RECORD OF DECISION

**By the Federal Transit Administration**

**Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project**

# DECISION

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in accordance with 23 CFR 771,
the regulations that govern the Federal environmental review process for
transportation projects funded by the U. S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT), has determined that the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, have been satisfied
for the Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project. The Project is a 7.4-mile
light rail transit (LRT) system comprised of an exclusive double track
guideway that generally follows the Norfolk Southern Railroad's South
Beach Branch right-of-way with street running operations through
downtown Norfolk to the west end of the alignment at the Eastern
Virginia Medical Center (EVMC). The eastern end of the alignment is on
the existing railroad right-of-way at the corner of Newtown Road and
Kempsville Road. The proposed project includes provisions for 11 LRT
stations, a vehicle storage and maintenance facility, an expanded bus
feeder system, and park-and-ride lots at 4 of the proposed station
sites.

The FTA Record of Decision (ROD) applies to the Preferred Alternative
("the Project"), as further described in the Norfolk Light Rail Transit
Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), as advertised in a
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on October 28, 2005.
Hampton Roads Transit (HRT), the Project sponsor, is seeking financial
assistance from FTA for this project.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes the costs,
benefits, and impacts associated with the 7.4-mile LRT project that lies
entirely within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Norfolk.
However, neither the FEIS nor this Record of Decision constitutes a
Federal commitment to provide financial assistance for construction of
the project. In this instance, HRT is seeking funding under FTA\'s Major
Capital Investments (\"New Starts\") program, and the Federal Transit
Administrator will decide whether to commit New Starts funds for project
construction strictly in accordance with the evaluation criteria and
procedures codified at 49 U.S.C. § 5309 and 49 C.F.R. Part 611,
including, specifically, the criteria for cost effectiveness, land use,
and local financial commitment. Currently, the project is rated
\"medium\" under the New Starts criteria, based, in part, on the capital
cost estimates set forth in this FEIS that are subject to further review
by FTA before the Administrator may approve the project for entry into
Final Design. If and when the project is approved for entry into Final
Design, it must maintain a \"medium\" rating under the New Starts
criteria to remain a viable candidate for Federal financial assistance
under the New Starts program.

In addition to FTA, the U.S. Coast Guard participated in the Project's
NEPA review as a cooperating agency because construction of the Project
requires the crossing of waterways and enhancements to, or
reconstruction of, bridges over navigable waterways.

## BACKGROUND

Historically, the Norfolk Southern Railroad ran railbus, inter-urban
passenger service in the Norfolk Southern right-of-way to Virginia Beach
until 1947, after which the passenger rail routes were discontinued and
only freight service remained. The return of rail transit to the
corridor was initially explored in 1986, when Tidewater Regional Transit
(TRT), one of the two predecessor agencies of Hampton Roads Transit
(HRT), conducted a *Study of the Cost Effectiveness of Restoring Rail
Passenger Service* in the Norfolk area. In 1991, TRT examined the
feasibility of providing additional transit service in several corridors
throughout the greater Hampton Roads area. Specifically, the recommended
transportation plan for South Hampton Roads, derived from the *Rail
Systems Analysis and Fixed Guideway Plan*, 1991, was to provide
substantially improved bus transit service for the short term and light
rail transit (LRT) in the longer term.

As a result of the 1991 system planning studies, the *Norfolk-Virginia
Beach Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS), June 1996*, was conducted
by TRT to evaluate transit and transportation improvements in a 30-mile
corridor extending from Virginia Beach to downtown Norfolk and Naval
Station Norfolk. The MIS utilized and built upon results of past
planning efforts in evaluating the feasibility of implementing various
transportation alternatives and documented the selection of a Locally
Preferred Alternative (LPA). The Locally Preferred Alternative, selected
by TRT in May 1996, consisted of an 18-mile light rail transit system
between downtown Norfolk and Virginia Beach. In May 1999, a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the 18-mile Norfolk-Virginia Beach
Light Rail Transit System East/West Corridor Project was published. This
document analyzed an 18-mile LRT Build Alternative between downtown
Norfolk and the Virginia Beach Pavilion Convention Center, generally
following the Norfolk Southern Railroad South Beach Branch right-of-way.
The Build Alternative included a proposal for 13 stations, five of which
were to be located within the City of Norfolk, an expanded bus feeder
system, and a vehicle storage and maintenance facility located in
Virginia Beach. Two public hearings were conducted in June 1999 to give
members of the public the opportunity to comment on the document. The
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach
Light Rail Transit System East/West Corridor Project was published in
March 2000.

In response to a non-binding advisory referendum held in Virginia Beach
in the fall of 1999, the City of Virginia Beach chose not to continue to
participate in the development of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach LRT project
within their city boundaries. As a result of the Virginia Beach decision
to withdraw from the development of LRT, Hampton Roads Transit was asked
by the City of Norfolk to continue to consider the feasibility of the
Norfolk portion of the Locally Preferred Alternative. In February 2000,
the Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads (TDCHR) endorsed
HRT's request to proceed with the preparation of a Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and identified a Minimum Operable Segment
(MOS).

The Supplemental DEIS, published in December 2002, evaluated an 8-mile
LRT system that ran from the western terminus near Eastern Virginia
Medical Center through Downtown Norfolk to a proposed eastern terminus
on Kempsville Road just north of I-264. The alignment proposed in the
FEIS is a modification of the original MOS alignment that was documented
in the Supplemental DEIS. Upon completion of the Supplemental DEIS,
refinements of the LRT alignment were needed to strengthen the project's
cost effectiveness and respond to community concerns related to the
proposed eastern terminus. The most significant revision to the
alignment was the shortening of the track from the previous eastern
end-point near the Barry Robinson Center north of I-264 to the current
end-point at Newtown Road and Kempsville Road. This revision reduced the
length of the LRT track by 0.6 miles while having no impact on
ridership. In addition to reduced project costs, the modification
eliminated impacts to the Barry Robinson Center, a historic resource
that provides adolescent mental health services to the region.

## BASIS FOR DECISION

FTA's decision is based on information contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, which provides the detailed statement on
environmental impacts required by NEPA and Federal transit law (49 USC
5324(b)). The statement identifies the Preferred Alternative and
includes a review of the purpose and need for the project, consideration
of alternatives, environmental impacts, and measures to minimize harm.
FTA has reviewed this statement and notes that the LRT Alternative was
selected over the other alternatives considered because it:

-   Provides better access to activity centers in the corridor and the
    region

-   Provides better mobility between downtown Norfolk and the
    surrounding communities

-   Attracts the highest number of total riders

-   Provides the greatest reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled
    as compared to the No-Build and TSM Alternatives.

-   Provides shortest and most reliable travel times for transit trips
    within the corridor and the shortest travel times of all trips in
    the downtown area.

-   Allows for the most convenient transfer between LRT, bus and parking
    facilities

-   Allows for more transit oriented development to be focused in
    station areas

-   Increases access to the greatest number of residential, educational,
    and employment areas served by transit service

-   Better supports the City of Norfolk land use and redevelopment plans

-   Conforms with regional air quality plans

-   Has the highest level of public, state and City regulatory support.

The Coast Guard has indicated that the preliminary design of the
Project's crossings of navigable waterways and in-river construction
activities are consistent with applicable Coast Guard requirements. HRT
will apply for bridge permits in accordance with USCG regulations during
final design, when the more detailed design of each bridge and its
construction method can be provided in the permit application.

## ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Numerous alternatives were evaluated throughout the various stages of
the environmental review phase of the Project. Consistent with the
Project's evaluation methodology, the effectiveness of each alternative
was assessed based on social, environmental, economic, and
transportation factors. The evaluation process applied increasingly
detailed and comprehensive measures of effectiveness to a decreasing
number of alternatives. The process allowed decision-makers to identify
similarities, differences and trade-offs between each alternative, and
to carry forward those alternatives that were determined to best achieve
the following:

-   satisfaction of the purpose and need of the Project

-   ease of construction

-   minimization of negative environmental and transportation impacts

-   improvement of transit ridership

-   maximization of the project benefit while minimizing construction
    costs

The formal NEPA review process for the Norfolk LRT Project began with a
series of scoping meetings, which were held on November 2, 2000. The
initial set of alternatives considered for the Project included light
rail transit technology, alignments, station locations, and vehicle
storage and maintenance facility sites. These alternatives were based,
in part, on the Preferred Alternative that was documented in the
Norfolk-Virginia Beach East/West Corridor Project FEIS (March 2000). The
Norfolk LRT Project proposed to use the Norfolk Southern Railroad South
Beach Branch Line, with alignment options through downtown Norfolk, and
possible options at the east and west ends of the project corridor. As a
result of the scoping meetings, a number of additional alignment options
were developed through downtown Norfolk and to the east-end of the line.
These initial options were then subjected to a two-phase screening
process to determine which alternatives should be advanced for more
detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS. For the initial screening phase,
the evaluation measures included the overall consistency with the
Project goals and objectives, constructability, and the presence of
negative environmental and transportation impacts. Alignment
alternatives carried forward from the initial screening were subjected
to a second level screening that evaluated the alternatives based on
project costs and potential transit ridership. Upon completion of the
Supplemental DEIS (December 2002), further refinements of the LRT
alignment were needed to strengthen the project's cost effectiveness and
to be responsive to public concerns related to the east end-of-line.
Additional east end-of-line options were considered that focused on the
further reduction of capital costs, while following the general
alignment within the project corridor. The preferred alignment evaluated
in the FEIS was approximately 0.6 miles shorter in length, while
maintaining ridership levels and satisfying the Project Purpose and
Need. The results of the screening analysis of all options are
documented in detail in the *Norfolk LRT Project, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Appendix B, Selection of LRT Build Alternative
Alignment (October, 2005)*

### Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the potential effects of
alternative transit improvements for the Norfolk LRT Corridor. In
addition to a No Build Alternative, one LRT Build Alternative and a
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative were evaluated.

-   **No Build Alternative.** The No-Build Alternative included ongoing,
    committed and funded projects envisioned for implementation by 2021,
    as identified in the Hampton Roads 2021 Regional Transportation
    Plan, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, July 2001. The No
    Build Alternative provided a baseline for comparison against which
    the other alternatives were evaluated.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative.** The
    Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative represents a
    lower capital cost approach to transit services and facilities and
    seeks to maximize the benefit of the existing transportation system
    along the Norfolk LRT corridor. The TSM Alternative consists of
    current HRT bus routes and facilities, service and facility
    improvements identified in the area-wide No-Build Alternative, and
    additional new bus service improvements that would provide
    comparable service to the LRT Build Alternative. The TSM Alternative
    would provide improved bus services between the Military Circle Mall
    area and downtown Norfolk, between the Kempsville Road corridor and
    the Military Circle Mall, at the west end of the corridor to Old
    Dominion University, at the east end of the corridor to Pembroke
    Mall and the Virginia Beach Central Business District (CBD), and
    expansion of the existing Norfolk Electric Trolley (NET) service in
    downtown Norfolk.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **LRT Build Alternative.** The LRT Build Alternative evaluated in
    the SDEIS consists of a light rail transit system beginning at a
    western terminus near the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC) and
    traveling east in a dedicated right-of-way on city streets through
    downtown Norfolk to Norfolk State University (NSU). The alignment
    would follow the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way,
    paralleling I-264, from Park Avenue, west of Brambleton Avenue to
    Newtown Road, and would end at an eastern terminus on Kempsville
    Road just north of I-264. The project would include an exclusive
    double track guideway following the Norfolk Southern Railroad
    right-of-way and dedicated LRT right-of-way along the streets
    through downtown Norfolk and at the eastern and western end of the
    line, eleven LRT stations and an LRT Vehicle Storage and Maintenance
    Facility to be located just south of the LRT alignment between
    Norfolk State University and I-264. The LRT Build Alternative would
    also include a revised bus network providing strong bus connections
    to the LRT line and extending the service coverage of the LRT
    system.

### Final Environmental Impact Statement

Based on public and agency comments after the completion of the
Supplemental Draft EIS, HRT identified a series of modifications to the
project to reduce environmental and community impacts and to improve the
project's cost effectiveness. TDCHR selected the LRT Build Alternative
as the Preferred Alternative. The FEIS was developed to respond to
comments and issues raised during the circulation of the Supplemental
Draft EIS and to provide more detailed information on the design
modifications and the design of the proposed mitigation measures for
unavoidable impacts associated with the Project. The FEIS presents an
evaluation of the following alternatives:

-   **No Build Alternative.** The No Build Alternative includes all
    highway and transit facilities and services of the existing
    transportation system plus highway and transit improvements from the
    financially constrained 2026 long-range plan, as identified in the
    Hampton Roads 2026 Regional Transportation Plan, Hampton Roads
    Planning District Commission, December 2003. The No Build
    Alternative provides a baseline for comparison against which the
    other alternatives were evaluated.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative.** The
    Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative represents a
    lower capital cost approach to transit services and facilities and
    seeks to maximize the benefit of the existing transportation system
    along the Norfolk LRT corridor. The TSM Alternative consists of
    current HRT bus routes and facilities, service and facility
    improvements identified in the area-wide No-Build Alternative, and
    additional service improvements that would provide comparable
    service to the Preferred Alternative. The TSM Alternative would
    include three park-and-ride lots and a new transit center within the
    project corridor.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Preferred Alternative.** The Preferred Alternative evaluated in
    the FEIS consists of a light rail transit system beginning at a
    western terminus near the Eastern Virginia Medical Center (EVMC) and
    traveling east in a dedicated right-of-way through downtown Norfolk
    to Norfolk State University (NSU). The alignment would follow the
    Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way, paralleling I-264, from Park
    Avenue, west of Brambleton Avenue to Newtown Road, and would end
    with an eastern terminus along the existing Norfolk Southern
    Railroad right-of-way at Newtown Road and Kempsville Road. The
    project components include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   An LRT system, approximately 7.4 miles in length, comprised of nine
    Light Rail vehicles, and an exclusive double track guideway
    following the Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way and dedicated
    LRT right-of-way along city streets.

-   Eleven stations: seven would include bus drop off areas (bus bays or
    on-street) and four would include park-and-ride areas. Other station
    amenities would include some or all of the following: safety
    railings where needed, ticket vending and validating machines, map
    and information cases, light standards, and urban design elements
    and furniture such as wind screens, benches, litter receptacles, and
    other enhancements.

-   Revised bus network providing strong bus connections to the LRT line
    and extending the service coverage of the LRT system.

-   An LRT Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility located just south
    of the LRT alignment between Norfolk State University and I-264,
    between Brambleton Avenue and Ballentine Boulevard.

**ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM**

The FEIS provides an assessment of the Project's social, environmental,
economic and transportation impacts and commits to certain measures to
mitigate those impacts. The mitigation measures and other project
features that reduce adverse impacts, to which FTA and HRT committed in
the FEIS, may not be eliminated from the Project, except by FTA\'s
written consent in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. A
summary of the major environmental impacts influencing the FTA decision
follows, and a table designed to facilitate monitoring the
implementation of the mitigation measures during final design and
construction is provided in Attachment A.

**Property Acquisition.** The majority of acquisitions required for this
Project will include the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad's South
Beach Branch right-of-way and small portions of adjacent parcels, which
will be required for drainage and temporary construction easements. In
addition, property acquisition will be required at seven of the eleven
station locations and in places where the alignment deviates from the
existing Norfolk Southern Railroad right-of-way. This deviation will
occur at the western end of the project where the alignment begins in
downtown Norfolk until it enters Norfolk Southern Railroad right of way
near Brambleton Avenue. Seven residential properties will be displaced
on Curlew Drive, and Bangor Avenue. All residential displacements are
single-family homes except for a residential duplex at 100 Curlew Drive.
Three businesses will also be displaced and one vacant previously
industrial property. In addition, the construction of one downtown
Norfolk station will require the demolition of the Kirn Memorial
Library, which is owned by the City of Norfolk.

All private property that will be acquired for the Preferred Alternative
will be removed from the city tax rolls and therefore will result in a
change in the amount of Norfolk's available tax base. The tax loss is
expected to be negligible as a percentage of the City's whole tax base.

**Historic Resources.** The Project will have an adverse effect on the
Downtown Norfolk Historic District and the West Freemason Historic
District by introducing visual elements that are inconsistent with the
historic fabric of the districts. The Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) will be
powered by an overhead catenary system, which will introduce a new
visual element into the streetscape through overhead lines and support
poles. Additionally, three stations and an undetermined number of signs
will be located within or adjacent to the downtown Norfolk Historic
District and the West Freemason Historic District. No contributing
elements of the historic districts will be altered for the project. A
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been signed by HRT, FTA and Virginia
Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) that includes provisions for
continuing consultation with VDHR and the City of Norfolk regarding the
design of above-ground elements of the Norfolk LRT in an effort to
minimize these visual effects. The MOA is included in Attachment B.

