**AMENDED**

**RECORD OF DECISION**

**by the Federal Transit Administration**

**Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project**

**Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia**

**DECISION**

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in accordance with 23 CFR part
771, the regulation that governs the Federal environmental review
process for transportation projects funded by the FTA, has decided that
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended, have been satisfied for the Dulles Corridor
Metrorail Project. The Project, a planned extension of the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) regional Metrorail system in
Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia, will include 23.1 miles of
electrically-powered rapid rail transit operating in an exclusive
right-of-way with at-grade, aerial, and subway sections, 11 new
stations, parking facilities, new and improved yard and shop facilities,
rail vehicles, fare collection equipment, communications and train
control systems, and ancillary facilities for the distribution of
electrical power and stormwater management.

This FTA Record of Decision (ROD) applies to the Locally Preferred
Alternative ("the Project"), as described in the Project's December 2004
*Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation*
(Final EIS) and modified in the February 2006 *Preliminary Engineering
Design Refinements Environmental Assessment*. This Amended ROD replaces
the FTA Record of Decision previously issued in March 2005. The Project
sponsor,[^1] the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
(DRPT), seeks financial assistance from FTA for the first phase of the
Project (the Extension to Wiehle Avenue), which will extend from the
existing Metrorail Orange Line near the West Falls Church Station and
terminate at Wiehle Avenue in Reston. The second phase of the project
(the Extension to Dulles Airport/Route 772) will extend west of Wiehle
Avenue to Dulles International Airport and eastern Loudoun County. Once
constructed and accepted by WMATA, each phase of the Project will be
operated as part of the regional Metrorail system.

In addition to FTA, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
participated in the Project's NEPA review as a cooperating agency
because construction of the Project requires the use of airport property
and FAA's approval of the change in the Airport Layout Plan**.**

**BACKGROUND**

The Dulles Corridor, located in Northern Virginia, west of the nation's
capital, is home to several of the Washington metropolitan region's most
dynamic and rapidly growing activity centers. Extending from the
vicinity of West Falls Church Metrorail Station in Fairfax County,
Virginia, to Route 772 in Loudoun County, Virginia, the 23.1-mile
corridor includes the high-density office buildings and regional
shopping centers of Tysons Corner; the residences, shopping centers, and
suburban office complexes of the Reston-Herndon area; the rapidly
growing Washington Dulles International Airport (Dulles Airport); and an
emerging residential and employment center in eastern Loudoun County.

With the Dulles Corridor's increasing attractiveness as a place to live
and work, travel in the corridor has been steadily growing over the past
15 years. This increasing travel demand has strained the capacity of the
existing transportation network, causing delays and increasing travel
times between activity centers within the corridor and the region. The
central and eastern portions of the corridor currently experience some
of the region's worst traffic congestion.

Over the next 25 years, continued development of the corridor as a
regional employment destination and the maturation of residential
communities and commercial areas within the corridor are expected to far
outpace the growth of the region as a whole. Parallel increases in
travel demand are projected to exceed the capacity of the corridor's
already overburdened transportation system, resulting in severely
congested conditions on numerous routes, further degradation of air
quality, and a threat to the valued quality of life in the Dulles
Corridor.

Planned roadway enhancements in the corridor are not expected to relieve
the current levels of congestion and the ability to further expand
roadway capacity beyond currently planned improvements is constrained by
right-of-way limitations and federal air quality standards. For these
reasons, alternative transportation improvements in the Dulles Corridor
that would increase capacity and improve mobility without further
expanding roadways, such as a high-quality, high-capacity rapid transit
line, have long been the focus of public and private sector studies.

Rapid transit in the Dulles Corridor was initially explored in the 1950s
as part of the planning of Dulles Airport. At that time, it was decided
to reserve the median of the Dulles International Airport Access Highway
(DIAAH), previously known as the Dulles Airport Access Road, for future
transit access to the airport. In the late 1960s the need for transit in
the corridor was evaluated during the planning of the regional Metrorail
system. While Metrorail's original Adopted Regional System did not
include a connection to Dulles Airport, extending rapid transit service
to the airport has remained a local and regional goal.

In the 1990s, providing a rapid transit connection to Dulles Airport was
evaluated in the *Dulles Corridor Transportation Study* (1997) and the
*Supplement to the Dulles Corridor Transportation Study* (1999). The
former, a Major Investment Study (MIS), recommended developing a rail
line between the Metrorail Orange Line and Route 772 primarily using the
median of the DIAAH. The MIS Supplement in 1999 recommended developing
this rail line through a phased implementation program that would begin
with enhanced express bus services, then use bus rapid transit (BRT)
technology to institute rapid transit service in the Dulles Corridor as
quickly as possible. BRT is an emerging transit mode in which buses are
used to provide high-quality service akin to a rapid rail system. The
BRT line would then be converted to rail use over time.

