crosses 163 rivers and streams, 51 

of which are characterized as impaired on Virginia’s Section 303(d) list. Details on the impacts of 

the Preferred Alternative upon these waterbodies are provided in Section 5.1 of this Final EIS. 

Unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands will be mitigated, as outlined in Section 5.1.6. 

As shown in Figure 3.1-1 of the Draft EIS, the following boundaries of watersheds are crossed by 

the Preferred Alternative: 

 The Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan Watershed encompasses approximately 

831,483 acres, with roughly 45 percent of the watershed forested. 

 The Lower Potomac River Watershed encompasses approximately 1,160,160 acres, most 

of which is forested. 

 The Pamunkey Watershed encompasses approximately 941,032 acres, most of which is 

forested. 

 The Lower Rappahannock Watershed encompasses approximately 738,446 acres. Half of the 

area is forested, with the remainder consisting largely of agricultural and developed land. 

 The Mattaponi Watershed encompasses approximately 582,426 acres of which 

approximately 70 percent is forested. 

 The Middle James-Willis Watershed encompasses approximately 615,449 acres. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-114 

 The Lower James Watershed encompasses approximately 1,135,000 acres, approximately 

48 percent of which is in urban and suburban uses. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Human occupation of lands along and near the Project 

corridor dates to the Paleo-Indian period, which is thought to have begun by around 12,000 B.C. 

Since that time, progressively more intense human uses of the land have occurred. This 

progression can be summarized as follows: 

 Earliest occupations—the population density was very low, and people lived in small, 

highly mobile bands, subsisting on wild foods and hunting animals. Over time, occupants 

began to develop a more sedentary lifestyle, resulting in clearing of woodlands, 

implementation of rudimentary agriculture, and establishment of villages. 

 European settlers conquered the indigenous tribes and opened the region to new 

settlement. However, the settlers learned from the Native Americans how to farm and 

where and how to catch fish and game. Ancient transportation arteries were adopted by 

the Europeans. The majority of residents were planters, and large areas of woodland were 

cleared for agriculture. 

 The population grew to form an affluent colonial society. Slave labor was an important 

economic and demographic factor and with that labor, more forests were cleared, 

removing wildlife habitat and causing erosion that contributed to deterioration of water 

quality. Overland transportation improved dramatically during the late eighteenth and 

early nineteenth centuries.

 During the Civil War (1861–1865), considerable military activity occurred throughout the 

corridor, as evidenced by the battlefields discussed earlier in this document. The war 

wreaked havoc on local markets and livelihoods, as well as the land. 

 During the reconstruction and growth (1865–1917) period following the Civil War, 

residents returned to a primarily agricultural way of life. The severely depressed local 

economies relied on dairying, stock and poultry farming, flour milling, and the cultivation 

of fruit, vegetables, and flowers. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, 

the economy began to grow. The construction of better roads and rail services enhanced 

business connections and social interactions throughout the corridor. The ongoing 

expansion of population and associated construction of roads, railroads, homes, 

businesses, and industrial facilities resulted in further impacts to land cover and water 

quality. 

 Since World War I, urban centers along the corridor expanded dramatically. 

Improvements in agricultural methods (mechanization and chemical fertilizers and pest 

controls) vastly increased productivity relative to labor. Family farms were disappearing, 

and commercial farming and urban lifestyles were becoming more popular. Jurisdictions 

in northern Virginia were transformed into suburbs of Washington, D.C., serving the 

growth of the federal government. New residential subdivisions rose up, and the demand 

for paved streets, schools, libraries, sewer systems, and other amenities increased. Similar 

growth occurred around the cities of Fredericksburg and Richmond. Such developments 

continued to increase the amount of impervious surfaces, contributing to further increases 

in stormwater runoff and degradation of water quality. However, since implementation 

of the Clean Water Act and ordinances passed by localities, water quality improvements 

have been realized. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-115 

 Ongoing efforts to improve water quality include federal and state permitting programs, 

establishment of TMDLs for impaired waterbodies, and establishment of resource 

protection areas that control development adjacent to streams. 

Past and present actions within the affected watersheds have impacted an unknown quantity of 

streams and wetlands; however, the water quality effects of these actions are reflected in 

impairment designations and establishment of TMDLs of pollutants in certain waters, including 

the Chesapeake Bay, into which most of the affected watersheds drain. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Foreseeable future projects would 

have incremental effects on water resources. Before implementation, these projects would be 

required to undergo analysis of alternatives that avoid and minimize water resources impacts to 

the extent practicable, and Project proponents would have to obtain any required permits. 

Compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts also would be required. 

Cumulative Effect. While the impacts of the Preferred Alternative and the multiple other 

reasonably foreseeable transportation projects and other likely development would be additive, 

these impacts would not all be occurring simultaneously due to the phasing of construction over 

a period of years. Additionally, the impacts would be largely distributed over many streams and 

multiple watersheds. Furthermore, the direct impact of the Preferred Alternative at each stream 

will be localized and the reach of the indirect impacts is not expected to be extensive. Stormwater 

generated through new impervious surfaces will be treated through improved or new 

stormwater management facilities. Implementation of compensatory mitigation, both for the 

Preferred Alternative and other foreseeable actions, will offset the adverse direct and indirect 

impacts. Moreover, local jurisdictions have established preservation and conservation programs 

that serve to improve water quality by protecting streams and controlling development. For 

example, Fairfax County’s Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) system protects the county’s 

stream valleys by incorporating them into a system of connected parklands and trail systems. The 

EQC system provides buffer lands that separate streams from land uses and development 

activities that have the potential to degrade the ecological quality of streams. Prince William 

County’s Comprehensive Plan limits development within the designated “Rural Area” and 

includes various rural preservation goals and policies that serve to protect water quality through 

careful land use planning. Both counties also prepare watershed management plans or studies 

that assess, monitor, and evaluate water quality and identify priorities and BMPs for improving 

water quality. Other counties and cities encompassed by the watersheds have similar policies and 

programs in place to protect water resources. 

5.20.2.5 Floodplains 

Impact from Preferred Alternative. As described in Section 5.1.1.2 of this Final EIS, none of the 

floodplain encroachments by the Preferred Alternative represent a significant encroachment. The 

Preferred Alternative will be designed to not encourage, induce, allow, serve, support, or 

otherwise facilitate incompatible base floodplain development. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. The cumulative extent of impacts to floodplains from 

past and present actions is not known; however, DRPT assumes that the degree of impacts was 

greater before federal initiatives to avoid and minimize floodplain impacts (e.g., EO 11988 in 

1977). State and local initiatives also now protect floodplains and reduce floodplain 

encroachments by development (Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act enabled localities 

to establish resource protection areas along streams draining to the Chesapeake Bay). 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-116 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Foreseeable future public or 

private actions could potentially impact floodplains; however, these actions would also be subject 

to federal and local floodplain protections that would minimize potential impacts. 

Cumulative Effect. Because the floodplain encroachments by the Preferred Alternative do not 

represent significant encroachments, and because federal and local initiatives would continue to 

exert floodplain protections, DRPT expects that adverse cumulative effects of the Preferred 

Alternative to floodplains will be negligible. 

5.20.2.6 Wildlife and Habitat 

Impact from Preferred Alternative. As indicated in Section 5.10.1 of this Final EIS, the estimated 

limits of disturbance for the Preferred Alternative encompass approximately 191 acres of wildlife 

habitat. Habitats that will be impacted are directly adjacent to the existing rail line and are already 

altered by local activities, including operation of the railroad. 

Impacts from Past and Present Actions. Past and present actions have changed the landscape 

dramatically and converted natural habitats to human uses. These changes have resulted in 

considerable fragmentation and loss of habitat throughout the Project corridor. 

Potential Impact on Resources from Potential Future Actions. Foreseeable future actions would 

be expected to contribute to further fragmentation and losses of habitat over time. 

Cumulative Effect. Adverse effects on wildlife habitats are expected to continue to accrue with 

anticipated population growth in the DC2RVA corridor, even in the absence of the Project. The 

relative contribution of the Preferred Alternative to the effects of terrestrial and aquatic habitat 

losses is small, given the existing fragmented condition of affected habitat areas along the existing 

rail corridor and the location of the majority of the improvements in the DC2RVA Project are 

generally within or adjacent to the existing CSXT railroad corridor. The contribution of the 

Preferred Alternative to degradation of water quality within aquatic habitats is also minimal 

given that the proposed improvements are being made to an existing rail facility and are already 

altered by local activities, including operation of the railroad, and stormwater management 

measures will be implemented in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations to 

minimize onsite and downstream water quality impacts. Project proponents will be responsible 

for coordination with applicable federal and state agencies. 

5.20.2.7 Overall Cumulative Effects 

While providing transportation benefits, the Preferred Alternative will incrementally increase 

environmental effects. These effects will occur along the existing rail corridor and will be 

relatively small in the context of the entire corridor as well as the localized impact sites. 