**Wetlands.** The Project will affect five wetlands during construction,
with a total impact area of 1.48 acres. Construction impacts for the
Project will include fill for widening the track bed, culvert
requirements and bridge widening. Mitigation measures are outlined in
the FEIS and summarized in Attachment A.

**Water Quality.** Overall, construction of the Project will not
substantially alter the surface water drainage system or water quality.
All construction activities have the potential to increase sediment and
nutrient loads to surface waters. However, these changes will be
temporary and will cease once construction is complete and graded areas
are revegetated. The project will increase the net new impervious
surface by 7.46 acres, with a resulting increase in runoff volume and
pollutant loads to surface waters.

**Floodplains.** Approximately 0.5 miles of the proposed project
corridor is located adjacent to or within the 100-year floodplain. These
areas are scattered along the corridor in approximately 10 locations,
many in areas already used for transportation purposes. LRT Track
construction within floodplain areas cannot exceed the current rail and
street elevations for concern that the waters will become impounded. Due
to the overall low elevation of Norfolk, the city does not impose such
floodplain restrictions on development due to its impracticality.
Therefore, any track located within the 100-year floodplain will be
constructed with one foot of freeboard over the 100-year flood elevation
with the exception of embedded track in the downtown area. Construction
in downtown Norfolk will require new structures in the floodplain.
During Final Design, HRT will coordinate with the state and local
regulatory agencies to obtain the necessary approvals.

**Ecology.** Impact to ecological resources will primarily be limited to
the area immediately adjacent to the existing railroad tracks. Most of
the area consists of urban surfaces, landscaped turf and idle fields.
One relatively intact wooded area, just east of the Norfolk State
University Station, will be impacted. This woodlot is located in a
narrow corridor between the existing tracks and I-264. Approximately 3.5
acres of this seven-acre woodland (mostly pine) will be removed by the
Project. The woodlot has minimal vegetative diversity.

**Noise and Vibration.** Operation of the Project is predicted to exceed
the FTA noise impact criteria at some sensitive receptors along the LRT
alignment, primarily in downtown Norfolk, where the alignment has
several tight curves resulting in high frequency wheel squeal noise.
Track-side water sprayers will be installed to lubricate rails on curved
track sections to minimize wheel squeal. At the eastern end-of-line
station at Newtown Road, idling buses will exceed the FTA noise impact
criteria at three adjacent homes. A noise barrier will be constructed
that will reduce noise levels and, simultaneously, minimize the visual
impacts of the LRT station and bus staging areas to the surrounding
neighborhood.

**Traffic and Transportation.** The Project will include 49 locations
where the LRT alignment crosses existing roadways and driveways. An LRT
grade separation has been designed into the Project in an area
consisting of four roadway crossings where traffic and safety impacts
would be severe. The remaining grade crossings impacts will be mitigated
with a combination of active and passive traffic control measures.

The Project will also result in changes to traffic conditions as people
change their travel patterns to access the new transit stations,
affecting some of the communities that surround certain stations. At
station locations without parking, auto traffic impacts will be limited
to pick-up and drop-off activity, which is estimated to be a small
percentage of total boardings at most stations. Stations with parking,
which will attract more auto traffic (especially during peak commuting
hours), may have localized traffic impacts related to neighborhood
circulation. In some cases, a new traffic signal or other geometric
improvements will be installed to make traffic flow safely and
efficiently.

The Project is expected to impact parking spaces in both on-street and
off-street locations. The total number of on-street parking spaces
displaced by the LRT line will be 277. The access drives to several
off-street surface parking lots and parking garages will also be
impacted by the LRT line. Several on-street service or delivery areas
that are located in downtown Norfolk will be displaced because of the
right-of-way requirements of LRT. The service delivery areas on
Monticello Avenue for the NorVa Theater and the Virginia Stage Company
are heavily utilized. These delivery areas will be displaced and new
pullout loading zones will be constructed.

Existing traffic patterns will be affected during the construction phase
of the Project. A portion of the Project will be constructed on or
adjacent to existing travel ways, temporarily impacting surface parking
and traffic patterns along the LRT alignment in downtown Norfolk.
Traffic detours, temporary access modifications, and temporary
elimination of on- and off-street parking may be required.

The FEIS describes the mitigation measures that are now incorporated
into the Project to avoid and minimize adverse impacts. HRT will design
and build the Project in accordance with the mitigation measures
contained in the FEIS and summarized in Attachment A. In addition, FTA
will require that HRT establish a mitigation-monitoring program to
ensure adequate communication of mitigation and design commitments to
the teams working on the Final Design and Construction, and to provide a
means for HRT and FTA to track the progress in accomplishing the
mitigation commitments. FTA will monitor implementation of mitigation
measures through quarterly reviews during Final Design and Construction
or other appropriate means.

**PUBLIC COORDINATION AND COMMENTS**

During the preparation of the Supplemental Draft EIS and the FEIS, a
comprehensive public involvement plan was designed and implemented to
provide citizens, including traditionally underserved populations,
businesses, and organizations with an interest in the Project, the
opportunity to be informed about project developments, to participate in
the project planning process, and to provide recommendations to
decision-makers on the selection of the project alternatives. In order
to facilitate public participation in the Project's planning and design,
several different outreach techniques were employed to reach a wide
range of participants. These included a variety of information
dissemination media and interactive techniques in addition to meetings
and public hearings as described below.

**[Public Outreach]{.underline}**

A number of different techniques and activities were conducted over the
course of the environmental review process to ensure that the public
remained informed of Project developments and were provided the
opportunity to comment throughout Project planning and design. Specific
techniques included a Project telephone hotline, a website, information
brochures, press releases, media briefings, and individual meetings.
Other outreach techniques included providing project displays and
presentations at community fairs and festivals.

A key component of the Public Involvement Plan was the development of
advisory committees to review information as steps were completed in the
study, and to advise the study. Three advisory committees were developed
for this project: the Steering Committee, the Technical Advisory
Committee, and the Public Involvement Committee. The goal of the
Steering Committee was to advise HRT about issues that arose with
development projects that are specific to the City of Norfolk. Members
of the Technical Advisory Committee included staff from cities,
regional, state and Federal agencies and private organizations with
technical expertise pertinent to the project. The Public Involvement
Committee included representatives from each constituency potentially
affected by the Project: community organizations along the proposed
alignment, employers and employee groups located near the corridor;
organizations such as home owners associations, business and
professional associations, and representatives of special perspectives
such as conservationists, seniors, and physically-limited citizens. All
Civic Leagues with neighborhoods within a 3-mile radius of the proposed
LRT alignment were invited to be members of the Public Involvement
Committee.

**[Public Coordination Meetings and Hearings]{.underline}**

As required by NEPA, public coordination meetings and hearings were
held. Meetings were held with the general public and stakeholders on an
as-needed basis to understand issues of concern, to inform them on the
development and evaluation of potential alternatives, and to discuss the
selection of the Preferred Alternative. Upon completion of the
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), notices of
public hearings were provided. Two public hearings held on January
29^th^ and 30, 2003, resulted in more than 264 comments on the SDEIS.
Chapter 22 of the FEIS provides the dates and locations of public and
agency meetings. Chapter 23 lists the public and agency comments on the
SDEIS and provides responses to each comment.

**[FEIS Comments]{.underline}**

The Notice of Availability of the FEIS was published in the Federal
Register on October 28, 2005. During the FEIS circulation period,
comment letters were received from USEPA, VDEQ, Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, Hampton Roads Sanitation District and Norfolk State
University. Responses to comments received on the FEIS are provided in
Attachment C.

**DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS**

On the basis of the determinations made in compliance with relevant
portions of Federal law, the FTA finds that the Project, as described in
the FEIS, and including the mitigation measures identified therein and
summarized in this ROD, satisfies the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal transit laws, the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (all as amended) and complies
with Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12898, as specified below.

**[Environmental Protection (49 USC Section 5301(e) and
5324(b))]{.underline}**

The environmental record of the Project includes the previously
referenced Draft and Final EIS for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach Light Rail
Transit East/West Corridor Project (May 1999 and March 2000), the
Supplemental Draft EIS for the Norfolk LRT Project (December 2002) and
the FEIS (October 2005) and all attachments thereto. Cumulatively, these
documents represent the detailed statement required by both NEPA, 42 USC
4321 *et seq*. and the Federal transit laws, 49 USC Sections 5301(e) and
5324(b), regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed Project.

On the basis of the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental
impacts as presented in the FEIS, and the written and oral comments
offered by the public and other agencies, FTA has determined that:

-   An adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views
    by all parties with a significant economic, social, or environmental
    interest in the Project;

-   Fair consideration has been given to the preservation and
    enhancement of the environment and to the interest of the
    communities in which the proposed Project is to be located; and

-   All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize the adverse
    environmental effects of the Project, and where adverse
    environmental effects remain, no feasible and prudent alternative to
    the effects exist.

**[Conformity with Air Quality Plans]{.underline}**

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, requires that Federally-funded
transportation projects in air quality nonattainment and maintenance
areas conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The regulation of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) implementing this provision of the Clean Air Act
(40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) establishes criteria for demonstrating that a
transportation project is in conformity with the goals of the SIP. Based
on the recently adopted ozone 8-hour standard, Hampton Roads is in an
ozone non-attainment area and is required to be in compliance with the
standard for that pollutant by June 2007. The Project is therefore
subject to the conformity requirements of the EPA regulation.

Project-level conformity for ozone is established by including the
project in the metropolitan transportation plan and transportation
improvement program (TIP), and then demonstrating that the plan and TIP,
which include the project, conform.

The Project is included in the 2026 Regional Transportation Plan, which
was approved by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC)
acting as the MPO, in December 2003, and was reviewed by VDOT in
December 2003 for air quality conformity. On December 10, 2004, USDOT
determined that the FY2005 TIP and the 2026 Long Range Plan for the
Hampton Roads meet the EPA requirements for conformity with the Clean
Air Act. FTA therefore finds that the project conforms to the air
quality purpose of the SIP, in accordance with the EPA regulation on
transportation conformity.

**[Section 106 (Historic and Archaeological Resources)]{.underline}**

The effects of the Project on historic and archaeological resources have
been assessed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470f), and its implementing
regulations (36 CFR 800). The Project will have an adverse effect on two
historic resources eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (the Downtown Norfolk Historic District and the West
Freemason Historic District), and no effects on known archaeological
resources.

The measures to be taken to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to the
historic districts and any archaeological resources encountered during
construction activities are set forth in the Section 106 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) among FTA, HRT, and the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources. A copy of the signed MOA is included in the FEIS and as
Attachment B to this Record of Decision (ROD).

**[Section 4(f) Determination]{.underline}**

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (49
USC 303) affords special protection to parks, recreation areas, wildlife
refuges, and historic sites, by prohibiting use of such properties for a
transportation project unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to such use and the project includes all possible planning
to minimize harm to the protected resource. Based on the evaluation
conducted in the FEIS and coordination with the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Project
will not result in the use of any Section 4(f) resources. The Project
will introduce visual elements into the historic districts, but these
will not substantially diminish the protected activities, features, or
attributes of the historic resources. No alteration to the character of
these historic districts that constitutes "use" will occur.

The curve in the alignment near MacArthur Park would cause wheel squeal
if it were not mitigated. If the wheel squeal were not mitigated, the
noise would substantially diminish the protected activities, features,
and attributes of the park and constitute a "constructive use" of the
park. With the mitigation of wheel squeal in place, the park will not be
substantially diminished in its activities and features and attributes.
Therefore, there is no section 4(f) use of the park.

**[Floodplain Finding]{.underline}**

Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management and Protection" states
that FTA may not approve an alternative involving a significant
floodplain encroachment unless FTA can make a finding that the proposed
encroachment is the only practicable alternative. The major purposes of
Executive Order 11988 are to avoid Federal support for floodplain
development; to prevent uneconomic, hazardous, or incompatible use of
floodplains; to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values;
and to be consistent with the standards and criteria of the National
Flood Insurance Program.

In total, approximately 0.5 miles of the proposed Project is located
adjacent to or within the 100-year floodplain. These areas are scattered
along the corridor in approximately 10 locations, many in areas already
used for transportation purposes. Track construction within floodplain
areas will match the elevation of existing rail and road facilities to
minimize the potential for causing additional backwater conditions.

Bridge and culvert crossings will be designed to minimize backwater
conditions and rail/road profiles will minimize overtopping. Except in
downtown Norfolk where LRT tracks are to be embedded in the roadway, all
construction shall meet local zoning requirements, which require new
structures to have at least one foot of freeboard above the 100-year
flood elevation. Construction in downtown Norfolk will require new
structures in the floodplain. Floodplain mitigation will be conducted in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
regulations and other applicable local requirements.

FTA finds that the Project is consistent with the requirements of
Executive Order 11988.

**[Wetlands Finding]{.underline}**

Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands", directs Federal
agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term
adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of
wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in
wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.

The Project will disrupt or displace 1.48 acres of wetlands.
Approximately 0.6 acres of the proposed wetland impact is associated
with track construction and expansion and approximately 0.7 acres of
impact is associated with construction of the Vehicle Storage and
Maintenance Facility.

Implementing Best Management Practices prior to and during construction
will minimize water quality impacts to wetlands. Permanent retention
ponds will be included at all of the station locations where parking is
proposed. Vegetated swales will be reconstructed along the tracks, where
feasible, to filter runoff before it enters a wetland. Silt fences will
be placed along the edge of wetland basins to minimize sedimentation
during construction. Temporary construction easements and right-of-ways
will be re-vegetated in a timely manner with native vegetation. Sediment
and erosion control measures and pond sizing will be refined during
Final Design and coordinated with the appropriate agencies.

The preferred option for wetland mitigation is the purchase of wetland
credits from an approved mitigation bank and/or provision of an in-lieu
fee to the Elizabeth River Restoration Trust. HRT has begun initial
discussions with the owner of the Chesapeake Land Development Tidal
Mitigation Bank to identify the total number of credits that are and
will be available, estimated cost for the credits, and process to
execute the legal transactions. Depending on the results of these
discussions and timing of the LRT construction, provision of an in-lieu
fee may be used for part of or the entire mitigation requirement.

Discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), in particular, have
been conducted regarding the options for mitigation. The ACOE has
indicated that the proposed project has made a good faith effort to
minimize wetland impacts and to find on-site mitigation opportunities,
and suggested contacting the owner of the Chesapeake Land Development
Tidal Mitigation Bank. The use of wetland banking and/or in-lieu fee
options are appropriate based on the level of analysis conducted for the
Project. Final design of wetland compensation will be completed and
submitted for agency approval through the wetland permitting process.

Wetland permits will be required from three government agencies.
Generally, the ACOE Section 404 permit and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Water Protection Permit will define the
mitigation requirements. Based on the proposed impacts, mitigation is
anticipated to require replacement at a 1:1 ratio. Wetland impacts and
mitigation will also be coordinated with the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (Sub aqueous/Tidal Wetland Permit) and reviewed by the City
of Norfolk and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance.

FTA finds that the Project is consistent with the requirements of
Executive Order 11990.

**[Environmental Justice]{.underline}**

Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994 entitled "*Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations*" requires that FTA identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations and low income
populations.

The FEIS identified the neighborhoods that are predominantly minority
and low income areas, and the impacts of the project in those and other
neighborhoods. FTA has determined that the anticipated human and
environmental effects of the Project will not be disproportionately
borne by minority or low-income populations. Furthermore, all persons
living or working within the station areas where the most severe impacts
occur will enjoy improved mobility as a result of the Project.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Susan Borinsky Date

Regional Administrator

Federal Transit Administration

Region III

**ATTACHMENT A**

**SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES**

The mitigation measures and other Project features that reduce adverse
impacts, to which HRT and FTA committed in the FEIS, are summarized in
the following Table. The mitigation measures presented in the FEIS for
the Preferred Alternative may not be altered or eliminated from the
Project except by FTA written consent following a supplemental
environmental review.