The recommended transit alternatives for the Dulles Corridor were
evaluated in the *Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation* (Draft EIS)
published in June 2002. The results of the evaluation assisted the
Commonwealth of Virginia, MWAA, WMATA, FTA, FAA, local and regional
decision-makers, and the public in understanding the potential effects
of the alternatives under consideration for the project. Based on the
analysis contained in the Draft EIS, public comments received on the
document, and agency coordination, in late 2002 an extension of the
WMATA Metrorail from the existing Orange Line to Route 772 in Loudoun
County was selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the
project by both the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) and the
WMATA Board of Directors. Like the alternative recommended in the 1997
MIS, the rail line would primarily use the median of the DIAAH, leaving
the highway to directly serve Tysons Corner and Dulles Airport. However,
unlike the recommendations of the MIS Supplement, the selected LPA was
not proposed to be developed through a phased implementation program
that included BRT as an interim step to rail.

Following the publication of the Draft EIS and selection of the
Metrorail Alternative as the LPA, additional agency and public
coordination resulted in revisions to the selected LPA. The potential
effects of these changes---which included design modifications to the
preferred alignment and facilities, adjustment of opening years, and
scheduling construction of the project in two phases---were documented
in the *Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation*
(Supplemental Draft EIS) published in October 2003. Although many of the
merits and potential impacts of the proposed LPA were similar to those
presented in the Draft EIS, the Supplemental Draft EIS allowed decision
makers to fully and explicitly examine the effects of the revised LPA
compared to the Metrorail Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS and a
No Build Alternative. Based on the analysis contained in the
Supplemental Draft EIS, public comments received on the document, and
agency coordination, in March 2004 the CTB approved the revision of the
LPA to incorporate the elements required for phased construction and the
design refinements outlined in the Supplemental Draft EIS and
recommended in its Public Hearings Report. In April 2004, the WMATA
Board of Directors approved the revision of the LPA. The Transportation
Planning Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
included the LPA in the 2005 Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan
for metropolitan Washington, D.C.

The Final EIS was developed to respond to comments and issues raised
during the circulation of the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS
and to provide more detailed information on the design of proposed
mitigation measures for unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the
Project. The Final EIS was published in December 2004.

In February 2006, an Environmental Assessment (the 2006 EA) was prepared
to assess the environmental impacts of modifications that were made to
the design of the Project's initial construction phase during
preliminary engineering (PE). These design refinements came about after
the publication of the Final EIS and issuance of the original FTA Record
of Decision in March 2005.

**BASIS FOR DECISION**

FTA's decision is based on information contained in the Draft EIS (June
2002), the Supplemental Draft EIS (October 2003), the Final EIS
(December 2004), and the Preliminary Engineering Design Refinements
Environmental Assessment (February 2006), which together constitute the
detailed statement on environmental impacts required by NEPA and the
Federal transit statutes (49 USC 5324(b)). The statement identifies the
Preferred Alternative and includes a review of the purpose and need for
the Project, its goals and objectives, consideration of alternatives,
environmental impacts, and measures to minimize harm. FTA has reviewed
this statement and notes that the Metrorail Alternative was selected
over other alternatives considered because it:

-   provided better access to corridor activity centers;

-   provided better access to other regional activity centers

-   would not require a mode transfer to access the regional Metrorail
    system;

-   provided shorter travel times for trips within the corridor;

-   provided the greatest increase in person throughput capacity in the
    corridor;

-   attracted the highest number of total riders and new riders;

-   better supported the comprehensive planning efforts of Fairfax and
    Loudoun counties;

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

-   increased the overall mobility within the corridor, the counties,
    and the region;

-   conformed with regional air quality plans; and

-   had the highest level of public and agency support.

The FAA has determined that the use of airport property for the Project
is consistent with the terms of Section VII.G of FAA's *Policy and
Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue* (64 FR 7696-7723).
Public transit access to Dulles International Airport was envisioned in
the airport's original Master Plan, and the Project will not affect
airport operations. The median of the airport access highway was
initially reserved for a future rail line when the airport was
constructed in the early 1960s. In 1985, when the Master Plan was
updated, FAA recommended that the median of airport access highway
continue to be reserved for a future transit line and anticipated that
this would likely be an expansion of the region's Metrorail system. On
airport property, the rail line will be located either underground or
along existing roadways; the station at the main terminal will be
located underground. Other related facilities will be located in an
airport buffer zone on land that would not otherwise be used for airport
development. The improved mobility and access provided by the Project
will benefit the airport's operator, tenants, and air passengers.