Overall, considerable adverse impacts to sensitive and vulnerable resources have occurred over 

time, first due to agricultural uses of the land and then to residential, commercial, industrial, 

institutional, and public infrastructure development; however, current regulatory requirements 

and planning practices are helping avoid or minimize the contribution of present and future 

actions to adverse cumulative effects. When considered in the context of the Project setting, the 

magnitude and intensity of the impacts of the Preferred Alternative generally will not have 

substantial cumulative effects, particularly considering the efforts to minimize adverse impacts 

of the Preferred Alternative and other mitigation measures to be implemented. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-117 

5.21 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONGTERM BENEFITS 

This section addresses in general terms the proposed Project’s relationship between local shortterm impacts/use of resources and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. 

The Preferred Alternative was developed based on sound planning for local, regional, and 

statewide transportation needs within the context of present and possible future traffic 

requirements and land use patterns. Coupled with the environmentally sensitive design of the 

proposed Project and BMPs, this helps to ensure that the short-term use of resources related to 

construction will be outweighed by the long-term benefits of implementing the proposed Project. 

The most disruptive local short-term impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative will occur 

during land acquisition and Project construction. The short-term use of the environment and of 

human, socioeconomic, cultural, and natural resources contributes to the long-term productivity 

of the DC2RVA corridor. Most short-term, construction-related impacts will occur within or near 

the proposed right-of-way. 

Some existing homes, farms, and businesses will be displaced under the Preferred Alternative; 

however, adequate replacement housing, land, and space are available for homeowners, tenants, 

and business owners. With the Preferred Alternative, 5 residential and 14 commercial 

displacements will occur over the entire DC2RVA corridor. The majority of these will occur in 

the heavily developed areas immediately adjacent to the existing rail corridor in Richmond 

(Alternative 6F). 

Construction activities will create short-term air quality impacts, such as dust due to earthwork, 

road and rail improvements, and exhaust from construction vehicles. Short-term noise impacts 

will be unavoidable due to use of heavy equipment. Air and noise abatement measures, discussed 

in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, will be used to minimize these short-term impacts during construction. 

Short-term visual impacts will occur near the construction corridor. Mitigation measures, such as 

reducing slope cuts outside necessary road widths, reducing vegetation removal, leaving native 

vegetation screens in place, and minimizing the alteration of scenic viewsheds, will be used to 

reduce long-term visual resource impacts. 

Implementation of BMPs for protection of surface waters will minimize potential water quality 

impacts. A short-term impact from construction will be removal of biotic communities and wildlife 

within the proposed right-of-way and construction staging areas. Overall, the Preferred Alternative 

will have minimal short-term impacts relative to the long-term benefits of increased intercity 

passenger rail service in the DC2RVA corridor, and the ultimate extension of higher-speed intercity 

passenger rail service along the East Coast. Elimination of some of the existing at-grade rail crossings 

and construction of grade-separated crossings will also improve the safety of rail crossings and 

reduce roadway delay. Construction-related activities will be localized and temporary. Short-term 

gains to the local economy should be recognized as a result of hiring local firms and labor, as well as 

purchasing local services and supplies to construct the proposed Project. Once completed, the benefits 

of long-term productivity in terms of improved mobility and safety will be realized. Implementation 

of the Project will enhance the existing transportation network between Washington, D.C. and 

Richmond, VA, and provide a viable travel alternative for residents and users. This is consistent with 

the purpose of the proposed Project. Based on the significant contribution to the long-term objectives 

of regional and local plans for development, the proposed Project is consistent with the maintenance 

and enhancement of the long-term productivity at the local, regional, state, and national levels. The 

benefits of the Project are described in more detail in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS. 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-118 

5.22 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative will require certain irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of natural resources, energy (which includes fossil fuels), manpower, materials, 

and fiscal resources. Because most of the Project will be constructed within existing railroad rightof-way, land acquisition for construction of the proposed Project will be minimized; however, 

there will be an irreversible conversion of land to a transportation use in areas of new alignment 

and in areas where the existing road network will be modified to accommodate rail crossing 

closures and consolidations and to avoid historic resources. If a greater need for the use of the 

land were to arise or if the transportation facility were no longer needed, it could be converted to 

another use. There is no reason to believe such a conversion will be necessary or desirable. 

The acquisition of new right-of-way and new construction within the existing right-of-way may 

result in short-term and long-term losses and alterations to the natural resources in the area. 