**[Supplemental Environmental Review]{.underline}**

HRT and FTA will initiate a supplemental environmental review of the
Project, as outlined in 23 CFR 771.130, whenever FTA determines that:

1.  Substantial changes to the Project would result in significant
    environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the FEIS;

2.  New information or circumstances relevant to the environmental
    concerns and bearing on the Project or its impacts would result in
    significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the FEIS; or

3.  Where the significance of new impacts is uncertain.

A supplemental environmental review will not be necessary where the
changes to the Project, new information, or new circumstances result in
a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the FEIS
without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and
were not evaluated in the FEIS. If a supplement is needed, the FTA will
determine the appropriate level of environmental review (i.e., written
re-evaluation of the FEIS, an environmental assessment of the change, or
a supplemental environmental impact statement), and the NEPA process for
this supplement will conclude with a separate NEPA determination.

+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| HAM |                            |             |      |       |    |
| PTO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| N R |                            |             |      |       |    |
| OAD |                            |             |      |       |    |
| S T |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RAN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| SIT |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| **N |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ORF |                            |             |      |       |    |
| OLK |                            |             |      |       |    |
| LI  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| GHT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| R   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AIL |                            |             |      |       |    |
| T   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RAN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| SIT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| PRO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| JEC |                            |             |      |       |    |
| T** |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| *   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| *ME |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ASU |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RES |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TO  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| MI  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TIG |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ATE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| E   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NVI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RON |                            |             |      |       |    |
| MEN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TAL |                            |             |      |       |    |
| IMP |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ACT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| S** |                            |             |      |       |    |
+=====+============================+=============+======+=======+====+
| # M | **Proposed/Mitigation^1^** | **I         | *    | **Tim | ** |
| iti |                            | mplementing | *Res | ing** | St |
| gat |                            | and         | pons |       | at |
| ion |                            | M           | ible |       | us |
|  ID |                            | onitoring** | Pa   |       | ** |
|     |                            |             | rty^ |       |    |
|     |                            |             | 2^** |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| LAN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| D U |                            |             |      |       |    |
| SE  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AND |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  SO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| CIO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ECO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NOM |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ICS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| L   | Continue to coordinate     | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| U-1 | with the City of Norfolk   | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Department of Planning to  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | create land uses and       | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | policies around the LRT    | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | station areas that are     | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | both compatible with the   | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | existing area and are      |             |      |       |    |
|     | transit supportive.        |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  PR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| OPE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RTY |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  AC |                            |             |      |       |    |
| QUI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| SIT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ION |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  AN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| D D |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ISP |                            |             |      |       |    |
| LAC |                            |             |      |       |    |
| EME |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NTS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| R   | Conduct all property       | Monitor     | HRT  | Ri    |    |
| W-1 | acquisition in accordance  | compliance  |      | ght-o |    |
|     | with the Uniform           | during      |      | f-Way |    |
|     | Relocation Assistance and  | Final       |      | A     |    |
|     | Real Property Acquisition  | Design.     |      | cquis |    |
|     | Act of 1970, as amended.   |             |      | ition |    |
|     |                            |             |      | and   |    |
|     |                            |             |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            |             |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            |             |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| R   | Develop a Property         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| W-2 | Acquisition and Relocation | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Plan                       | during      |      | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| R   | Provide relocation         | Monitor     | HRT  | Ri    |    |
| W-3 | assistance to all          | compliance  |      | ght-o |    |
|     | displaced property and     | during      |      | f-Way |    |
|     | business owners without    | R           |      | A     |    |
|     | discrimination.            | ight-of-Way |      | cquis |    |
|     |                            | Acquisition |      | ition |    |
|     |                            | and         |      | and   |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            |             |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| R   | Address the site location  | Monitor     | City | Ri    |    |
| W-4 | needs of a new library,    | compliance  | of   | ght-o |    |
|     | due to the acquisition of  | during      | Nor  | f-Way |    |
|     | the Kirn Memorial Library  | R           | folk | A     |    |
|     | site.                      | ight-of-Way |      | cquis |    |
|     |                            | Acquisition |      | ition |    |
|     |                            | and         |      | and   |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            |             |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| R   | Acquire ownership of       | Monitor     | City | Ri    |    |
| W-5 | Norfolk Southern Railroad  | compliance  | of   | ght-o |    |
|     | South Beach Branch Line    | during      | Nor  | f-Way |    |
|     | right-of-way in City of    | R           | folk | A     |    |
|     | Norfolk, and transfer use  | ight-of-Way |      | cquis |    |
|     | rights to HRT.             | Acquisition |      | ition |    |
|     |                            | and         |      | and   |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            |             |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| **  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TRA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NSP |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ORT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ATI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ON, |                            |             |      |       |    |
| T   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RAF |                            |             |      |       |    |
| FIC |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AND |                            |             |      |       |    |
| PAR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| KIN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| G** |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install traffic signals    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-1 | with transit priority at   | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | the following locations:   | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Colley Avenue /        | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |     Brambleton Avenue      | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | -   Brambleton Avenue /    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Botetourt Street       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Granby Street /        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Charlotte Street       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Avenue /    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Freemason Street       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Avenue /    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     City Hall Avenue       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Union Street / Main    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Street                 |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Park Ave / Harbor Park |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Middle driveway        |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Ballentine Boulevard   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Military Highway       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Station Park and Ride  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Lot / Curlew Drive     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (just west of Military |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Highway)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Brambleton Ave / Red   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Cross Drive            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Duke Street / Bute     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Street                 |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Charlotte Street /     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Monticello Avenue      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Ave /       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Market St (pedestrian  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     signal)                |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Bank Street / Plume    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Street                 |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Main Street / Water    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Street / Park Avenue   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Park Ave / Harbor Park |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway and Park      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Avenue                 |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | ```{=html}                 |             |      |       |    |
|     | <!-- -->                   |             |      |       |    |
|     | ```                        |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Mississippi /          |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Ingleside Road         |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install traffic signals    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-2 | without transit priority   | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | at the following           | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | locations:                 | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     |                            | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     | -   Boush Street (at       | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |     Charlotte/Bute)        | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   St. Paul's Blvd./      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Plume St.              |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install traffic signal     | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-3 | interconnect at the        | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | following locations:       | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Boush Street: Bute     | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |     Street to Brambleton   | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |     Ave.                   | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   St. Paul's Blvd.: Main |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St. to City Hall Ave.  |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Ave.:       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Charlotte St. to City  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Hall Ave.              |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install stop sign control  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-4 | at the following           | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | locations:                 | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Three private lot      | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |     driveways on Charlotte | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |     St                     | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   City parking lot       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway on Main St    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Pedestrian trail       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     crossing on Main St    |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install automatic two-way  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-5 | crossing gates at the      | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | following locations:       | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Huntsman Road          | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | -   Military Way (frontage | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     |     road) east of Military |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Hwy                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Kidd Boulevard         |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Corporate Boulevard    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Private driveway east  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of Military Highway    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Bristol Avenue         |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install pedestrian         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-6 | crossing gates at the      | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | following locations:       | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Kidd Boulevard         | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | -   Corporate Boulevard    | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Work with the City of      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-7 | Norfolk to close the       | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | following grade crossings: | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Brambleton Frontage    | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |     Rd. Entrance East of   | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |     Colley Ave.            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Southampton Ave. @     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Brambleton Frontage    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Rd.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Brambleton Avenue @    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Woodis Avenue          |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   YMCA Parking Lot exit  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway on York St.   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   York Street between    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Dunmore St. and        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Yarmouth St.           |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Norfolk Community      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Service Board Parking  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Lot driveway on York   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Tidewater Prosthetics  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking driveways on   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     York St.               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot driveway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     west of Duke St.,      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     south of York St.      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   City Parking Lot 56    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     west of Duke St. on    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     York St.               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Private driveway north |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of Bute St. along Duke |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Private driveway west  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of Duke St. along Bute |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Atlantic St. at City   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Hall Avenue            |             |      |       |    |
|     |     intersection           |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Union Street Garage    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     north side access on   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Main St.               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Private driveways East |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of Military Hwy along  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Curlew Dr.             |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Two driveways to City  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot under the  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Berkley Bridge         |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   City Parking Lot 'F'   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway east of I-264 |             |      |       |    |
|     |     along Main St..        |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Install passive warning    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-8 | devices (signs) at the     | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | following locations:       | during      | City | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | -   Brambleton Ave. &      | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |     Colley Ave.            | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | -   Red Cross driveway     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     2^nd^ St. @ Brambleton |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Ave.                   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Botetourt St.          |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   SB and WB approaches   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     to Duke St. and Bute   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Jefferson Hotel        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot driveway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Bute St. Parking       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Structure driveway     |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot driveway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (152+00)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Boush St. @ Bute St &  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Charlotte St.          |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Boush St. @ Charlotte  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St. -- sharing the     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     road with LRT          |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Granby St. & Charlotte |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St                     |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Charlotte St. &        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Monticello Ave.        |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot driveway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (161+25)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot driveway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (162+30)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Parking Lot |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway exit (162+70) |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Parking Lot |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway enter         |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (163+10)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Curb Cut (163+25)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   City of Norfolk Bldg.  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Service Door driveway  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (163+75)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Freemason Garage exit  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (164+30)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Freemason Garage       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     entrance driveway      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (164+95)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   MacArthur Mall         |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Drop-off driveway      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (170+25)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Market St. one way     |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   MacArthur Mall         |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Drop-off driveway      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (171+55)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Tazewell St.           |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Federal Building       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Structure      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (175+80)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Federal Building       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Loading Zone driveway  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (176+60)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Monticello Ave. @ City |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Hall                   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Bank of America        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Structure      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (183+50)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Commercial Place       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Sunwest Bank           |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Drive-Thru driveway    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     entrance (165+25)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Court St.              |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Crestar Bank           |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Drive-Thru driveway    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     entrance (187+80)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Courtyard Hotel        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (188+20)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Crestar Bank Parking   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Garage driveway        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (188+30)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Crestar Bank Parking   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Garage driveway        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (188+95)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   City Parking Lot       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (190+10)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Plume Lane Parking     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Garage East driveway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (190+75)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   St. Paul's Blvd. @     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Plume St.              |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   NB RT Union St. @ Main |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Two driveways to City  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot (200+50)   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   East St. @ Main St.    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Main St. /Pedestrian   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Trail X-ing (208+25)   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Harbor Park Lot Middle |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (216+60)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Harbor Park Lot        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     driveway (225+35)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Park Ave. LRT crossing |             |      |       |    |
|     |     (227+00)               |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Ballentine Blvd &      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     I-264 off-ramp         |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Ingleside Rd. &        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Mississippi Ave.       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Huntsman Rd.           |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Curlew & Corporate     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Blvd.                  |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Curlew Dr., Military   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Highway frontage road, |             |      |       |    |
|     |     and Military Highway   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Station Park and Ride  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Lot (429+65)           |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Military Way & Curlew  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Dr.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Curlew Dr. & driveway  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     crossing @ (443+70)    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Curlew Dr. & Kidd      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Blvd.                  |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Curlew Dr, Curlew Dr.  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     frontage Rd. and       |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Bristol Ave.           |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| T   | Close impacted parking lot | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-9 | or garage access driveways | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | that cross the LRT         | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | alignment where alternate  | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | access driveways exist at  | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     | the following locations:   | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | -   EVMC Parking Lot (west |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of Colley Avenue)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   EVMC Parking Lot (east |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of Colley Avenue)      |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Red Cross Parking Lot  |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot in the SE  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Corner of Colley Ave/  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Southampton Ave.       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   YMCA Parking Lot       |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Norfolk Community      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Services Parking Lot   |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot @ 90+95    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot @ 92+75    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot @ 93+25    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot @ 94+10    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot @ 94+70    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   City Parking Lot F @   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     109+00                |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Moose Lodge Parking    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Lot                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Medical Center Parking |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Lot                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Church Parking Lot     |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Close parking lots at the  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -10 | following locations:       | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     |                            | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot in the NE  | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     |     Corner of Colley       | Design and  | Nor  | Co    |    |
|     |     Avenue / Woodis Avenue | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | -   York Street Parking    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Lot, west of Botetourt |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Jefferson Hotel        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot, north     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     side of Bute St        |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot on west    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     side of Monticello     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Ave., south of         |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Charlotte St.          |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Parking Lot on west    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     side of Monticello     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Ave., south of         |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Charlotte St.          |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Kirn Memorial Library  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot, Plume     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St., east of Atlantic  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     St.                    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Harbor Park Surface    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot, south of  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Park Avenue            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   Harbor Park Surface    |             |      |       |    |
|     |     Parking Lot E,         |             |      |       |    |
|     |     underneath I-264       |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Work with the City of      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -11 | Norfolk to implement       | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | revisions to the service/  | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | delivery zones that are    | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | affected by the LRT        | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     | project.                   | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | York Street - Relocate     | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -12 | access to service area for | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | YMCA from York Street to   | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | Dunmore Street.            | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     |                            | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Bute Street (North Side)   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -13 | -- Designate the east side | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | of Duke Street between     | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | York Street and Bute       | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | Street as a passenger      | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     | loading/loading zone. Move | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | the passenger-loading zone | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | for the Jefferson Hotel    |             |      |       |    |
|     | and Cavalier Land, Inc. on |             |      |       |    |
|     | Bute Street to Duke        |             |      |       |    |
|     | Street.                    |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Monticello Avenue (East    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -14 | Side) --Limit access to    | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | this driveway to           | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | right-in/right-out because | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | of the center running LRT. | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Monticello Avenue --       | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -15 | Charlotte St to Freemason  | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | St (West Side) -- Remove   | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | the loading zone on this   | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | street segment to          | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     | accommodate the Freemason  | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | Station. Limit the service | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | entrance to the building   |             |      |       |    |
|     | to smaller delivery        |             |      |       |    |
|     | vehicles.                  |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Monticello Avenue --       | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -16 | Freemason St to Market St  | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | (West Side) --Close the    | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | existing NorVa loading     | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | zone and establish a new   | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     | pull-out loading zone to   | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | the north of the NorVa on  | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | Monticello Ave.            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Monticello Avenue --       | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -17 | Market St to Tazewell St   | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | (West Side) -- Close the   | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | existing Virginia Stage    | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | Company loading zone and   | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     | establish replacement      | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | pull-out loading zones on  | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | Monticello Avenue, located |             |      |       |    |
|     | to the north and south of  |             |      |       |    |
|     | Tazewell Street.           |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| TT  | Monticello Avenue (East    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -18 | Side) --Limit access to    | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | the Federal office         | during      | City | esign |    |
|     | building loading dock      | Final       | of   | and   |    |
|     | entrance driveway to       | Design and  | Nor  | co    |    |
|     | right-in/right-out because | Co          | folk | nstru |    |
|     | of the center running LRT. | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| # N |                            |             |      |       |    |
| EIG |                            |             |      |       |    |
| HBO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RHO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ODS |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| (   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| See |                            |             |      |       |    |
| m   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| iti |                            |             |      |       |    |
| gat |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ion |                            |             |      |       |    |
| me  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| asu |                            |             |      |       |    |
| res |                            |             |      |       |    |
| for |                            |             |      |       |    |
| Noi |                            |             |      |       |    |
| se, |                            |             |      |       |    |
| V   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| isu |                            |             |      |       |    |
| al, |                            |             |      |       |    |
| Tr  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ans |                            |             |      |       |    |
| por |                            |             |      |       |    |
| tat |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ion |                            |             |      |       |    |
| and |                            |             |      |       |    |
| C   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ons |                            |             |      |       |    |
| tru |                            |             |      |       |    |
| cti |                            |             |      |       |    |
| on) |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ENV |                            |             |      |       |    |
| IRO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NME |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NTA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| L J |                            |             |      |       |    |
| UST |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ICE |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| (No |                            |             |      |       |    |
| m   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| iti |                            |             |      |       |    |
| gat |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ion |                            |             |      |       |    |
| me  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| asu |                            |             |      |       |    |
| res |                            |             |      |       |    |
| req |                            |             |      |       |    |
| uir |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ed) |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  SO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ILS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Obtain a Sediment and      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| L-1 | Erosion Control permit     | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | from the City of Norfolk,  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Environmental Services     | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | Department that identifies | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | the Best Management        |             |      |       |    |
|     | Practices to minimize      |             |      |       |    |
|     | erosion and off-site       |             |      |       |    |
|     | sedimentation.             |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Undercut trackbed and      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| L-2 | pavement areas to remove   | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | unsuitable material where  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | construction is likely to  | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | occur.                     | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| # V |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ISU |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AL  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AND |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  AE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| STH |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ETI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| C C |                            |             |      |       |    |
| OND |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ITI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ONS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| V   | Work with the City of      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| A-1 | Norfolk to enhance the     | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | proposed LRT facilities    | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | and coordinate with City   | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | of Norfolk and Virginia    | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | Department of Historic     | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | Resources (VDHR) to ensure | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | that design components are |             |      |       |    |
|     | consistent with the        |             |      |       |    |
|     | historic context of        |             |      |       |    |
|     | downtown Norfolk as        |             |      |       |    |
|     | described in the MOA with  |             |      |       |    |
|     | VDHR.                      |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  AI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| R Q |                            |             |      |       |    |
| UAL |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ITY |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| (No |                            |             |      |       |    |
| m   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| iti |                            |             |      |       |    |
| gat |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ion |                            |             |      |       |    |
| me  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| asu |                            |             |      |       |    |
| res |                            |             |      |       |    |
| req |                            |             |      |       |    |
| uir |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ed) |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  NO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ISE |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| N   | Add trackside water        | Include in  | HRT  | Final |    |