**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. This 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:

-   Improve transportation service;

-   Increase transit ridership;

-   Support future development;

-   Support environmental quality;

-   Provide cost-effective, achievable transportation choices; and

-   Serve diverse populations.

The formal NEPA review process began with the Notice of Intent, which
was published on June 26, 2000, and a series of scoping meetings, which
were held July 25-27, 2000. The initial set of alternatives considered
for the Project included various rapid transit modes, alignments,
station locations, and ancillary facilities. These alternatives were
based on recommendations from the *Dulles Corridor Transportation Study*
(1997), the *Supplement to the Dulles Corridor Transportation Study*
(1999), and the comments received during the scoping meetings. These
initial alternatives were then subjected to a two-phase screening
process to determine which should be advanced for more detailed
evaluation in the Draft EIS. For the initial screening process, most
measures were qualitative. Criteria included consistency with land use
plans, order of magnitude capital costs, access to activity centers
within the Dulles Corridor and the region, and compatibility with
existing infrastructure, among others. Alternatives carried forward from
initial screening were subjected to a more rigorous evaluation in
intermediate screening. In this phase of evaluation, many of the
criteria applied during initial screening were measured more
quantitatively. Alternatives that performed well were advanced for more
detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS. The results of the screening
evaluation are documented in detail in the Project's *Final Alternatives
Analysis Report* (May 2001). Additional alternatives evaluated are
documented in the *Final Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum*
(December 2004.)

**[Draft Environmental Impact Statement]{.underline}**

The Draft EIS evaluated the potential effects of several alternative
transit improvements for the Dulles Corridor. In addition to a No Build
Alternative, four Build Alternatives that primarily ran

along the Dulles Connector Road, the DIAAH, and the Dulles Greenway were
evaluated. The alternatives included:

-   **No Build (Baseline) Alternative.** The No Build Alternative
    represented the "no-action alternative" required by the Council of
    Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) regulations for implementing NEPA,
    and provided a baseline for comparison against which the other
    alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIS. The No Build
    Alternative included existing highway and public transportation
    infrastructure in the Dulles Corridor, and transportation system
    improvements, aside from the Project, that were included in the
    Washington metropolitan region's constrained long-range
    transportation plan and planned for implementation by 2025.

-   **Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative.** BRT is a bus-based transit
    system that operates like a rail system. Passengers on BRT are
    provided rail-like amenities such as off-board fare collection,
    level boarding, enhanced stations, and platforms. Because it often
    takes advantage of pre-existing roadway facilities, BRT is generally
    a lower-cost transit technology than rail. Three alignment options
    were considered for the BRT Alternative in the Draft EIS.

-   **Metrorail Alternative.** Metrorail is the region's rapid rail
    system. It is powered by an electrified third rail and operates in
    exclusive rights-of-way. By using multiple-car trains, Metrorail is
    capable of moving high volumes of passengers. Key features of the
    Metrorail system include fixed stations, dedicated rights-of-way,
    advanced fare collection, relatively simple transfers between
    different lines, and multiple-door boarding from level platforms.
    For the Metrorail Alternative, four alignment options were
    considered in Tysons Corner, and three sites were considered for a
    Metrorail Service & Inspection (S&I) Yard in Loudoun County.

-   **BRT/Metrorail Alternative.** This alternative combined the BRT and
    Metrorail alternatives. Metrorail would be constructed in the
    eastern part of the Dulles Corridor as far as Tysons Corner, and BRT
    would be constructed in the western part of the corridor to Route
    772 in Loudoun County.

-   **Phased Implementation Alternative.** This alternative combined the
    other three Build Alternatives into a program of rapid transit
    improvements that would be implemented in stages (BRT, then
    BRT/Metrorail, then Metrorail). This approach would allow
    decision-makers to begin to address the travel needs in the corridor
    with rapid transit in the near term, while allowing for future
    development of rail.

Each of the Build Alternatives included several stations located in the
median of the DIAAH, which were similar to stations on the existing
Metrorail system. The BRT stations were designed to allow future
conversion to rail stations. The alternatives also included the
development of station and ancillary facilities such as parking and bus
transfer facilities, a bus maintenance and storage facility, a rail
service and inspection yard (S&I Yard), rail traction power substations
and tie-breaker stations, and stormwater management facilities.