Limited upland and aquatic biotic communities, as well as agricultural land, may be committed 

to rail service where new right-of-way is required. The most apparent impact may be loss of 

aquatic or terrestrial habitat productivity and connectivity; therefore, wildlife abundance may 

decline in the area as a result of habitat destruction. Increased noise associated with the Project 

may be intolerable to some wildlife species. Forested areas may be cleared in some locations, and 

wetlands and other surface waters may be filled to accommodate new bridges and underpasses. 

Riprap may be placed along stream banks at bridge crossings, reducing habitat within riparian 

zone. After construction, some habitat types may be restored within the construction limits, 

although their value to wildlife is unlikely to equate to that which was lost. If wetlands are filled 

for new construction, mitigation of impacts will likely involve restoration of degraded wetlands 

within the same watershed. In the long term, this will offset the loss of wetland habitats within 

the Project construction limits. The commitment of natural resources within existing and new 

right-of-way is a permanent loss of productive wildlife habitat. 

On a local scale, trains may affect wildlife habitats through the introduction of exotic plant species 

(e.g., seeds), emission of toxic contaminants (e.g., heavy metals), or right-of-way management 

(e.g., herbicide application). Section-specific habitat fragmentation effects are discussed in Section 

5.10. Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials will be expended in the fabrication and 

preparation of construction materials, as well as during construction of the Project. While these 

materials are generally not retrievable, they are not in short supply, and their use will not have 

an adverse effect on the continued availability of these resources. The steel rails required for the 

Project could be recycled should an alternate use of the property be selected. Any construction 

will also require a substantial, one-time expenditure of state and federal funds, which are not 

retrievable and could be used instead on other projects within the local community or in other 

parts of the country. 

Specific natural resource impacts for the Preferred Alternative have been previously detailed in 

this chapter. When reviewed in the overall context of the Project and taken in total, the impacts 

are small in proportion to the benefits of the Project. 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-119 

5.23 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

Table 5.23-1 provides a summary of the potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative upon the 

built and natural environments. All impacts shown are permanent impacts (i.e., not temporary 

disturbances due to construction activities). 

As noted earlier in this chapter, DRPT uses two future planning years for analysis of the DC2RVA 

Project. Year 2025 is the current best estimate of when construction of the DC2RVA infrastructure 

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

impact analyses within this Draft EIS on human and natural resources are estimated for 2025. 

Year 2045 is used by DRPT to demonstrate that the proposed Project is sufficient to deliver the 

proposed passenger rail benefits and an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor over a 20-

year time horizon following the completion of the passenger Project. DRPT also used the 2045 

planning horizon date to estimate some of the longer-term effects of the proposed service such as 

ridership, energy use, and effects on air quality, as well as indirect and cumulative effects. 

Existing DC2RVA Rail Corridor 
TIER II FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5-120 

Table 5.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Environmental Resource 

Preferred Alternative Total for 

the 

Preferred 

1B 2A 3B 4A 5A 6F Alternative 

Additional ROW (Acres) 0.03 53.77 14.02 1.27 23.45 56.58 149.12 

Natural Resources 

Wetlands (Acres) 0 5.94 4.2 8.8 0.98 4.27 24.19 

100-Year Floodplains 

(Acres) 0.1 16.1 9.9 17.2 6.6 44.1 94.0 

Streams & River 

Crossings (Linear Ffeet) 0 8,031 1,271 3,616 6,978 10,061 29,957 

Threatened & 

Endangered Species and 

Habitat 

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – 

Geologic Resources 

Construction-Limiting 

Soils 

Unknown / 

Not Rated Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – 

Prime 

Farmland 

Prime Soils 

(Acres) 0 27.65 24.62 56.93 15.8 25.4 150.4 

NRCS Form 

106 Score 

(Points)1

0 66 80 93 51 19 – 

Agricultural & Forestal 

Districts (Acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hazardous Materials 

Superfund / CERCLA 

Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Recorded Release & 

Potential 

Contamination Sites 

0 5 3 0 2 25 35 

HAZMAT Facilities 0 5 4 0 0 6 15 

Petroleum Storage 

Tanks 0 1 3 0 3 7 14 

Air 

Quality2

CO2 Emissions (Tons 

per Year) Change 

Compared to No Build 

-6,518 -6,518 

Noise3

Impacted Noise Receptors 

Category 1 

Moderate 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Category 1 

Severe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Category 2 

Moderate 0 548 67 51 135 416 1,217 

Category 2 

Severe 0 99 8 18 14 15 154 

Category 3 

Moderate 0 6 1 1 1 7 16 

Category 3 

Severe 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 

Total 0 653 76 70 154 439 1,392 

Vibration3

Impacted 

Vibration 

Receptors 

Category 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Category 2 0 15 0 2 25 8 50 