| S-1 | sprayers to LRT track      | Contract    |      | D     |    |
|     | segments with tight radius | Drawings.   |      | esign |    |
|     | curves where wheel squeal  |             |      |       |    |
|     | impacts result, as         |             |      |       |    |
|     | identified in Chapter 9 of |             |      |       |    |
|     | the FEIS.                  |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| N   | At the Newtown Road        | Include in  | HRT  | Final |    |
| S-2 | Station, construct an      | Contract    |      | D     |    |
|     | 8.5-foot sound barrier     | Drawings.   |      | esign |    |
|     | approximately 215 feet     |             |      |       |    |
|     | long from Bangor Avenue    |             |      |       |    |
|     | westward and 160 feet long |             |      |       |    |
|     | to the south, around the   |             |      |       |    |
|     | bus holding area.          |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| VIB |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RAT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ION |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| (No |                            |             |      |       |    |
| m   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| iti |                            |             |      |       |    |
| gat |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ion |                            |             |      |       |    |
| me  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| asu |                            |             |      |       |    |
| res |                            |             |      |       |    |
| req |                            |             |      |       |    |
| uir |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ed) |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| # E |                            |             |      |       |    |
| COL |                            |             |      |       |    |
| OGY |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| E   | Incorporate landscaping at | Include in  | HRT  | Final |    |
| C-1 | station sites to provide   | Contract    |      | D     |    |
|     | opportunities for nesting  | Drawings.   |      | esign |    |
|     | and feeding of colonial    |             |      |       |    |
|     | waterbirds.                |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RAR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| E,  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| THR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| EAT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ENE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| D A |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ND  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| END |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ANG |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ERE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| D S |                            |             |      |       |    |
| PEC |                            |             |      |       |    |
| IES |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
| (No |                            |             |      |       |    |
| m   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| iti |                            |             |      |       |    |
| gat |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ion |                            |             |      |       |    |
| me  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| asu |                            |             |      |       |    |
| res |                            |             |      |       |    |
| req |                            |             |      |       |    |
| uir |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ed) |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  WA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TER |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  RE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| SOU |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RCE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| S - |                            |             |      |       |    |
| - S |                            |             |      |       |    |
| URF |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ACE |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  WA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TER |                            |             |      |       |    |
| , F |                            |             |      |       |    |
| LOO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| DPL |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AIN |                            |             |      |       |    |
| S,  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AND |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  WE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TLA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NDS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Obtain a Virginia          | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-1 | Department of              | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Environmental (VDEQ)       | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Quality General            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | Construction Permit for    | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | construction activities.   |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | For construction of the    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-2 | Vehicle Maintenance and    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Storage Facility, station  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | facilities and parking     | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | facilities, comply with    | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | the Chesapeake Bay         | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | Preservation Act (CBPA),   | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | which regulates activities |             |      |       |    |
|     | that may impact water      |             |      |       |    |
|     | quality in the Chesapeake  |             |      |       |    |
|     | Bay.                       |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Develop Sediment and       | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-3 | Erosion Control            | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Plan/Permit.               | during      |      | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Monitor and maintain best  | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| T-4 | management practices in    | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | operable condition during  | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | site development.          | Co          |      |       |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Remove temporary ponds     | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| T-5 | upon completion of         | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | dewatering activities and  | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | revegetate in accord with  | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | the sediment and erosion   | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | control permits.           |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Determine locations for    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-6 | permanent stormwater       | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | detention ponds during     | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | final design and use as    | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | temporary sediment basins  | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | during construction.       | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Construct detention ponds  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-7 | at the Harbor Park         | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Station, Norfolk State     | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | University Station and     | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | Vehicle Storage and        | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | Maintenance Facility       | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | (relocate existing         | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | Virginia Department of     |             |      |       |    |
|     | Transportation (VDOT) pond |             |      |       |    |
|     | and add new pond),         |             |      |       |    |
|     | Military Highway Station   |             |      |       |    |
|     | and Parking Lot and the    |             |      |       |    |
|     | Newtown Road Station.      |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| W   | Design stormwater          | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-8 | management practices in    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | conformance with the water | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | quality, water quantity    | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | and safety standards in    | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | the following guidelines:  |             |      |       |    |
|     | VDOT Drainage Manual; VDOT |             |      |       |    |
|     | Road and Bridge Standards; |             |      |       |    |
|     | City of Norfolk Stormwater |             |      |       |    |
|     | Design Criteria Manual;    |             |      |       |    |
|     | City of Norfolk Design     |             |      |       |    |
|     | Standard Details; Virginia |             |      |       |    |
|     | Stormwater Management      |             |      |       |    |
|     | Handbook; Virginia Erosion |             |      |       |    |
|     | and Sediment Control;      |             |      |       |    |
|     | Chesapeake Bay             |             |      |       |    |
|     | Preservation Act.          |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Maintain or improve        | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| W-1 | vertical clearances for    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | river traffic with bridge  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | e                          | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | nhancement/reconstruction, | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | and coordinate effort with |             |      |       |    |
|     | the US Coast Guard.        |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Install hay bales and/or   | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| W-2 | fabric filters at the      | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | construction area          | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | periphery to filter out    | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | sediments from stormwater  | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | runoff prior to discharge  |             |      |       |    |
|     | into storm sewer inlets    |             |      |       |    |
|     | and surface waters.        |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Mitigate potential impacts | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| W-3 | associated with increased  | during      |      | D     |    |
|     | impervious areas by        | Final       |      | esign |    |
|     | installing stormwater      | Design and  |      |       |    |
|     | runoff controls such as    | add to      |      |       |    |
|     | oil/water separators, wet  | design      |      |       |    |
|     | ponds or vegetated         | spec        |      |       |    |
|     | waterways.                 | ifications. |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Design stormwater          | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| W-4 | treatment practices to     | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | treat 7.5 acres of         | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | impervious surface and     | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | ensuring that the          | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | post-development pollutant |             |      |       |    |
|     | loading levels will not    |             |      |       |    |
|     | exceed the computed        |             |      |       |    |
|     | predevelopment pollutant   |             |      |       |    |
|     | loading levels.            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | If Best Management         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| W-5 | Practices cannot result in | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | a 10% reduction of         | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | non-point source pollution | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | in Resource Protection     | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | Areas/Resource Management  |             |      |       |    |
|     | Areas, HRT will work with  |             |      |       |    |
|     | local government staff to  |             |      |       |    |
|     | obtain an exception from   |             |      |       |    |
|     | the Chesapeake Bay         |             |      |       |    |
|     | Preservation Act (CBPA)    |             |      |       |    |
|     | requirements.              |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Obtain a Virginia          | Monitor     | HRT  | Ap    |    |
| W-6 | Pollution Discharge        | compliance  |      | plied |    |
|     | Elimination System permit  | during      |      | for   |    |
|     | from the VDEQ.             | Final       |      | d     |    |
|     |                            | Design and  |      | uring |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | Final |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | D     |    |
|     |                            |             |      | esign |    |
|     |                            |             |      | and   |    |
|     |                            |             |      | at    |    |
|     |                            |             |      | least |    |
|     |                            |             |      | 180   |    |
|     |                            |             |      | days  |    |
|     |                            |             |      | prior |    |
|     |                            |             |      | to    |    |
|     |                            |             |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            |             |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            |             |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Obtain a Bridge Permit     | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| W-7 | from the US Coast Guard    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | and a Section 10 Permit    | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | from the US Army Corps of  | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | Engineers.                 | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| F   | All floodplain mitigation  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| P-1 | measures will be conducted | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | in accordance with the     | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | VDEQ Regulations and other | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | applicable local           | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | requirements.              | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| F   | Track construction within  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| P-2 | floodplain areas will      | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | match the elevation of     | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | existing rail and road     | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | facilities to minimize the | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | potential for causing      | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | additional backwater       | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | conditions.                |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| F   | Obtain Stream Encroachment | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| P-3 | Permits, if required.      | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     |                            | during      |      | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| F   | Design bridge and culvert  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| P-4 | crossings to minimize      | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | backwater conditions.      | during      |      | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| F   | Conduct site specific      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| P-5 | floodway studies during    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Final Design.              | during      |      | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| F   | Obtain a Floodplain Permit | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| P-6 | from the City of Norfolk.  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     |                            | during      |      | esign |    |
|     |                            | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Utilize steep side slopes  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-1 | (2:1) along the rail line  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | to minimize and avoid      | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | wetlands while keeping     | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | within the normal design   | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | guidelines for rail        | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | structures.                | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Install vegetated swales   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-2 | along the tracks, where    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | feasible, to filter runoff | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | before it enters a         | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | wetland.                   | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Drainage will be piped     | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-3 | through storm sewers in    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | urban sections, such as    | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | where track will be        | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | constructed on roadways    | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | and where stations adjoin  | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | track facilities.          | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Silt fence will be placed  | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-4 | along the edge of wetland  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | basins to minimize         | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | sedimentation during       | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | construction.              | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Temporary construction     | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| T-5 | easements and              | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | rights-of-way will be      | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | re-vegetated in a timely   | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | manner; native vegetation  | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | will be utilized as        |             |      |       |    |
|     | appropriate.               |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Identify the timing and    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-6 | type of revegetation for   | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | disturbed areas in         | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | compliance with the City   | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | of Norfolk grading and     | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | erosion control            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | requirements and Virginia  | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | Erosion and Sediment       |             |      |       |    |
|     | Control Handbook.          |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Design erosion and         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-7 | sedimentation controls in  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | accordance with the most   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | current edition of the     | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | Virginia Erosion and       | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | Sediment Control Handbook. | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | These controls should be   | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | in place prior to clearing |             |      |       |    |
|     | and grading and maintained |             |      |       |    |
|     | in good working order      |             |      |       |    |
|     | throughout the             |             |      |       |    |
|     | construction process.      |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | Machinery and construction | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| T-8 | vehicles will be operated  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | outside of wetlands to the | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | extent practicable.        | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     |                            | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WE  | If materials or equipment  | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| T-9 | must be temporarily placed | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | in wetlands, the           | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | contractor will install    | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | mats, geotextile fabric or | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | use other suitable         |             |      |       |    |
|     | measures to minimize soil  |             |      |       |    |
|     | disturbance and erosion.   |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WET | Restore temporarily        | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -10 | disturbed areas (including | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Resource Protection Areas  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | (RPA) and Resource         | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | Management Areas (RMA)) to | Design and  |      |       |    |
|     | pre-construction           | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | conditions and seeded with | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | appropriate vegetation in  |             |      |       |    |
|     | accordance with the cover  |             |      |       |    |
|     | type (emergent,            |             |      |       |    |
|     | scrub-shrub, forested or   |             |      |       |    |
|     | upland). To the extent     |             |      |       |    |
|     | practicable, stabilization |             |      |       |    |
|     | and restoration should     |             |      |       |    |
|     | occur immediately after    |             |      |       |    |
|     | the temporary disturbance  |             |      |       |    |
|     | is completed at each RPA   |             |      |       |    |
|     | and RMA.                   |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| WET | HRT will provide an        | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -11 | in-lieu fee to the         | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Elizabeth River            | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Restoration Project. HRT   | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | will develop the wetland   | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | permit and provide an      |             |      |       |    |
|     | estimated amount for the   |             |      |       |    |
|     | mitigation in-lieu fee.    |             |      |       |    |
|     | HRT assumes that this      |             |      |       |    |
|     | amount will be negotiated  |             |      |       |    |
|     | with the regulatory        |             |      |       |    |
|     | agencies and the Elizabeth |             |      |       |    |
|     | River Restoration Project. |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| HIS |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TOR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| IC  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RES |                            |             |      |       |    |
| OUR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| CES |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| HI  | HRT will follow the        | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| S-1 | agreements set forth in    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | the Memorandum of          | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Agreement (MOA) with VDHR  | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | and FTA.                   | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
| PAR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| KLA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NDS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| P   | Coordinate with the City   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| K-1 | of Norfolk to ensure that  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | the design of the          | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Elizabeth River Trail      | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | project is compatible with | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | the LRT project.           |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| P   | MacArthur Memorial Park -- | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| K-2 | Mitigate noise impacts     | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | with the addition of track | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | side water sprayers to LRT | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | curved tracks where wheel  | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | squeal impacts result, as  |             |      |       |    |
|     | identified in Chapter 9 of |             |      |       |    |
|     | the FEIS.                  |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| # C |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ONT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AMI |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NAT |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ION |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Once NSRR agrees to sell   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| M-1 | South Beach Branch Line    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | property, HRT will conduct | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | a Phase I and II           | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | Environmental Site         | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | Assessment on required     |             |      |       |    |
|     | right-of-way, as           |             |      |       |    |
|     | necessary.                 |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | After demolition of Kirn   | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| M-2 | Memorial Library, HRT will | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | remediate any              | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | contamination.             | Co          |      |       |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | If contaminated material   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| M-3 | is encountered during      | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | construction, a Phase II   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Environmental Site         | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | Assessment will be         | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | completed and HRT will     | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | remediate contaminated     | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | material.                  |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Prior to construction of   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| M-4 | corridor improvements, a   | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | contingency plan will be   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | developed and implemented  | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | that addresses hazardous   | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | substance identification,  |             |      |       |    |
|     | notification, management,  |             |      |       |    |
|     | and disposal in the        |             |      |       |    |
|     | unlikely event that        |             |      |       |    |
|     | hazardous substances are   |             |      |       |    |
|     | encountered during         |             |      |       |    |
|     | construction and           |             |      |       |    |
|     | operation.                 |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | During construction, a     | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| M-5 | health and safety plan     | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | will be developed that     | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | will detail proper         | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | personal protective        | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | equipment that will be     |             |      |       |    |
|     | worn by crews working near |             |      |       |    |
|     | any identified             |             |      |       |    |
|     | contaminates.              |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Conduct an Asbestos        | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| M-6 | Containing Material (ACM)  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | and Lead-Based Paint (LBP) | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | investigation prior to the | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | demolition of any existing | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | buildings.                 | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| #   |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  CO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| NST |                            |             |      |       |    |
| RUC |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TIO |                            |             |      |       |    |
| N I |                            |             |      |       |    |
| MPA |                            |             |      |       |    |
| CTS |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Work with NSRR to set      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| N-1 | girders over both the      | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Lamberts Point and Sewells | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Point branches to minimize | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | interference with existing | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | freight rail service.      | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Coordinate with Virginia   | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| N-2 | Power to identify special  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | construction measures to   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | avoid impacting the        | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | Virginia Power             | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | transmission lines.        | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Coordinate with NSRR to    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| N-3 | develop measures to ensure | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | the maintenance of         | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | existing railroad freight  | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | traffic on Lamberts and    | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | Sewells Point NSRR lines   |             |      |       |    |
|     | during construction.       |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Identify construction      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| N-4 | staging areas to minimize  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | inconveniencing adjacent   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | land uses.                 | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Develop and implement a    | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| N-5 | detailed Maintenance of    | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | Traffic Plan to mitigate   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | construction related       | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | traffic impacts.           | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     |                            | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Advise motorists of the    | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| N-6 | nature, extent and         | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | duration of any planned    | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | street closing, and if     | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | routing outside of the     | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | construction corridor is   |             |      |       |    |
|     | advisable. Provide detour  |             |      |       |    |
|     | signing in advance of      |             |      |       |    |
|     | major decision points to   |             |      |       |    |
|     | advise motorists of        |             |      |       |    |
|     | suitable route             |             |      |       |    |
|     | alternatives. Provide      |             |      |       |    |
|     | public announcements of    |             |      |       |    |
|     | potential bus route        |             |      |       |    |
|     | modifications to minimize  |             |      |       |    |
|     | inconvenience to transit   |             |      |       |    |
|     | users.                     |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Provide fair compensation  | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| N-7 | to property owners for     | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | construction easements and | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | temporary use of their     | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | property. Return affected  | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | properties to their        |             |      |       |    |
|     | previous condition.        |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Work with adjacent         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| N-8 | communities to develop     | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | appropriate measures to    | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | mitigate potential visual  | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | impacts, including fencing | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | of construction areas.     | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     |                            | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| C   | Minimize airborne dust     | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| N-9 | emissions associated with  | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | construction by adherence  | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | to standard construction   | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | techniques, such as:       | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   watering areas of      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     exposed soil to        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     control fugitive dust; |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   covering open body     |             |      |       |    |
|     |     trucks which transport |             |      |       |    |
|     |     materials to and from  |             |      |       |    |
|     |     construction sites;    |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   removing soil and      |             |      |       |    |
|     |     other materials from   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     paved streets;         |             |      |       |    |
|     |                            |             |      |       |    |
|     | -   repaving and/or        |             |      |       |    |
|     |     revegetating exposed   |             |      |       |    |
|     |     areas after completion |             |      |       |    |
|     |     of construction.       |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| CN  | Conduct a detailed         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -10 | construction noise         | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | assessment that provides   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | property specific detail   | Final       |      | and   |    |
|     | to develop mitigation      | Design and  |      | Co    |    |
|     | plans to keep the          | Co          |      | nstru |    |
|     | construction noise levels  | nstruction. |      | ction |    |
|     | at or below acceptable     |             |      |       |    |
|     | levels.                    |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| CN  | Conduct construction       | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| -11 | activities in accordance   | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | with applicable state and  | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | local requirements         | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | including the Norfolk      | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | Code, Chapter 26,          |             |      |       |    |
|     | \"Noise\", Section         |             |      |       |    |
|     | 26-3(d), which allows      |             |      |       |    |
|     | operation of any piece of  |             |      |       |    |
|     | mobile power equipment     |             |      |       |    |
|     | between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 |             |      |       |    |
|     | p.m.; noise due to general |             |      |       |    |
|     | construction work is not   |             |      |       |    |
|     | restricted.                |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| CN  | Conduct a detailed         | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| -12 | vibration analysis during  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | final design to identify   | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | properties that may be     | Final       |      |       |    |
|     | affected by construction   | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | and operation of the LRT   |             |      |       |    |
|     | project.                   |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| CN  | Minimize vibration impacts | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| -13 | during construction by     | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | establishing vibration     | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | limits during the          | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | construction period for    | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | nearby buildings;          |             |      |       |    |
|     | vibration monitoring at    |             |      |       |    |
|     | nearby buildings           |             |      |       |    |
|     | throughout the excavation  |             |      |       |    |
|     | and construction phases;   |             |      |       |    |
|     | monitoring foundation      |             |      |       |    |
|     | conditions at nearby       |             |      |       |    |
|     | buildings; and phasing of  |             |      |       |    |
|     | demolition, earth-moving,  |             |      |       |    |
|     | and other ground impacting |             |      |       |    |
|     | operations so they do not  |             |      |       |    |
|     | occur in the same time     |             |      |       |    |
|     | period.                    |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| CN  | Ensure pedestrian safety   | Monitor     | HRT  | Co    |    |
| -14 | in the vicinity of         | compliance  |      | nstru |    |
|     | construction activities    | during      |      | ction |    |
|     | through the use of         | Co          |      |       |    |
|     | temporary construction     | nstruction. |      |       |    |
|     | fencing and barricades     |             |      |       |    |
|     | around all construction    |             |      |       |    |
|     | sites. Access into the     |             |      |       |    |
|     | construction sites will be |             |      |       |    |
|     | controlled.                |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| # S |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AFE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| TY  |                            |             |      |       |    |
| AND |                            |             |      |       |    |
|  SE |                            |             |      |       |    |
| CUR |                            |             |      |       |    |
| ITY |                            |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Coordinate with the        | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| S-1 | Virginia Department of     | compliance  | &    | D     |    |
|     | Rail and Public Transit    | during      | V    | esign |    |
|     | (VDRPT) to develop and     | Final       | DRPT |       |    |
|     | implement a safety and     | Design.     |      |       |    |
|     | security plan that         |             |      |       |    |
|     | addresses pedestrian       |             |      |       |    |
|     | safety, grade crossing     |             |      |       |    |
|     | safety, and LRT vehicle    |             |      |       |    |
|     | and station area security. |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Work with the City of      | Monitor     | HRT  | Final |    |
| S-2 | Norfolk Police Department  | compliance  |      | D     |    |
|     | to develop a Station Area  | during      |      | esign |    |
|     | Safety and Security Plan.  | Final       |      |       |    |
|     |                            | Design.     |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+
| S   | Conduct a series of        | Monitor     | HRT  | LRT   |    |
| S-3 | driver/pedestrian          | compliance  |      | Te    |    |
|     | education programs and     | during      |      | sting |    |
|     | school programs to         | Project     |      |       |    |
|     | introduce members of the   | testing.    |      |       |    |
|     | public to the LRT system   |             |      |       |    |
|     | and educate them on the    |             |      |       |    |
|     | safety considerations      |             |      |       |    |
|     | associated with pedestrian |             |      |       |    |
|     | and traffic interaction    |             |      |       |    |
|     | with light rail vehicles.  |             |      |       |    |
+-----+----------------------------+-------------+------+-------+----+