**[Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement]{.underline}**

Based on subsequent public and agency coordination after the completion
of the Draft EIS and after an LPA was recommended and selected, the
Project sponsor identified a series of modifications to the project to
resolve outstanding design issues, reduce environmental and community
impacts, and allow for construction of the project in two phases. The
Supplemental Draft EIS was prepared to assist decision-makers and the
public in understanding the effects of the proposed modifications to the
selected LPA. A comparative evaluation was presented for the following
alternatives:

-   **No Build Alternative.** The No Build Alternative for the
    Supplemental Draft EIS was the same as the Baseline Alternative
    defined in the Draft EIS. The alternative included existing
    transportation infrastructure and services, as well as improvements
    included in the region's constrained long-range plan and planned to
    be implemented by 2025. The No Build Alternative provided a baseline
    for comparison against which the other alternatives were evaluated.

-   **Metrorail Alternative (T6/Y15).** This alternative was the
    Metrorail Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS and originally
    selected as the LPA (with Alignment T6 through Tysons Corner and a
    new S&I Yard at Site 15). The alternative generally followed an
    alignment between the Metrorail Orange Line near West Falls Church
    Station and Route 772 in Loudoun County, using the median of the
    Dulles Connector Road, the DIAAH, and the Dulles Greenway. It
    included 11 new stations and ancillary facilities, such as a new
    Metrorail S&I Yard, traction power substations, tie-breaker
    stations, and stormwater management ponds. The Metrorail Alternative
    (T6/Y15) was included in the Supplemental Draft EIS to facilitate
    understanding of the changes in effects associated with the proposed
    modifications to the LPA.

-   **Proposed LPA.** The proposed LPA was similar to the Metrorail
    Alternative (T6/Y15) in terms of alignment, stations, facilities,
    and operating characteristics. The primary difference between the
    two alternatives was that the LPA was to be implemented in two
    phases. For the Wiehle Avenue Extension, Metrorail would be
    constructed from the Metrorail Orange Line through Tysons Corner to
    Wiehle Avenue, with interim express bus service in the western
    portion of the corridor until rail service could be extended. The
    Wiehle Avenue Extension was anticipated to open in 2011 with the
    full LPA opening in 2015. The impacts associated with operating the
    Wiehle Avenue station temporarily as an end-of-line station were
    evaluated. Other differences between the proposed LPA and the
    Metrorail Alternative (T6/Y15) included additional improvements at
    West Falls Church S&I Yard to accommodate operation of the Wiehle
    Avenue Extension prior to construction of the remainder of the LPA;
    adjustments to alignment plans and profiles for a variety of
    purposes including to reduce potential noise impacts, visual
    impacts, costs, and to improve operational efficiency; and design
    modifications of station site plans and ancillary facilities to
    address operational changes and to respond to concerns of local
    jurisdictions and landowners.

**[Final Environmental Impact Statement]{.underline}**

The Final EIS was developed to respond to comments and issues raised
during the circulation of the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS
and to provide more detailed information on the design of proposed
mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts associated with the Project.
The Final EIS presented an evaluation of the following alternatives:

-   **No Build Alternative.** The No Build Alternative for the Final EIS
    is similar to the No Build Alternative defined in the Supplemental
    Draft EIS, but updated to reflect current conditions. The
    alternative includes existing transportation infrastructure and
    services, as well as improvements included in the region's
    constrained long-range plan and planned to be implemented by 2025.
    The No Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparison against
    which the other alternatives were evaluated.

-   **Wiehle Avenue Extension.** The initial construction phase of the
    LPA was evaluated as a stand-alone alternative in the Final EIS.
    This alternative includes the first 11.6 miles of the Project from
    the existing Metrorail Orange Line near West Falls Church through
    Tysons Corner to Wiehle Avenue. The Wiehle Avenue Extension follows
    the Dulles Connector Road, Routes 123 and 7 in Tysons Corner, and
    the Dulles International Airport Access Highway (DIAAH). It includes
    5 new stations, additional commuter parking, improvements to the
    existing Metrorail Service and Inspection Yard at West Falls Church,
    and required ancillary facilities. Express bus service would be
    provided by local transit operators between Wiehle Avenue and the
    western portion of the corridor.