Category 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Total 0 15 0 2 26 8 51 

 Continued – see end of table for notes.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

 5-121 

Table 5.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Environmental Resource 

Preferred Alternative Total for 

the 

Preferred 

1B 2A 3B 4A 5A 6F Alternative 

Energy2

Energy Consumption 

(Billions of BTUs) 

Change Compared to 

No Build 

-293 -293 

Aesthetics & 

Visual 

Environment 

Visual Impact Rating 

(Low, Moderate, 

or High) 

Low Low – 

Moderate High Low Low Low – High – 

Community & 

Environmental Justice 

Commercial 

Relocations 0 0 1 0 2 11 14 

Residential Relocations 0 2 0 0 0 3 5 

Compatible with 

Comprehensive Land 

Use Plans (Yes / No) 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes – 

Environmental Justice 

Census Tracts with 

Residential Relocations 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Park 

Resources 

Number / Acres 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 1 / 0.21 1 / 0.21 

Cultural Resources 

Effects on 

Archaeological

Sites 

Adverse 

Effect 0 1 4 0 0 3 8 

No Adverse 

Effect 0 0 2 0 0 3 54

No Effect 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Effects on Buildings, 

Districts, Structures, & 

Objects 

Adverse 

Effect 0 2 2 2 3 3 135

No Adverse 

Effect 2 5 8 8 2 29 544

No Effect 0 3 4 3 11 9 30 

Effects on 

Battlefields 

Adverse 

Effect 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

No Adverse 

Effect 0 0 4 1 0 5 10 

No Effect 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

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

5-122 

Table 5.23-1: Summary of Impacts 

Environmental Resource 

Preferred Alternative Total for 

the 

Preferred 

1B 2A 3B 4A 5A 6F Alternative 

Transportation

Proposed Public 

At-Grade Crossing 

Improvements 

Grade 

Separate6 0 0 1 0 2 4 7 

Closure 0 1 0 1 0 5 7 

Four-Quad 

Gates 0 1 2 4 3 3 13 

Median 

Treatment 0 0 1 2 1 4 8 

No Action 0 2 0 0 5 1 8 

New Public Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed Private At-Grade Crossing Improvements 

Closure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Four-Quad 

Gates 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Locking Gate 0 0 0 10 0 2 12 

No Action 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 

New Private Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Roadway Travel 

Patterns: % Change in 

Daily Traffic, Adjacent 

Roadways at Stations7

– <1% 7-8% – <1% 1-2% – 

Total Daily Delay 

(hours) / % Intercity 

Passenger Trains of 

Total 

– 23.01 / 

13% 

6.59 / 

13% 

3.35 / 

13% 

56.33 / 

11%

64.22 / 

10% 153.50 / 11% 

Notes: Reductions in impacts since the Draft EIS are indicated by green font; increases by red font. As indicated in the Introduction to this 

chapter, permanent effects include all areas where Project infrastructure will physically replace existing conditions. Temporary effects are areas 

required for construction of the Preferred Alternative, such as for staging or storage of equipment. Only permanent effects are summarized in 

this table. Refer to Appendix L of this Final EIS for detailed mapbooks of the Preferred Alternative, which show the permanent and temporary 

LOD throughout the 123-mile Project corridor. 

1. NRCS treated each alternative area separately; therefore, there is no “cumulative” corridor assessment score. 

2. "Change" shown compares 2045 Preferred Alternative to 2045 No Build conditions. Air Quality and Energy are analyzed corridor-wide 

based on the station alternative as selected in Richmond (6F), so only a single value is shown in this table. 

3. Noise and Vibration categories defined in Section 5.7. 

4. Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Co. Battlefields National Military Park & Cemetery, Lee Drive (111-0147) is both an above and below ground 

resource, and it is counted in the table twice in the “No Adverse Effect” column, as both an Archaeological Resource and a Historic Resource. 

5. The historic RF&P Railroad (500-0001) traverses the Project corridor from the Potomac River on the north to Main Street Station in 

Richmond on the south; therefore, one resource has been added to the “Adverse Effect” column for “Effects on Buildings, Districts, Structures, 

& Objects” since it does not fall in a single Alternative Area. 

6. Some existing grade-separated crossings will be widened/replaced as part of the Project; these crossings are separate from the proposed 

new grade separations of existing at-grade crossings that are quantified in this table. 

7. "Change" shown compares 2025 Preferred Alternative to 2025 No Build conditions.