*Notes:* **^1^** *See FEIS for complete descriptions of impacts and
proposed mitigation measures.*

**^2^** *Additional agencies may monitor compliance and review
activities associated with issued permits and regulatory approvals*

**ATTACHMENT B**

**SECTION 106 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA)**

![](media/image1.png){width="6.691666666666666in" height="8.63125in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="6.7555555555555555in"
height="8.879861111111111in"}

![](media/image3.png){width="6.679166666666666in" height="8.625in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="6.678472222222222in"
height="8.748611111111112in"}

![](media/image5.png){width="6.608333333333333in"
height="8.755555555555556in"}

![](media/image6.png){width="5.738194444444445in"
height="7.6305555555555555in"}

Appendix 1: Area of Potential Effect (APE) in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Office, the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources (SHPO)

Appendix 2: West Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District
Design Guidelines

Appendix 3: State Laws and Regulations Concerning the Identification of
Human Remains

**APPENDIX 1: Project Area of Potential Effect for Archaeological and
Architectural Resources**

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="8.986805555555556in"
height="4.477083333333334in"}

**APPENDIX 2: West Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation
District**

**Design Guidelines**

**West Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District Design
Guidelines**

Since the creation of the West Freemason Historic District in 1977,
progress has been made in the improvement of building materials,
preservation practices, and in the understanding of what substantially
contributes to the character and integrity of an historic district.
Design guidelines should not be stagnant, and should reflect evolving
preservation philosophy; the West Freemason guidelines have been revised
accordingly.

The Norfolk City Planning Commission and the Norfolk Design Review
Committee (which advises the Planning Commission on matters of design)
are charged with reviewing all proposed alterations that are visible
from the public right-of-way located within the West Freemason Historic
and Cultural Conservation District.

The West Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District is
comprised of two areas --- HC-WF1 and HC-WF2 --- and there are slightly
different objectives in applying the guidelines in each area of the
district. The area with HC-WF1 designation is the core of the historic
district. There are very few structures in the HC-WF1 that detract from
the overall historic character of the area. The area designated HC-WF2
retains less integrity, but a number of buildings with historic
significance still stand. The area designated HC-WF2 also acts as an
entry and defining edge for the historic district. The Norfolk City
Planning Commission and the Norfolk Design Review Committee use the
following guidelines as a basis to review each proposed project located
in the West Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District.
Therefore, the guidelines also serve as a basis upon which property
owners and other interested parties should develop plans.

**Categories of Review**

The Committee and Commission review four major categories of
"construction" activity. The guidelines have been developed to address
each type of activity, and its special circumstances. Projects will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis and judged for their individual merits,
as well as the impact of the project on the character of the historic
district. The guidelines are designed to stand-alone for small projects,
and are divided by "construction" activity, as summarized below.

**a) New Buildings and Additions**

The purpose of design guidelines for new buildings and additions is to
ensure that new construction respects the existing design and material
vocabulary in West Freemason. As always, rehabilitation of historic
buildings is favored over new construction; however, there are some
circumstances under which new construction is necessary or desirable.

These guidelines have been developed to help ensure that new
construction promotes the continuity and character of the district.

**b) Renovation**

When reviewing proposals for historic properties, the Committee and
Commission base their consideration upon the general philosophies
espoused in the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, 1995 (<http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/secstan2.htm1>)
which designates four treatment approaches, including preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.

These guidelines are designed to expound upon the Secretary of
Interior's Standards as related to the character and circumstances of
the West Freemason neighborhood. Any work on an historic building should
culminate in an accurate representation of the buildings historic
design, and a design that respects adjacent properties and fits nicely
into the streetscape.

Some helpful tips on building restoration and maintenance can be found
in the *Preservation Briefs*, which have been put forth by the National
Park Service. These short documents each cover a specific topic, (such
as Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings, or Historic Window
Repair) and can be found on the National Park Service web site at:

http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm.2

As with new construction, renovations should promote compatibility
through continuity of cornice height, first floor elevations,
floor-to-floor elevations, number of stories, and materials. The most
successful renovations modify the existing structure without altering
its character defining features.

*1 Available at the Department of Planning, City Hall Building, 810
Union Street, 5th Floor.*

*2 Available at the Department of Planning, City Hall Building, 810
Union Street, 5th Floor.*

**c) Relocation and Demolition \--**

Relocation and demolition are generally discouraged in the West
Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District. Generally, it is
preferable to find feasible alternatives to relocation or demolition of
historic buildings, and the guidelines promote retention of historic
buildings. However, in some cases, property owners may have no
alternative other than to relocate or demolish a property. Relocation of
an historic building is a good alternative to demolition. Since the
setting is an important aspect of a building's integrity, it is critical
to look for a new site that will reflect the setting and character of
the building's original site. These guidelines are written to help
promote relocation efforts that are compatible with the site and
building, as well as surrounding neighborhood. Upon receiving an
application for demolition, the Norfolk Design Review Committee and City
Planning Commission will determine the significance of the structure to
be demolished and the extent of public interest that might lie in its
preservation.

**d) Site Features and Landscape \--**

Site features and landscape are some of the most easily altered elements
in an historic district. It is important to recognize the impact that
these features have on defining the character of a district. Historic
site features and landscape should be retained, if possible, as they
reveal information about the historic character and use of the
neighborhood. Furthermore, they protect important information that is
part of the archaeological record. If retention is not possible, site
features and landscape should be altered in a manner that conforms to
the natural growth patterns and configuration of the area.

The West Freemason guidelines are designed to assist in project
development for properties located within the area of the attached map.
For the purpose of these guidelines, "historic" or "contributing"
structures are those built as the original neighborhood developed during
the late 18th through early-20^th^ centuries, and which contribute to
the overall character and integrity of the neighborhood.
"Non-contributing" structures are those built before the HC regulations
were adopted in 1977, but either were not constructed during the period
of significance, or do not retain historic integrity that contributes to
the character of the neighborhood. "Infill" structures are those built
after adoption of the HC regulations.

For additional information, please contact:

Department of Planning

810 Union Street

508 City Hall Building

Norfolk, VA 23510

\(757\) 664-4752

Adopted: 1977

Reprinted: June 1980

April 1983

May 1986

July 1992

Revised: August 2001

**New Buildings and Additions**

**Site Development**

Recognition of West Freemason's period of significance is critical to
the successful incorporation of new construction in the neighborhood. It
is important to address the site and building within the context of the
surrounding area, even in the design of new construction.

**Site Development Guidelines**

-   Keep the setback of the proposed building consistent with the
    setback of nearby contributing buildings.

-   Maintain the established pattern of solid/void. This is to include
    the pattern established with buildings on the block, the pattern and
    scale relationship of window and door openings, and principal
    building elevations within individual buildings.

-   Orient the building in a manner that is consistent with the
    surrounding contributing buildings. Any new building should be
    perpendicular to the street it faces, and should have a primary
    entrance on the front facade.

-   Additions should be obscured from view from the public right-of-way.

-   Maintain the density and character of the surrounding landscape
    pattern.

-   Minimize disturbance of the terrain in the historic district to
    avoid destroying the archaeological record.

**Materials**

Materials selection for new construction should largely be driven by the
characteristics of the surrounding area. Property owners are strongly
encouraged to use natural materials, colors, and textures similar to
those used on neighboring historic buildings.

**Material Selection Guidelines**

-   Brick is by far the most popular building material in the district.
    There are some historic wood frame structures remaining, as well.
    These materials, and other materials used during the historic period
    of development are appropriate for use in new construction.

-   It is inappropriate to use siding such as vertical or diagonal board
    and batten, vertically or diagonally sawn wood panels, wide lap
    siding, and other materials not characteristic of the buildings
    constructed during the period of significance in West Freemason.

-   Roofing material should be within the existing vocabulary of roofing
    on surrounding buildings. In particular, architectural grade
    shingles, slate, copper, and roofing materials used during the
    initial development of the district are appropriate. In certain
    circumstances, other roofing material may be considered at the
    discretion of the Norfolk Design Review Committee and City Planning
    Commission, particularly in the HC-WF2 portion of the district.

-   Decorative features such as signage, doorknockers, mail slots and
    boxes, and street numbers should be compatible with their historic
    counterparts. In the HC-WF1 area, the most appropriate materials for
    these features are brass, cast iron, and gold leaf or black-painted
    finishes. In the HC-WF2 area, other materials may be appropriate,
    and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Norfolk Design
    Review Committee and City Planning Commission.

-   Windows and doors should be made of wood and may have a vinyl or
    aluminum exterior finish. The windows shall be consistent with
    nearby historic windows, and shall have full three- dimensional
    molded fixed muntins located on the exterior of the glass.

*Setbacks reflecting original development patterns should be maintained
and promoted. Appropriate materials selection enhances compatibility.*

**Scale**

The relative proportion of a building to neighboring buildings, or to
its surroundings, should be compatible with the character of the
district. In West Freemason, the buildings are relatively proportioned
to one another. Another aspect of scale that must be addressed is lot
coverage. In the neighborhood, the relationship of buildings to their
lots ranges from highly dense full lot coverage to partial lot coverage
with urban gardens surrounding. All elements of the building should be
designed and maintained to reflect similar elements in nearby historic
buildings; as a rule of thumb, new construction should fall within the
range that is already established by the historic buildings on the
block.

**Guidelines of Scale**

-   When undertaking an addition or new construction, it is important to
    design the building or addition to respond to the existing scale of
    development in the immediate and greater surrounding area.

-   Design the height of the proposed building to be compatible with the
    height of nearby historic buildings, not varying more than ten feet
    from their average height. An addition should not be taller than the
    principal structure to which it is attached, and new construction
    should not be taller than the tallest nearby historic structure.

-   Design the front façade of a new building to be similar in scale and
    proportion to nearby contributing buildings. For example if the
    predominant width/height proportion for facades in the area is one
    unit wide to two units high, attempt to maintain this proportion in
    any new building.

-   Additions that overwhelm the existing structure, or those that
    render the building out of scale with surrounding buildings, are
    inappropriate.

**Building Design**

The pattern of facades in West Freemason is a defining characteristic of
the neighborhood. Pedestrian interest is accomplished through skillful
modification of several basic elements that establish a pattern of
advancing and receding planes and enhance the transition from the
building to the sidewalk to the street. When designing an infill
building or addition, care should be taken to ensure a continuation of
the rhythm of advancing and receding planes. In new construction,
contemporary adaptations of historic building elements, such as porches,
bay and oriel windows, and turrets, can help the new building blend into
its already established surroundings. In the HC-WF2 district, this task
is made more difficult as it is an entrance into the neighborhood, and
designs must simultaneously respond to cues from adjacent properties
outside of the neighborhood, as well as reflecting the character of West
Freemason. For projects in the HC-WF2 district, proposals for new
construction should reflect the transitional nature of the area.

**Building Design Guidelines**

-   Introduce a fenestration pattern, windows and doors that are
    compatible in proportion, shape, position, location, pattern and
    size with those of contributing structures in the area.

-   Utilize a roof shape that is prominent among contributing structures
    in the neighborhood, such as mansard, gable, or hip.

*Compatible infill design takes appropriate cues from nearby buildings.
In this example, many of the details for the infill building in the
middle relate directly to the historic buildings immediately adjacent*.

**Renovation**

**Renovation of Contributing Properties**

All plans for renovation should be undertaken with the clear
understanding that the historic buildings in the district define the
unique character of the area, and each building contributes to the
collective scene. To that end, building renovations should be undertaken
in a manner that will preserve and reuse as much of the historic fabric
of the building as possible. Renovations should be designed to bring out
the historic characteristics of a building, while making it viable for
continued use. Changes in building use do not necessarily require
removal of historic architectural details.