-   **LPA.** The LPA in the Final EIS is the entire 23.1-mile Metrorail
    extension, which is the subject of this Record of Decision. The LPA
    extends along the Dulles Connector Road, Routes 123 and 7, the
    DIAAH, and the Dulles Greenway between the Metrorail Orange Line and
    Route 772 in Loudoun County. It includes direct Metrorail service to
    Tysons Corner and Dulles Airport. The LPA includes 11 new stations,
    additional commuter parking, a new Metrorail Service & Inspection
    Yard on Dulles Airport property, improvements to the existing West
    Falls Church Service and Inspection Yard, and required ancillary
    facilities such as traction power substations, tie-breaker stations,
    and stormwater management ponds. The LPA would be constructed in two
    phases, the first phase being the Wiehle Avenue Extension described
    above, and the second phase being the further extension from Wiehle
    Avenue through the Airport to the terminus at Route 772 on the
    Dulles Greenway. Express bus service would be provided by local
    transit operators between Wiehle Avenue and the western portion of
    the corridor until Metrorail is extended to Route 772. This
    alternative, as modified by the Preliminary Engineering Design
    Refinements Environmental Assessment (2006 EA), discussed below, is
    the subject of this Amended Record of Decision.

**[Preliminary Engineering Design Refinements Environmental Assessment
(2006 EA)]{.underline}**

In early 2006, an Environmental Assessment (2006 EA) was prepared to
assess the environmental impacts of modifications that were made to the
design of the Project's initial construction phase during preliminary
engineering (PE). These design refinements came about after the
publication of the Final EIS and issuance of the original FTA Record of
Decision in March 2005. The 2006 EA presented an evaluation of the
following two alternatives of limited scope, with variations primarily
in the Tysons Corner area:

-   **Final EIS Wiehle Avenue Extension.** This alternative is identical
    to initial phase of the LPA evaluated in detail in the Final EIS.

-   **PE Wiehle Avenue Extension.** This alternative reflects the design
    refinements made during preliminary engineering (PE), including: a
    shift of the alignment from the southern edge to the median of Route
    7 and reconfiguration of the roadway travel lanes, narrower track
    centers (outside station areas), simplified aerial guideway
    structures and architectural treatments, alternative station
    designs, and a revised connection with the existing Metrorail Orange
    Line. The tunnel portion of the Route 7 alignment would be shortened
    in length from approximately 5,000 feet to 3,000 feet, and the
    underground Tysons Central 7 Station would be replaced with an
    at-grade station in the Route 7 median. In addition, the site of the
    Dulles Storage and Inspection (S&I) Yard that was originally
    envisioned as an element only of Phase 2 of the Project would be
    used for soil fill and disposal during construction of the Wiehle
    Avenue Extension (Phase 1).

Two changes proposed in the 2006 EA have not been incorporated into the
Project. The 2006 EA proposed to store and maintain the Project's
additional rail vehicles at existing WMATA storage and maintenance
facilities and to forgo the expansion of the West Falls Church Storage
and Inspection (S&I) Yard. That change has not been accepted and the
expansion of the West Falls Church S&I Yard, as described in the FEIS,
will proceed and remains an element of the Project that is the subject
of this Amended ROD. The 2006 EA also proposed to forgo some elevators
at Phase 1 stations, especially in the Tyson's Corner area, to reduce
the Project's cost. Numerous public comments opposing this change (see
Attachment B) were received during the comment period for the 2006 EA,
and in response to those comments, FTA and the Project sponsor have
decided to retain those elevators.

On the basis of the 2006 EA, FTA has found that the PE design
refinements would result in no significant changes in impacts and no new
significant impacts from those evaluated in the Final EIS.

**ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM**

The Project's effects on the existing social, environmental, economic,
and transportation conditions in the Dulles Corridor were assessed in
the Final EIS and the subsequent 2006 EA. Because most of the Metrorail
extension would be built along existing roadways or within the medians
of highways (e.g., the Dulles Connector Road, the DIAAH, and the Dulles
Greenway), the anticipated environmental and community impacts are
limited, in spite of the length and complexity of the Project.

FTA notes the following environmental impacts of the Project in reaching
a decision:

-   **Property Acquisition.** Construction of the Project and its
    facilities will require the acquisition of approximately 22 acres of
    privately-owned commercial property and 4 acres of privately owned
    residential property. A total of one commercial business, an
    automotive repair facility, will be displaced to accommodate Project
    facilities. A portion of a self-storage business will also be
    acquired, but the business will be able to continue operations.
    There will be no residential displacements. Additional private
    property and business displacements will be required temporarily to
    accommodate construction activities or maintain traffic during
    construction. All property acquisitions and relocations will be
    conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
    Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, and its
    implementing regulation at 49 CFR part 24.