**Guidelines for Renovation of Contributing Properties**

-   Attempts to retain existing features should be made in a
    rehabilitation project. Details on historic buildings are
    particularly important features that should be preserved. There are
    synthetic materials such as epoxy and resin that can be used to
    recreate details that are unsalvageable or missing; proposed use of
    such materials will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

-   Window replacements should be carefully considered. If the applicant
    demonstrates that window replacement is necessary, the replacement
    window shall be made of wood and may have a vinyl or aluminum
    exterior finish. The new window shall be consistent with the
    originals, and shall have full three-dimensional molded fixed
    muntins located on the exterior of the glass. Each window
    replacement proposal will be reviewed on an individual basis.

**Material Selection Guidelines for Renovation**

-   When undertaking a renovation, replacement materials should be
    similar in scale, composition, and appearance. A replacement
    material should only be used if the historic material is
    unsalvageable or unavailable.

-   Appropriate replacement roofing material can include wood or slate
    shingles, tile, premium grade composition shingles that closely
    resemble historically used roofing material, and other materials
    reviewed on an individual basis by the Norfolk Design Review
    Committee

-   Since most properties in the West Freemason Historic District are
    constructed of brick or wood, these are the most appropriate
    materials for reuse or replacement of exterior cladding. In some
    cases, alternative cladding materials were used for the original
    construction; applicants are encouraged to replace these original
    materials in renovation, as well.3

-   Blocking windows significantly changes the character of a building
    façade. If it is absolutely necessary to lower an interior ceiling
    below the window head, some method of preserving the existing window
    should be found.

-   Storm windows should resemble the inner window as much as possible.
    As most storm windows are one-over-one, they are likely to be
    consistent with most of the common window types in the area. Storm
    windows should blend with the color of the building trim and inner
    window.

*In very few cases where the applicant **clearly demonstrates a unique
maintenance hardship,** existing synthetic materials may be replaced
with synthetic materials. A unique maintenance hardship refers to an
unusual or peculiar difficulty in achieving compliance with the
applicable standards, including cases where the cost of compliance is
manifestly disproportionate to the public benefits obtained. The Norfolk
Design Review Committee and City Planning Commission will review each
application based on its specific circumstances. Details such as stained
glass and original house numbers add to the character of the district
and should be retained. Plate glass windows are not appropriate in the
district.*

**Relocation and Demolition**

**Relocation and Demolition**

Neither relocation nor demolition of a property should be taken lightly.
Removal of an historic property from its site has a negative impact on
the historic integrity of the property, and it significantly detracts
from the character and continuity of the historic district. In very few
cases, relocation is the only viable alternative to demolition and, in
those cases, it is the appropriate treatment. Demolition should only be
selected as a last resort for a property that is beyond repair; note
that if appropriate maintenance measures are taken, demolition is never
necessary.

**Relocation Guidelines**

-   It is appropriate to consider relocation of an historic building if
    it is the only alternative to demolition.

-   In the event that relocation is proposed, the building being moved
    should be placed on a site that is compatible with the surrounding
    buildings, situated suitably on the lot, and properly landscaped and
    incorporated into the neighborhood.

-   The building should be similar in materials, craftsmanship, design,
    scale, and massing to nearby buildings.

-   The setting, lot size, and landscape on the new site should be
    similar to that of the old site.

-   Appropriate foundation materials shall be used at the new site. It
    is preferable to retain historic foundation materials and erect them
    in the new location but, if this is not feasible, similar new
    materials may be used at the new site.

-   When re-erecting the building in its new location, it is important
    to make all efforts to save the existing landscape features on the
    new site.

**Demolition Guidelines**

-   The Design Review Committee and City Planning Commission discourage
    demolition of historic buildings in historic neighborhoods.

-   Deterioration due to deferred maintenance is not an appropriate
    impetus for a request for demolition.

-   In considering the application for demolition, the Design Review
    Committee and City Planning Commission will take the significance of
    the structure and public interest in its retention into account.
    This determination will be based on the extent to which the
    structure contributes to the architectural and historic character of
    West Freemason, and the extent to which the structure is a vital and
    necessary component of the collective scene.

-   The Design Review Committee and City Planning Commission shall
    determine the feasibility of preservation based on the physical
    condition of the structure; if preservation is found to be
    physically or economically infeasible, a demolition permit shall
    proceed upon certification.

-   If preservation is found to be feasible, the Committee and
    Commission will encourage whatever steps are necessary to ensure
    preservation on site. If on-site preservation is not possible,
    relocation will be considered.

-   Within twelve (12) months of application, a preservation solution
    (which could include, but is not limited to, sale of the building to
    a preservation-minded owner) shall be adopted or a demolition permit
    will be issued.4

*4 Conditions for review of demolition permit requests in historic
districts are enumerated in Title 15.2-2306 of the Code of Virginia
([http://leg1.state.va.us](http://leg1.state.va.us/)). This kitchen was
originally an auxiliary structure to the Grandy House. The kitchen was
moved to this location in 1978, and has been renovated.*

**Site Features and Landscape**

**Site Features**

Site features such as fences, walls, driveways, walks, pathways, patios,
signage, and accessory structures are important components of the West
Freemason Historic and Cultural Conservation District. As with any
element of the built environment in West Freemason, these features
should be thoughtfully incorporated into the landscape. Whenever
possible, consistent with adaptive use and rehabilitation, the existing
relationship of historic properties to their environment should be
maintained. Gardens, yards, and other open space along the street
frontage should be retained in original uses.

**Site Feature Guidelines -- Fences and Walls**

-   Due to the age and density of the development in West Freemason, in
    some cases, it is appropriate to install low fences or walls in
    front yards. This would enable property owners to delineate public
    and private space without detracting from the building\'s
    relationship to the sidewalk and street.

-   Behind the front façade of the structure, it is sometimes desirable
    and necessary to erect taller fences or walls. In this situation,
    the fence must start at least two feet behind the front wall of a
    building, and must start in a location that does not obscure or
    detract from the building detailing and fenestration pattern.

-   Fences taller than four feet in height must be appropriately
    landscaped and must provide visual interest through their design.
    Board on board fencing, or vertical pickets with intertwined vines
    are two examples of appropriate tall fence types.

-   The design, materials, color, scale and proportion of the fences and
    walls should have a direct relationship to the principal structure.
    Some appropriate fence materials are wrought iron, brick, stone, and
    wood slats.

-   Fences constructed of materials inconsistent with the character of
    the district, such as chain link, stockade, vinyl, or "sand dune"
    fencing, are not appropriate.

**Site Feature Guidelines -- Driveways and Pathways**

-   Driveways are permissible if they extend beyond the front façade of
    the principal structure, thus allowing a vehicle to be parked behind
    the building, or between surrounding buildings and recessed a
    minimum of two feet behind the face of the abutting structure.

-   Driveways should be no more than one car wide.

-   Driveway paving should be consistent with the historic character of
    the area.

-   Appropriate paving materials include brick pavers, cobblestones,
    interlocking concrete pavers, granite blocks, or exposed aggregate.

-   Concrete is a common paving material, and can be used in certain
    circumstances. Concrete will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis,
    and must match existing surrounding material in color, texture, and
    jointing.

-   Black asphalt paving is not appropriate for driveways and pathways
    within the district.

*Exterior details, such as this railing, define the character of the
historic district and should be restored and retained whenever possible.
Appropriate driveways and pathways blend into the existing environment.*

**Site Feature Guidelines -- Signage**

-   Appropriate sign types in an urban area are the flat wall mounted
    signs, permanent window signs, permanent banners, and appropriately
    scaled projecting signs. Signs should represent the primary business
    name.

-   Signs should be placed so that they are visible from automobiles and
    to pedestrians and should not obscure openings or building details.
    Signs should not be placed above the sill of the second story
    windows or fifteen feet from the sidewalk line, whichever is lower.

-   The size of individual signs and the total area of signs should be
    compatible with the building.

-   The number of permanent signs per building should be limited to
    promote clarity and discourage clutter.

-   Sign lighting should be subtle and understated, yet visible at
    night, and in keeping with the character of the building and its
    surroundings.

**Site Feature Guidelines -- Accessory Structures**

-   Accessory structures, including storage sheds, mechanical equipment,
    garages, etc. should be located at the rear of the lot or in a place
    that is shielded from view from the public right-of-way.

-   Accessory structures should match components of the principal
    structure in color and materials.

-   Any accessory structure that cannot be matched to the principal
    building should be shielded with evergreen plant material or
    fencing.

**Landscape Guidelines**

-   The most important goal is to extend the mass and continuity of
    foliage that exists along the street.

-   Vegetation should be used for multiple purposes, including as a
    screening material. In many instances, vegetation is more
    appropriate than fencing.

-   Front yards should be defined with landscape materials that are
    compatible with surrounding appropriate vegetation in size at
    maturity, and relate to the architecture.

-   To be in keeping with the character of surrounding yards, landscape
    efforts should result in relatively uncluttered yards shaded by
    large trees. Landscape projects that involve major disturbance or
    redesign should be undertaken with the assistance of a qualified
    competent landscape architect or certified nurseryman.

-   Every effort should be made to retain large trees and other mature
    vegetation.

-   Hedges, bushes, or ornamental shrubs should line a building
    foundation when it is visible from the street. Note that proper
    drainage is necessary to protect the integrity of the building
    foundation.

-   Off-street parking areas should be obscured from public view with
    vegetation or screening.

*Given the nature of the historic district, signs should be
appropriately scaled and located to address both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. In many cases, accessory structures are necessary to
support the function of the main building. Appropriate accessory
structures, such as this one, reflect the design of the main building,
without detracting from the prominence of the original structure.*

**APPENDIX 3: State Laws and Regulations Concerning the Identification
of Human Remains**

**§ 10.1-2305. Permit required for the archaeological excavation of
human remains.**

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct any type of
archaeological field investigation involving the removal of human
skeletal remains or associated artifacts from any unmarked human burial
regardless of age of an archaeological site and regardless of ownership
without first receiving a permit from the Director.

B. Where unmarked burials are not part of a legally chartered cemetery,
archaeological excavation of such burials pursuant to a permit from the
Director shall be exempt from the requirements of §§
[57-38.1](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+57-38.1)
and [57-39](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+57-39).
However, such exemption shall not apply in the case of human burials
within formally chartered cemeteries that have been abandoned.

C. The Department shall be considered an interested party in court
proceedings considering the abandonment of legally constituted
cemeteries or family graveyards with historic significance. A permit
from the Director is required if archaeological investigations are
undertaken as a part of a court-approved removal of a cemetery.

D. The Board shall promulgate regulations implementing this section that
provide for appropriate public notice prior to issuance of a permit,
provide for appropriate treatment of excavated remains, the scientific
quality of the research conducted on the remains, and the appropriate
disposition of the remains upon completion of the research. The
Department may carry out such excavations and research without a permit,
provided that it has complied with the substantive requirements of the
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.

E. Any interested party may appeal the Director\'s decision to issue a
permit or to act directly to excavate human remains to the local circuit
court. Such appeal must be filed within fourteen days of the Director\'s
decision.

(1989, c. 656.)

**Final Regulations Adopted by the Virginia Board of Historic Resources
and Published in the Virginia Register of July 15, 1991**

17VAC5-20-30. General provisions.

Any person conducting any field investigation involving the removal of
human remains or associated artifacts from any unmarked human burial on
an archaeological site shall first obtain a permit from the director.

1\. No field investigation involving the removal of human remains or
associated artifacts from any unmarked human burial on an archaeological
site shall be conducted without a permit.

2\. In cases where a field investigation may reasonably be anticipated
to involve the excavation and removal of human remains or associated
artifacts, the person conducting such investigation may obtain a permit
prior to the actual discovery of human burials.

3\. In any case where human remains are encountered in a field
investigation without having received a permit, all work on the burial
or burials shall cease until a permit has been obtained.

4\. No field investigation involving the removal of human remains or
associated artifacts from any unmarked human burial on an archaeological
site shall be performed except under the supervision and control of an
archaeologist meeting the qualifications stated in 17VAC5-20-40.

5\. Any human remains removed in the course of field investigations
shall be examined by a skeletal biologist or other specialist meeting
the qualifications stated in 17VAC5-20-40.

6\. Any approved field investigation shall include an interim progress
report summarizing the field portion of the permitted investigation
within 60 days of completion of the removal of all human remains and
associated artifacts. Reports indicating progress on analysis and report
preparation shall be submitted to the department at 90-day intervals
until the final report and disposition are accomplished.

7\. The applicant shall make the site and laboratory available to the
department for purposes of monitoring progress and compliance with this
chapter as requested by the department.

8\. A copy of the final report including the analysis of materials
removed from the burial shall be delivered to the director according to
the timetable described in the application.

9\. Documentation of final disposition as required by the permit shall
be delivered to the department within 15 days of such disposition.

10\. Work conducted under a permit will not be considered complete until
all reports and documentation have been submitted to and reviewed by the
department to meet all conditions cited in this chapter or specified as
part of an approved permit.

Failure to complete the conditions of the permit within the permitted
time limit may result in revocation of the permit and constitute grounds
for denial of future applications.

11\. The applicant may apply for an extension or change to the
conditions of the permit, including changes in research design,
principal personnel or disposition, for good cause. Granting such an
extension or alteration will be at the discretion of the director, after
consultation with interested parties.

Statutory Authority:
§§[10.1-2202](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+10.1-2202)
and
[10.1-2300](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+10.1-2300)
et seq. of the Code of Virginia.

Historical Notes: Derived from VR390-01-02 §3, eff. August 14, 1991

**ATTACHMENT C**

**FEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES**

**FEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES**

**I. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality**

**1. DEQ Comment:** Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF)
appreciates the earlier coordination by Hampton Road Transit and the
Federal Transit Administration regarding wildlife resources.

*Findings.* The project is likely to result in the loss of 1.26 acres of
wetlands, and a net increase of 7.5 acres of impervious areas, according
to DGIF.

*Wetland Protection and Mitigation.* DGIF recommends that for
unavoidable wetland losses, Hampton Roads Transit (the project
proponent) provide compensatory wetland mitigation as follows, for
wetland creation or restoration endeavors:

2 restored acres for every 1 acre of palustrine forested wetland lost;

1.5 acres for every 1 acre of palustrine scrub-shrub wetland lost; and

1 acre for every acre to palustrine emergent wetland lost.

These ratios are for wetland creation or restoration, as indicated. For
enhancement or preservation-only mitigation, the ratios should be
higher.

In addition, the proponent should provide riparian buffers of at least
100 feet in width for wetlands used as mitigation as well as for other
wetlands to be avoided but that are nonetheless near the project area.
Buffers of less than 100 feet will result in a loss of wetland function
and should, themselves, be mitigated. All mitigation sites should be
preserved in perpetuity by conservation easements.

It should be noted that these recommendations do not supersede any
regulatory requirements for mitigation that are more stringent.

**HRT Response:** The LRT Project will disrupt or displace 1.48 acres of
wetlands. Approximately 0.12 impacted acres are palustrine wetlands and
1.36 acres are estuarine. The impacted palustrine wetlands include a
Type 1 PEMAx (Palustrine Emergent) excavated freshwater basin with
common reed as the dominant vegetation and a Type 1 PEM1ex (Palustrine
Emergent) excavated freshwater stream with open water, Eastern false
willow and Evergreen bayberry as the dominant vegetation. Based on this
assessment, the ratio of compensatory wetland mitigation was determined
to be 1:1. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission have concurred with the mitigation ratio.

The analysis of wetland impacts includes impacts to Resource Protection
Areas, which include tidal wetlands, non-tidal wetlands which are
connected by surface flow and are contiguous to tidal wetlands or
tributary streams, tidal shores, and up to a 100 foot vegetated buffer
area adjacent to any of the previous components.

Wetland permits will be required from three government agencies.
Generally, the ACOE Section 404 permit and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VDEQ) Water Protection Permit will define the
mitigation requirements. Based on the proposed impacts, mitigation is
anticipated to require replacement at a 1:1 ratio. Wetland impacts and
mitigation will also be coordinated with the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (Subaqueous /Tidal Wetland Permit) and reviewed by the City
of Norfolk and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Division of Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance.