> Another 159 acres of government-owned or controlled property will also
> be used for the Project's line and track, stations, rail yard, and
> ancillary facilities. This includes the acquisition of property
> interests in the median and other parts of the Dulles International
> Airport Access Highway and Dulles Connector Road, and in parts of the
> Dulles Airport property itself, including the site of the Service &
> Inspection Yard and portions of eight parcels that are currently
> leased to commercial entities. The U.S. Department of Transportation
> (U.S. DOT) owns the Access Highway, the Connector Road and the Dulles
> Airport property. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
> (MWAA) leases the property from the U.S. DOT (the current lease
> extends through the year 2067) and has sublet certain commercial
> parcels to private businesses. If necessary, the Project sponsor will
> seek conveyance of property interests or easements on the Access
> Highway, Connector Road, and Airport needed for the Project's
> construction and operation from MWAA and the U.S. DOT. The acquired
> property interest will be adequate to ensure the Project sponsor's
> continuing control of the Project facilities throughout the useful
> life of the Project.

-   **Land Use**. The Project is expected to have positive effects on
    commercial and residential properties located near transit stations,
    and contribute to more sustainable and transit-supportive economic
    development by focusing higher-density residential and commercial
    land uses around the station areas.

-   **Historic and Archaeological Resources.** 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
    the Dulles Airport Historic District by altering the historic views
    of the main terminal for travelers approaching via the DIAAH. The
    Project will have no effects on known archaeological resources. The
    measures to be taken to avoid, minimize and mitigate the adverse
    effects on this historic resource and on any archaeological
    resources that may be encountered during construction activities are
    set forth in the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among
    FTA, DRPT, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. A copy
    of the signed MOA is included herein as Attachment C. FTA will
    require compliance with the MOA by the Project sponsor, even if the
    lead sponsoring agency changes.

-   **Wetlands.** The Project will affect approximately 5 acres of
    wetlands, which are primarily located in the vicinity of the Service
    and Inspection Yard on Dulles Airport property. Practicable
    mitigation measures are described in the Final EIS and summarized
    herein in Attachment A.

-   **Noise and Vibration.** Without noise mitigation, operation of the
    Project was predicted to exceed FTA noise impact criteria at many
    sensitive receptors along the alignment, primarily residences along
    the Dulles Connector Road. During preliminary engineering,
    additional noise analyses were conducted to confirm mitigation
    requirements. Track edge barriers (parapets) will be installed to
    reduce the noise levels from Metrorail train passbys along all
    aerial sections of the track. For at-grade locations where noise
    levels at sensitive receptors are predicted to exceed FTA criteria,
    track edge barriers will also be installed as described in
    Attachment A. During construction, noise and vibration levels from
    construction activities may temporarily impact nearby sensitive
    receptors.

-   **Traffic and Transportation.** The Project will result in changes
    to traffic conditions as people change their travel patterns to
    access the new transit stations, affecting some of the neighborhoods
    that surround certain stations. Although they would experience such
    traffic-related effects, these neighborhoods would also directly
    benefit from the mobility and accessibility that the transit
    improvements would bring. The Project includes roadway improvements
    needed for vehicular access to stations or facilities and additional
    roadway improvements to address opening year traffic congestion in
    the vicinity of the new Metrorail stations.

> Construction of the Project will impede access to residences or to
> building entrances or to the parking area of businesses. It may also
> necessitate temporary relocation of parking either for safety reasons
> or if property is needed for construction staging areas.
> Construction-related disruptions to access will generally be
> short-term and temporary.

Throughout the process of developing and evaluating alternatives and
coordinating with the public and other stakeholders, the Project sponsor
and FTA made considerable effort to incorporate measures to minimize the
Project's potential social, environmental, economic and transportation
impacts. The Final EIS and 2006 EA provide a description of the
mitigation measures that are now incorporated into the Project to avoid
and minimize adverse impacts. FTA will ensure that the Project sponsor
designs and builds the Project in accordance with the mitigation
measures contained in the Final EIS and 2006 EA and summarized in
Attachment A. In addition, FTA will require that the Project sponsor
establishes a mitigation-monitoring program to ensure adequate
communication of mitigation and design commitments to the teams working
on final design and construction, and to provide a means for the Project
sponsor and FTA to track the progress in accomplishing the mitigation
commitments. FTA will monitor implementation of mitigation measures
through quarterly reviews during design and construction or other
appropriate means.