**2. DEQ Comment:** *Stormwater Control.* The Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries supports the proposal to consider alternative
stormwater control methods such as rain gardens (Final EIS, page 10-5,
section 10.4.3.B.). The stormwater controls should be designed to
replicate and maintain the hydrographic conditions of the site prior to
the change in landscape. Rain gardens and other bio-retention areas are
designed to capture stormwater runoff as close to the source as
possible, and allow it to slowly infiltrate into the surrounding soil.
They benefit natural resources by filtering pollutants and reducing
downstream runoff volume.

**HRT Response:** As noted in Chapter 10 of the FEIS, Best Management
Practices, which include silt fences, temporary sediment basins, gravel
entrances, temporary seeding and prompt revegetation after construction
is complete, will be installed to control construction impacts to water
quality. Further, innovative surface water management techniques, such
as rainwater gardens, will be evaluated and implemented based on the
feasibility for installation at station locations. When implemented,
these facilities will provide additional water quality treatment,
reduced runoff rates and enhanced vegetative diversity.

###### **3. DEQ Comments Water Quality and Wetlands**

###### Permit Issues. DEQ's Tidewater Regional Office, which has responsibility for Virginia Water Protection Permits, has no further comments because the Final EIS has made suggested corrections (see pages 23-8 and 23-9). However, according to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the permits table in the Final EIS should acknowledge, under the "City of Norfolk permitting requirements" category, that a permit may be required from the Norfolk Wetlands Board (Table 22-4, pages 22-11 and 22-12)

**HRT Response:** The Joint Permit Application satisfies the wetland
permit requirements for the Army Corps of Engineers and DEQ. Since HRT
is a regional governmental unit, it is exempt from the City of Norfolk
Local Wetlands Board permit.

**4. DEQ Comment:** *Dredging Impacts.* The Final EIS mentions dredging
in several places along the proposed linear project corridor, but
provides no detailed description of the impacts of dredging, according
to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Details on affected
habitat, aerial extent and volumes of dredging, wetland fill areas,
bridge crossings and culverts would allow the Institute to provide
specific recommendations on reducing impacts.

**HRT Response:** Chapter 11 in the FEIS says, "Potential impacts to
surface waters within the project corridor include water quality as well
as dredging and/or filling of surface water features. A minimal amount
of dredging and/or filling in waterways associated with new bridges and
wider track beds would be required."

Nevertheless, [no dredging activities are anticipated]{.underline} for
this project. All filling activities have been documented in the impacts
to surface water and wetland areas.

**5. DEQ Comment:** *Unavoidable Impacts and Compensation*. Because the
proposed alignment of the project follows the existing Norfolk Southern
right-of-way, the opportunity to reduce impacts through corridor
realignment is limited. Consequently, according to the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), unavoidable impacts to marine
resources should be adequately compensated by replacing lost habitats
with similar or more productive habitats. The Final EIS mentions the use
of the Libertyville bank and/or Elizabeth River trust fund for
compensation. The impacts of the project would require a large
percentage of the acreage available to at Libertyville (approximately
1.36 acres). However, VIMS would prefer the use of the Libertyville Bank
option, if it is operational by the time compensation is required, over
a donation to the Elizabeth River trust fund.

**HRT Response:** The preferred option for wetland mitigation is the
purchase of wetland credits from an approved mitigation bank and/or
provision of an in-lieu fee to the Elizabeth River Restoration Trust. It
is HRT's intent to use the Libertyville Bank option as a first priority,
followed by the in-lieu fee. HRT has begun initial discussions with the
owner of the Chesapeake Land Development Tidal Mitigation Bank to
identify the total number of credits that are and will be available,
estimated cost for the credits, and process to execute the legal
transactions. Depending on the results of these discussions and timing
of the LRT construction, provision of an in-lieu fee may be used for
part of or the entire mitigation requirement.

Discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), in particular, have
been conducted regarding the options for mitigation. The ACOE has
indicated that the proposed project has made a good faith effort to
minimize wetland impacts and to find on-site mitigation opportunities,
and suggested contacting the owner of the Chesapeake Land Development
Tidal Mitigation Bank. The use of wetland banking and/or in-lieu fee
options are appropriate based on the level of analysis conducted for the
Project. Final design of wetland compensation will be completed and
submitted for agency approval through the wetland permitting process.

**6. DEQ Comment:** *Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility Impacts.*
The Final EIS indicates that siting the Vehicle Storage and Maintenance
Facility (Final EIS, page A-69 (meeting discussion notes) and pages B-17
and B-18 (Table B-4). However, as VIMS indicates, similar problems would
arise from placement of the VSMF at the Norfolk State University
location. The analysis and table on page B-18 lists costs, business
impacts, and noise impacts as reasons for rejecting the Military Highway
site. The comparison presented, however, is between a 35-vehicle site
costing \$29.3 million versus a 15-vehicle facility costing \$18 million
(the Norfolk State University site could not accommodate more vehicles).
VIMS recommends a fairer comparison showing a 15-vehicle capacity at the
Military Highway site. As matters now stand, the Norfolk State
University site would affect 0.7 acre of wetlands, or roughly half the
total wetland impacts (1.36 acre; see above) of the project.

**HRT Response:** The larger design of the Military Highway Vehicle
Storage and Maintenance Facility (VSMF) site was based on the site's
ability to accommodate heavy maintenance facilities and the potential
expansion of the transit system. Conversely, the limitations of the NSU
site will require off-site heavy maintenance and cannot accommodate
additional service expansions. Based on the evaluation of sites for the
VSMF (FEIS Appendix B), the NSU site would cost \$18M vs. \$29M for the
Military Highway site. The NSU site would not require the displacement
of any businesses while the Military Highway site would displace 8
businesses, some with hazardous materials present, and require a partial
taking from the adjacent Riverside Baptist church. While the original
analysis for the Military Highway site analyzed the impacts based on the
35 vehicle capacity, a more conservative assessment utilizing a
15-vehicle capacity would still displace the eight businesses due to the
linear orientation requirements of a functional VSMF site that would
bisect all of the affected properties. The businesses that would need to
be displaced are generally large, land intensive businesses and include
three large moving companies, an oil and heating company and a VDOT
maintenance facility. On the other hand, at the NSU site, VDOT has said
they would provide HRT with the necessary easements to use the property.
In addition, through land swaps with NSU and HRT, NSU has agreed to
provide HRT with its portion of the right of way requirements.

The NSU site would have no noise impacts on nearby residents, while the
Military Highway site would have significant noise impacts on the
adjacent residential properties and the Riverside Baptist Church. While
the NSU site would impact approximately 0.7 acres of previously impacted
Type 1 wetlands and 3.5 acres of woodland, HRT selected this site based
on location within the project corridor, configuration of the site,
availability of the property, and overall usability of the site.

**7. DEQ Comment:** *Realignment at Moseley Creek to Reduce Impacts.*
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science recommends that Hampton Roads
Transit investigate realigning the Light Rail Transit route closer to
the Interstate Route 264 right-of-way at Moseley Creek, in order to
reduce wetland impacts. There appears to be approximately 50 feet of
upland adjacent to I-264 in this location, and other parts of the
project are proposed within 50 feet of I-264. See "Regulatory and
Coordination Needs," item 3, below.

**HRT Response:** The proposed alignment follows the existing Norfolk
Southern Railroad right-of-way. Diversions out of the railroad right of
way would be cost prohibitive. Further, while the alignment in the area
of Moseley Creek will result in wetland impacts, these impacts have been
minimized and HRT has committed to fully mitigating all wetland impacts.

**DEQ Comments: Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas.**

**8. DEQ Comment:** *Applicability of Rules.* According to Department of
Conservation and Recreation's Division of Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance, the railroad tracks and their appurtenant structures are
conditionally exempt from the [Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
Designation and Management Regulations]{.underline} (see 9 VAC 10-20-10
[et seq.]{.underline}, specifically 9 VAC 10-20-150.B.1.), provided they
are constructed in accordance with any of the following:

-   regulations promulgated pursuant to the Virginia Erosion and
    Sediment Control Law (Virginia Code sections 10.1-560 [et
    seq]{.underline}.) and the Stormwater Management Act (Virginia Code
    sections 10.1-603.1 [et seq.]{.underline});

-   an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Stormwater Management
    Plan approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation; or

-   local water quality protection criteria at least as stringent as the
    foregoing state requirements.

The Final EIS states that rail construction activities may meet
requirements for [exception]{.underline} to the
[Regulations]{.underline}, as opposed to the [exemption]{.underline}
described above (page 11-11); this is not the case.

**HRT Response:** The text on page 11-11 states that, "Rail construction
activities at these locations [meet the criteria for]{.underline}
[exception to CBPA rules]{.underline} as long as the construction is
completed in compliance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Law and Stormwater Management Act. Implementation of Best Management
Practices for project construction will minimize potential impacts in
RMAs and RPAs for the track construction." While the nomenclature used
in the FEIS may be incorrect, HRT believes that it has fulfilled the
intent of the exemption requirements.

**9. DEQ Comment:** *Requirements in Resource Management Areas and
Resource Protections Areas.* In either type of Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area, development of project facilities is subject to
stormwater management criteria consistent with the water quality
protection provisions of the [Virginia Stormwater Management
Regulations]{.underline} (4 VAC 3-20). For land disturbance of 2,500
square feet or more, the activities must also comply with the *Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook* (Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation: 3^rd^ Edition,
1992). These requirements apply, in particular, to the Norfolk State
University Station site and the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. The Final
EIS does not indicate whether these facilities will be in Resource
Protection Areas; if they are, they will be subject to more restrictive
development criteria found in the [Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
Designation and Management Regulations]{.underline} (9 VAC 10-20-10 [et
seq.]{.underline}, specifically 9VAC 10-20-130). "Resource Protection
Areas" are the more restrictive of two designations of Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas; "Resource Management Areas" are the less restrictive
designation, which applies to designated areas landward of Resource
Protection Areas.

**HRT Response:** Although the VSMF and the NSU and Harbor Park Stations
are located within the RPA boundaries (see Figure 11-1 of the FEIS),
these areas have been designated as Intensely Developed Lands. According
to 9VAC10-20-130 of the Administrative Code, Development criteria for
Resource Protection Areas.

> "1. Land development may be allowed in the Resource Protection Area,
> subject to approval by the local government, only if it (i) is water
> dependent; (ii) constitutes redevelopment; (iii) [constitutes
> development or redevelopment within a designated Intensely Developed
> Area;]{.underline} (iv) is a new use established pursuant to
> subdivision 4 a of this section; (v) is a road or driveway crossing
> satisfying the conditions set forth in subdivision 1 d of this
> section; or (vi) is a flood control or stormwater management facility
> satisfying the conditions set forth in subdivision 1 e of this
> section. "

According to the Code, development and redevelopment within the RPA can
be permitted provided that water quality impact assessments are
conducted and Best Management Practices are established to achieve a 10%
reduction in nonpoint source pollution. The drainage study conducted for
this Project indicates that the project will achieve the necessary
nonpoint source pollution reductions. As such, the proposed development
is permissible.

**10. DEQ Comment:** *Historic Structures and Archaeological Resources*.
The Department of Historic Resources, which is the State Historic
Preservation Office for purposes of review of federal activities under
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, has consulted
directly with the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") and asks that
the FTA continue its adherence to the executed Memorandum of Agreement
developed for this project. Questions may be directed to the Department
of Historic Resources (Roger Kirchen, telephone (804) 367-2323,
extension 153, DHR file reference 1996-0255).

**HRT Response:** HRT will continue to coordinate with the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, the Freemason Historic District and
FTA to follow the agreements set forth in the fully executed Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA), dated August 31, 2005. During Final Design and
Construction, design modifications and construction will be monitored
for compliance with the MOA.

**11. DEQ Comment:** *Submerged Lands Encroachment.* The Marine
Resources Commission is responsible for issuing permits for
encroachments in, on, or over State-owned submerged lands, pursuant to
Virginia Code Title 28.2, Chapter 12 (Sections 28.2-1200 et seq.). All
crossings of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River and associated
waterways will require authorization from the Commission. The Commission
encourages avoidance of the tidal wetlands (see mitigation discussion in
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation, item 5 above).

**HRT Response:** As noted in Chapter 22 of the FEIS -- Permits, HRT
intends on submitting a Virginia Marine Resources Commission permit for
construction in waters of the Commonwealth and in wetlands. This permit
is the same as the above referenced permit and will be submitted as part
of the Joint Permit Application for sub aqueous lands and wetland
impacts upon completion of the Record of Decision.

**12. DEQ Comment:** *Federal Consistency under the Coastal Zone
Management Act.* As stated in our response to the Supplemental Draft EIS
(DEQ-03-014F, letter dated February 26, 2003, page 8), the project
requires a federal consistency certification by the applicant, Hampton
Roads Transit, pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
Federally licensed or assisted activities which affect coastal resources
or coastal uses are to be consistent with the enforceable policies of
the federally approved coastal project, which in Virginia's case is the
Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program ("VCP"). The consistency
certification involves an analysis of the proposed activities in light
of the enforceable policies (listed in the first enclosure), and a
commitment to comply with the enforceable policies in undertaking the
activities. In addition, we invite the proponent's attention to the
advisory policies of the VCP (second enclosure). The [Federal
Consistency Regulations]{.underline} (15 CFR Part 930, section 930.58)
provide guidance on the content of a consistency certification.
Clarification of this requirement may be obtained from this Office
(Charles Ellis, telephone (804) 698-4488).

**HRT Response:** As stated in Chapter 23, in response to the DEQ
comment on the Supplemental DEIS, a soil and erosion control program
will be developed during the final design process. HRT will continue to
coordinate with DEQ as the plan is developed to ensure that the Federal
Consistency certification is obtained for this project.

**[II. Norfolk State University (NSU)]{.underline}**

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the EIR for the
Norfolk Light Rail Transit project. The following comments are primarily
focused on items and issues that could potentially impact the physical
campus of Norfolk State University.

**General Comments** -- HRT is proposing to locate two train stations at
each major entry point to the campus. Although there are advantages to
having these stations located in close proximity to the campus, we have
a responsibility to ensure that there is no adverse physical impact in
terms of competing or compromised aesthetics, and to preserve options
for future physical expansion of the campus. We must also ensure that
these developments do not compound the storm water retention issue for
the campus. Overall, NSU should be integrally involved in reviewing the
functionality of the overall design integrity of these stations. Given
such close proximity to the university, NSU should also influence the
long term maintenance of these stations to ensure quality control,
security, etc.

**12. NSU Specific Comments**

**[Location of Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility:]{.underline}**
The facility is proposed to be located north of I-264 and south of the
existing train tracks. This location is in very close proximity to the
southern edge of the campus. This facility is proposed in three separate
components (buildings which include: Vehicle Wash, Maintenance Building,
and Maintenance Way Building). These facilities will generate a lot of
maintenance activity during all hours of the day, and could be a source
of excessive noise and airborne pollutants. It would also have a
negative impact on the view of the campus from I-264, which is one of
the major exposures of the campus. Placement of these facilities in this
location may exacerbate water retention issues in the area, possibly
encroaching on campus property. The right of way for the access road
could possibly encroach on campus property as well, imposing additional
limitations on future expansion of the campus. HRT might consider
locating this facility further west along I-264.

**[Pedestrian Bridge on Brambleton]{.underline}**: The pedestrian bridge
over Brambleton will allow a safe direct access to the campus. Norfolk
State strongly supports the construction of this pedestrian bridge.

**[Existing Extended Pedestrian Bridge across I-264]{.underline}**: The
pedestrian bridge was constructed in the early 60's and has little
current value. It is fenced off in an effort to deny unauthorized access
to the campus. However, the fence gets cut on a regular basis by people
wanting to gain unauthorized access to Norfolk State University's
campus. This poses a safety concern for the university. There have also
been reports of rocks being thrown to passing motorists traveling on
interstate 264, causing a major safety risk to vehicular traffic. This
bridge has outlived its usefulness and should either be demolished or
completely closed off.

**[Ballentine Station:]{.underline}** The concept drawing (figure 2-12)
shows converting existing green lawn into parking for the train station
and creating a storm water retention pond. This changes the existing
entrance to NSU and drastically impacts the existing aesthetics at the
entrance. If parking is necessary as part of the train station, a
parking deck should be considered by HRT at the existing surface parking
on the campus. Since this parking will include non-campus traffic on
campus property, some form of separation for security purpose will have
to be considered, as part of this solution. As a goodwill gesture, NSU
should be allowed to use the currently vacant land, north of Ballentine
and south of Middletown neighborhood, for use as practice field or for
other recreational or athletic activities.