**PUBLIC COORDINATION AND COMMENTS**

During the preparation of the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS,
a comprehensive public involvement program was conducted to provide
citizens, businesses, and organizations with an interest in the Project
the opportunity to keep informed of project developments, to participate
in project planning and to provide recommendations to decision-makers
for the selection of the LPA. In order to facilitate public
participation in project planning and design, several different outreach
techniques were employed to reach a wide range of participants. These
included a variety of information dissemination outlets and interactive
techniques in addition to meetings and coordination 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 in order to ensure that the
public remained informed of project developments and were provided the
opportunity to comment throughout project planning and design. Major
activities conducted for the project included a call-in line, mailing
list, newsletter, update bulletins, comment forms, website, and email
address, as well as the distribution of project materials through the
project kiosk and information center, libraries and community centers.
Other outreach techniques included representation at community fairs and
festivals, and presentations to communities and businesses.

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

As required by Federal transit laws \[49 USC §5323(b) and §5324(b)\],
public coordination meetings and public hearings were held. Notices of
public hearings were also provided. 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 LPA. Public meetings
held to support the development of the project included public scoping
meetings, public information meetings, stakeholder meetings, and public
hearings on the Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS, as well as a
post-hearing conference as detailed in Chapter 11 of the Final EIS.
Additional meetings and a public hearing were held during preliminary
engineering to review and seek comment on the proposed design
refinements presented in the 2006 EA.

To maintain public and stakeholder support for the project, the Project
sponsor will continue public outreach efforts throughout preliminary
engineering, final design and construction. The focus of these outreach
activities will be to keep the public, stakeholders, and affected
property owners informed about the project's progress. Continuing
outreach efforts will include participation in community outreach
activities and public information meetings and events, circulation of
project newsletters, brochures, and fact sheets, project website
updates, and development of presentations or meeting materials for
interested parties.

**[Comments on the Final EIS and 2006 EA]{.underline}**

The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal
Register on December 23, 2004. During the Final EIS circulation period,
comment letters were received from one Federal agency, the District of
Columbia, and one interest group. Responses to the comments received on
the Final EIS were provided in the original ROD of March 2005. Responses
to comments received on the 2006 EA are contained in Attachment B of
this Amended ROD.

**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 as
the Final EIS and 2006 EA, and including the mitigation measures
identified in those documents and summarized in this ROD, satisfies the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 49 USC
5301(e) and 5324(b), , 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 for the Project includes the previously
referenced Draft EIS (June 2002), the Supplemental Draft EIS (October
2003), the Final EIS (December 2004), and the PE Design Refinements EA
(February 2006), and all attachments thereto. Cumulatively, these
documents represent the detailed statement required by both NEPA and the
Federal transit laws, 49 USC Sections 5301(e) and 5324(b), regarding:

\- the environmental impacts of the proposed Project;

\- adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided;

\- alternatives to the proposed Project; and

\- irreversible and irretrievable impacts on the environment.

On the basis of the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental
impacts presented in the Final EIS and 2006 EA, and the written and oral
comments offered by the public and other agencies, FTA has determined,
in accordance with 49 USC 5324(b), 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 community
    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 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. The
Washington metropolitan area in which the Dulles Corridor Metrorail
Project is located is classified as an ozone non-attainment area. The
Project is therefore subject to the conformity requirements of the EPA
regulation. The primary project-level conformity requirements of the EPA
regulation dictate that the project comes from a conforming regional
transportation plan and program and that the project not cause or
contribute to any localized violation of the NAAQS.

The Project is included in the 2005 Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP),
a plan that has been duly adopted by the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments (MWCOG) Transportation Planning Board and has been found
by MWCOG to conform to the relevant State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
(i.e., those of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia). FHWA
and FTA have reviewed and concurred in that conformity determination for
the CLRP. Near-term project activities are included in the FY 2005--2010
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) adopted by MWCOG. The TIP has
also been found by MWCOG, FHWA, and FTA to conform with air quality
plans for the area. In addition, micro-scale air quality analyses in the
Final EIS indicate that no localized violations of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards will result from implementation of the Project.
Therefore, FTA finds that the Project conforms to air quality plans for
the area.

**[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 the harm to the protected resource. Based on the evaluation
conducted and coordination with the U.S. Department of the Interior, the
Project would result in a permanent physical use of one section 4(f)
resource, the Dulles International Airport Historic District and the
potential permanent physical use of another section 4(f) resource, the
Hunter Mill Road Proposed Historic District, depending on that
district's final boundaries.