**[HRT Response:]{.underline}**

**HRT/NSU Coordination:** Throughout the project development process,
HRT has coordinated closely with NSU staff in support of the Norfolk
Light Rail Transit Project. Early in the process, Dr. Marie McDemmond,
President of NSU, was a member of the LRT Project Steering Committee,
and HRT met individually with NSU staff in July 2001. Throughout 2003
and 2004, HRT worked closely with NSU officials, meeting regularly
through nine meetings to discuss every aspect of the LRT project, as it
related to NSU. Moreover, project committees were developed with a
combination of NSU and HRT staff to address the specific components of
the project. Committees included NSU Station, Ballentine Station,
Pedestrian Circulation, Traffic Planning, LRT Alignment & Structure,
NSRR ROW, and Electrical Power Co-Generation.

NSU Meeting dates during this period included:

Meeting #1 - March 25, 2003

Meeting #2 - April 1, 2003

Meeting #3 - May 13, 2003

Meeting #4 - June 24, 2003

Meeting #5 - July 23, 2003

Meeting #6 - Sept. 16, 2003

Meeting #7 - January 9, 2004

Meeting #8 - March 26, 2004

There was also a special meeting to discuss traffic circulation problems
held with NSU, HRT and the City of Norfolk on April 23, 2003.

While the original meetings were chaired by Bob Askew of NSU, the final
meetings were chaired by Kevin Appleton. Similarly, there was
significant NSU staff changes over the 2-year period. At the last
NSU/HRT coordination meeting, held on March 26, 2004, a majority of the
comments in this letter were addressed by the project team. A copy of
the meeting minutes is provided at the end of the Responses to NSU
Comments.

NSU was provided with a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Project in December 2003 and Edward B. Jolley, Jr. provided
comments on the Project SDEIS. HRT has responded to these comments in
Chapter 23 of the FEIS and incorporated any design modifications into
the revised LRT project design. In addition, HRT and NSU jointly
developed and signed a Memorandum of Agreement in October 2003 that
stipulated HRT's requirements and NSU's requirements for the successful
completion of the LRT project. A copy of the MOU with NSU is located in
Appendix A, page A-4 -- A-8.

**General Comments Responses:** Through this coordination, NSU has
confirmed that it understands the benefits of having stations at either
end of the campus and has welcomed the LRT Project, which will replace
the need for a campus-to-downtown shuttle and hopefully reduce the
student body need for cars and parking. Regarding station maintenance,
it will be HRT's responsibility to maintain the LRT stations and
platforms. Throughout the project's design, construction, and eventual
operation, HRT will continue to coordinate station design and
maintenance requirements with NSU. Any NSU involvement in station
maintenance can be a matter for future agreements.

**Location of Vehicle Storage and Maintenance Facility (VSMF):** HRT has
evaluated the project corridor for potential sites that are available to
accommodate the LRT VSMF. The sites identified have been evaluated and
the current NSU site was determined to be the best alternative. This
analysis is documented in Appendix B of the FEIS.

Through the coordinating committee efforts, the location and design of
the VSMF and the NSU station have been identified and developed to
maximize benefits to both NSU and HRT. The mutual agreements outlined in
the MOU document the critical land-swaps at the VMSF and at NSU's
R.I.S.E development. Moreover, the FEIS documents that this project
meets all environmental requirements including noise, air quality and
surface drainage retention.

The VMSF is a relatively quiet maintenance center since all "heavy"
maintenance will be performed off-site. Vehicle wash, daily inspection,
and component change-out will be the only maintenance performed. The
maintenance of way facility would enclose all noise sources. The light
maintenance facility would emit only minimal amounts of noise. As a
result, the vehicle car wash would be the primary source of noise. In
Chapter 9, Noise and Vibration, the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment methodology was followed to assess any possible
impacts associated with the LRT service and the VSMF on noise sensitive
receptors associated with the NSU campus. The analysis shows that the
project noise from the combined sources is significantly less than the
existing noise levels generated by I-264, and any increase in noise
levels on campus, over the existing levels would be almost
imperceptible.

Regarding airborne pollutants, there are no airborne pollutants
associated with electric train operations. In relation to the
significant pollutant emissions generated by traffic on I-264, the few
HRT vehicles assigned to the VSMF would have a negligent effect on local
and regional air quality. In fact, as, documented in Chapter 8, Air
Quality, of the FEIS, the proposed LRT Project would result in an
overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled and a reduction in motor
vehicle generated pollutants.

As noted in Chapter 11 of the FEIS, Water Resources, the LRT Project
would increase the net new impervious surface by 7.46 acres, with
potential to increase runoff volume and pollutant loads to surface
waters. This proposed increase in impervious surface is extremely small
in relation to the existing impervious surface in the watershed.
Additionally, the project will include treatment facilities for 7.50
acres of impervious area. Thus, the project is not expected to result in
a noticeable decrease in water quality as compared to existing
conditions. With regard to surface drainage retention, potential impacts
would be mitigated by installing permanent stormwater runoff controls.
The following controls will be implemented to mitigate for increased
impervious areas at the NSU Station and the VSMF site:

-   Norfolk State University Station -- relocate VDOT dry detention
    basin and small extended detention basin and/or a combination of
    technological Best Management Practices

-   LRT Vehicle Storage & Maintenance Facility -- utilize relocated VDOT
    basin; reduce pollutant load by 10% as compared to pre-developed
    conditions.

**[Pedestrian Bridge on Brambleton]{.underline}**: The pedestrian bridge
over Brambleton will allow a safe direct access between the RISE
development, the LRT Station and the rest of NSU's campus. As documented
in the MOU, Attachment B, item 6 of the [NSU Requirements]{.underline},
"NSU to construct one pedestrian bridge spanning Brambleton and one
elevator for the pedestrian bridge on the east side of Brambleton. NSU
to provide security and maintenance for elevators on the east and west
sides of Brambleton." Further, in the MOU, Attachment B, item 8 of [HRT
Requirements]{.underline}, "HRT to construct one elevator for the NSU
LRT Station platform on the west side of Brambleton, NSU to provide
security and maintenance.

**[Existing Extended Pedestrian Bridge across I-264]{.underline}**: HRT
agrees that the I-264 pedestrian bridge is an outstanding issue that
requires resolution because it presents a potential hazard to the rail
riders and property. The FEIS documents HRT's intent to extend the
existing pedestrian bridge so that it would touch down outside of the
Vehicle Storage and Maintenance facility area. However, the issue lies
between VDOT (the owner of the bridge), FHWA (whose funds were used to
build the bridge), and the City of Norfolk (which, at the time wanted
the bridge to connect to the community on the south side of I-264).
While HRT has initiated coordination with VDOT on the future of the
pedestrian bridge, the MOU, Attachment B, item 6 of the [NSU
Requirements]{.underline} obliges "NSU to coordinate with VDOT on
removal/retention decision on the I-264 pedestrian bridge."
Nevertheless, HRT will continue negotiations with NSU, VDOT, and FHWA to
look at the available options for the future of the I-264 pedestrian
bridge.

**[Ballentine Station:]{.underline}** The existing parking configuration
at the NSU Ballentine Blvd. entrance includes a large surface parking
lot with approximately 330 spaces between Norchester Avenue and
Ballentine Blvd. and a stormwater retention pond located just north of
the Norfolk Southern Railroad tracks and west of Ballentine Boulevard.
The current NSU parking lot at Ballentine is under-utilized and the
spaces that HRT has requested are vacant except for university football
game parking that occurs on Saturdays in the fall.

The proposed design for the Ballentine Boulevard Station includes the
shared use of 97 NSU parking spaces, placement of a security fence
between the shared parking facility and the exclusive NSU parking lot,
and the enlargement of the existing stormwater retention basin. No
additional parking capacity is proposed under the LRT station design.
The signed MOU between NSU and HRT formalizes the agreement to share the
97-space parking lot on the west side of Ballentine Boulevard.
Discussions regarding the Ballentine parking lot have not included the
lawn area south of the Middletown neighborhood because HRT has no need
for that parcel. HRT does not intend on purchasing the property north of
the existing parking lot and south of the Middletown Neighborhood. As
such, use of this property by NSU would not be available.

The Figure 2-12 in the FEIS is a concept plan and HRT never intended on
gaining access to NSU via the adjacent sports fields. As such, the LRT
Project design would not change the entrance to NSU at Ballentine.

**Meeting Minutes: NSU/HRT coordination meeting, March 26, 2004**

![](media/image8.png){width="1.5833333333333333in"
height="0.4798611111111111in"}**

Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project

NSU Buildings and Grounds Task Force Committee Meeting

Strategic Planning Workshop

Friday, March 26, 2004

9:00 AM

[Attendees:]{.underline}

Ray Amoruso, Project Manager, URS

Marie Arnt, Community Relations Coordinator, HRT

Les Durrant, Director of Engineering, HRT

Curtis Wall, Mathematics Department, NSU

Lynne Harrison, Library Facilities, NSU

Shonya C. Tankard, Finance & Business Department, NSU

Kevin Appleton, Finance & Business Department, Chair, NSU

Amelia Ross-Hammond, Presidential Administrative Leadership-

Fellow & Associate Projects of Music, NSU

Randy Kiah, Physical Plant, NSU

Mr. Appleton, Chair of the Task Force, began the meeting by thanking
Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) for coming to give them an overview of the
Norfolk Light Rail Transit Project and asked that each person in the
room introduce him or herself to those present.

Marie Arnt talked about the importance of Public Involvement with the
project and the task of going out to the communities to update them on
the project. Those communities that are along the alignment have been
updated on several occasions throughout the years. Not only are
communities updated, but businesses, community groups such as Rotary,
Kiwanis, Lions, etc., and Faith-based groups. Each member present was
given a packet of information to include newsletters and brochures that
were printed within the last year, and facts about the Norfolk LRT
Project.

At this time, Ray Amoruso was introduced and gave an overview of the
project. Ray especially talked the impact to Norfolk State University.
There are two proposed station sites, one at the RISE center area at the
West end of the campus and the Ballentine Station at the East end of the
campus. He also talked about the proposed Yard & Shop site that will be
located next to the NSU Campus.

A question was asked concerning the current ownership of the property
for the Yard & Shop site. Ray noted that the majority of property is
owned by VDOT, with some parcels owned by NSU and a small parcel by
Titan America. There has been discussion with VDOT to lease the property
on a 99-year lease agreement and Titan America is willing to sell the
small parcel that they own. NSU and HRT have discussed the parcels owned
by NSU, with some talks about trade-offs with HRT.

Ray noted that the station near the RISE area would be part of the
elevated portion of the alignment. Because of the traffic in the area of
Park Avenue and Brambleton Avenue, this portion needs to be elevated.
The station site would be elevated as well, with a pedestrian walkway to
the NSU Campus. The station site would also have an elevator for
exiting.

Some of the members present talked about the huge traffic problem in
this area. You have traffic exiting off I-264 and trying to get into the
left lane, and those coming off the Campostella Bridge and trying to get
into the right lane to get to the NSU campus. They see more problems
with the development of RISE and other projects for the campus. Feels
that the city and VDOT need to look at how to make people exiting off of
I-264 to yield to traffic or possibly even stop.

NSU has also held meetings with the City of Norfolk to try to get a
traffic light installed at the corner of Park Avenue and Presidential
Blvd. This is a very tough area to exit from the Campus and very
dangerous to those trying to take a left onto Park Avenue.

In looking at the Ballentine Station, Ray talked about the park & ride
area that will serve this station site. He showed pictures of the
current parking facility (NSU) and a diagram that would hold the
overflow that will be used for the rail project. There were some
questions raised about how to keep people from cutting through this
area. Ray noted that a fence would distinguish the NSU lot from the LRT
lot. Those present feel that we need to look at another access to the
lot (rather than just off Ballentine Blvd.). Students do not utilize the
NSU portion of this lot because it is not easily accessible. There is
also concern from the NSU Task Force about the openness of this area.
They have requested funds from the Virginia General Assembly to fence
off the entire campus from easy access, but there are no funds available
at this time.

The next item discussed concerned the Pedestrian Walkway that comes from
the Chesterfield Heights neighborhood, over I-264, on the NSU campus.
There is a security concern here for the campus, even though this area
has been fenced off. The fence has been cut to allow access to the
campus and it exits behind the baseball stadium. Ray noted that it also
exits near the rail track and the Yard & Shop site, which makes it a
safety issue. Marie stated that we have spoken with the Chesterfield
Heights neighborhood about the walkway and if they utilize it. The
community would like to the walkway to remain, even though it is not
used as much now as in the past. Mr. Appleton asked about the history of
the walkway. Marie noted that a public housing area called Merrimac
Landing used to be in the area where the NSU campus expanded out to
Ballentine Blvd. When I-264 was built, the walkway was built to connect
the two communities as well as access to Norfolk Community Hospital. The
housing area was torn down about 15 years ago, and the hospital closed
several years ago.

In our discussion with the Chesterfield Heights community, we let them
know that if the walkway does remain, the exit on the NSU side would
need to be reconfigured. Ray did emphasize that the walkway is the owned
by VDOT and they will decide the final outcome of this issue.

Other questions by those present included what would happen if there is
a power outage; do we have plans to run the alignment up to ODU or the
Norfolk Naval Base; how do we connect the system with the North side.

Both Ray and Les answered these questions.

Prior to the end of the meeting, Mr. Appleton asked if he could receive
a copy of the presentation made today to share with others. Ray gave Mr.
Appleton a hard copy of the presentation and stated he would mail a copy
to him on CD.

Mr. Appleton also noted that he would be in contact with the RISE Center
Task Force that we meet with every other month to share their concerns
with security, parking, traffic, etc.

**[III. Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD)]{.underline}**

**13. HRSD Comments:** Thank you for the opportunity to review the above
referenced document. Attached is a map showing the preferred alternative
route for the Light Rail Transit, as well as associated facilities in
relation to HRSD facilities. As you will note, there appear to be a few
conflicts at the following locations:

1\. The recommended Plume Street LRT Station and associated rail route
to and from the LRT Station seem to be where HRSD has a force main and
pump station.

2\. HRSD has lines in the following locations that the LRT proposes
crossing: St. Pauls Boulevard, Norfolk State University, Norchester
Street, and Ingleside Road.

3\. HRSD has lines in the railroad right-of-way adjacent to Curlew Drive
from Wellman Court to the end of the LRT line at Newtown Road and where
the proposed Newtown Road Station is to go.

Please contact our South Shore Interceptor Engineer, Paul Wilson,
regarding requirements for the protection of the existing HRSD
facilities. Paul's contact information is as follows.

Paul Wilson, P.E.

HRSD Interceptors

P.O. Box 5911

Virginia Beach, VA 23471-0911

Phone: 460-7081

Fax: 460-0637

e-mail: <pwilson@hrsd.com>

If a route other than the proposed alternative is used, or if LRT
Station or Traction Power Sub-Station locations change, please send this
information to HRSD. If you should have any questions, please call me at
460-7026,

**[HRT Response:]{.underline}**

HRT met with Paul Wilson of HRSD several times during the Preliminary
Engineering stage, with the most recent meeting at the Utility
Coordination Meeting in February 2004. Upon receiving HRSD's comments on
the FEIS, HRT met again with Mr. Wilson on Friday December 9, 2005 to
resolve the comments.

HRT's preliminary engineering drawings for the LRT Project recognize all
of the items listed in the HRSD letter except the pumping station at
Plume Street and the line in the railroad right-of-way between Wellman
Court and Newtown Road. Of the facilities recognized as existing by HRT,
all are listed in the drawings as either \"to be relocated\" or \"to be
protected\". Preliminary conversations with Mr. Wilson have indicated
that HRSD\'s pumping station is on the northwest corner of the Atlantic
Avenue/Plume Street intersection, which is across Atlantic Street from
the Plume Street station and would therefore not be a conflict. Record
drawings dated 1958 confirm this. Regarding the sanitary line in the
railroad right-of-way between Wellman and Newtown, HRT will continue to
coordinate with Paul Wilson during final design to determine the impact
of the project on this line if any. If required, the line will be
relocated or protected in place.

**[IV. Virginia Department of Historic Resources]{.underline}**

**14. VDHR Comment:** We have received for our review and comment the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the above referenced
project. As you know, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for this
undertaking was executed between the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), the Department of Historic Resources (DHR), and Hampton Roads
Transit (HRT). We have no further comments other than to proceed with
the project pursuant to the terms of the MOA. If you have not already
provided DHR with a copy of the fully executed MOA, please do so.

**HRT Response:** HRT will continue to coordinate with the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, the Freemason Historic District and
FTA to follow the agreements set forth in the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA). During Final Design and Construction, design modifications and
construction will be monitored for compliance with the MOA.