The Dulles International Airport Historic District will be affected by
the placement of the Project alignment within the median of the DIAAH
and by the addition of inbound and outbound portals within the district
boundaries. This would result in a use of a contributing element to the
district (the historic viewshed) and require the physical use of
property within the historic district boundaries. The median of the
DIAAH was historically reserved for a transit guideway to the Airport.
FTA has determined that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to
the use of the Dulles International Airport Historic District that would
serve the purpose of the project of providing high-capacity transit
service to the Airport. FTA has further determined that the Project
includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Dulles
International Airport Historic District, as detailed in the Section 106
MOA and the Final EIS.

The rail alignment, stormwater management ponds, and traction power
substations may fall within the Hunter Mill Road Proposed Historic
District, whose exact boundaries have not been established, The Project
facilities within the likely boundaries of the historic district would
not use any contributing element of the historic district. Minor
proximity impacts identified would not substantially impair the historic
features of the protected resources. Construction activities will not
result in additional permanent impacts to the Section 4(f) resource. FTA
has determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the
use of the Hunter Mill Road Proposed Historic District and that the
Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, as detailed in
the Section 106 MOA and the Final EIS.

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

Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management and Protection," and U.S.
DOT Order 5620.2 state 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 floodplain values; and to be consistent with the standards
and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Based on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency maps, the
Project will cross portions of the 100-year base floodplains of several
streams along the alignment, including Pimmit Run, Scotts Run, Difficult
Run, Horsepen Run, and Broad Run. The Project will span these streams
parallel to existing roadway structures, thereby minimizing impacts to
floodplains. The placement of new piers to span these streams will not
increase the surface elevation of the 100-year flood at any location by
more than one foot, nor will the Project increase the risks of off-site
flooding. All Project facilities located within floodplains will be
designed to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations and the
Project sponsor will comply with all applicable regulations or
ordinances governing construction in floodplains.

FTA finds that the Project's encroachment on floodplains has been
minimized to the extent practicable and that the remaining encroachments
represent the only practicable alternative. During final design and
construction, the Project sponsor will continue to explore design
measures to reduce floodplain encroachments even further.

**[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 destroy approximately 5 acres of wetlands. The Project
sponsor will provide compensatory mitigation for these unavoidable
wetland impacts. A 1:1 replacement ratio for impacts to the
approximately 1 acre of emergent wetlands, and a 2:1 replacement ratio
for impacts to the approximately 4 acres of forested wetlands will be
used. Because on-site mitigation is not allowable on airport property
due to potential wildlife interference with airport operations, an
off-site location for mitigation will be used. Permanent impacts will be
mitigated through the purchase of credits at an existing regional
wetland bank, if available. Otherwise, an appropriate wetlands
mitigation site of a size consistent with the replacement ratios above
will be found and developed into wetlands in accordance with conditions
on a Section 404 permit expected to be issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). The Section 404 Permit is required by the COE and a
Virginia Water Protection Permit will also be required from the Virginia
Department Environmental Quality (VDEQ).

Impacts to wetlands during construction activities will be minimized
through the use of Best Management Practices recommended by state and
regional agencies, such as pollution control devices, installation and
maintenance of runoff diversion structures and secondary containment
structures. All temporarily disturbed wetland areas will be restored to
pre-construction conditions by re-vegetating these areas with the
appropriate cover type, as required by applicable permits.

FTA finds that the wetland impacts of the Project have been minimized to
the extent practicable, and that there is no practicable alternative to
construction in the wetlands and that all practicable measures to
minimize harm to the wetlands have been included in the Project. During
final design, the Project sponsor will coordinate with COE and VDEQ to
obtain the necessary permits and will continue to consider measures to
reduce permanent and temporary wetland impacts even further.

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

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations"), provides, in
relevant part, that FTA identify and address "disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects" of federally-funded
mass transit projects on minority populations and low-income
populations, and that FTA "conduct its programs, policies, and
activities in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and
activities do not have the effect of subjecting persons...to
discrimination...because of their race, color, or national origin."

On the basis of the evaluation in the Final EIS and 2006 EA, FTA has
determined that the adverse health and environmental effects of the
Project will not be disproportionately borne by minority or low-income
populations, and furthermore, that all persons within the study area
will enjoy improved mobility as a result of the Project.

+--------------------------------+---------------+---------------------+
| /signed by/                    |               | November 17, 2006   |
+--------------------------------+---------------+---------------------+
| Susan Borinsky                 |               | Date                |
|                                |               |                     |
| Regional Administrator         |               |                     |
|                                |               |                     |
| Federal Transit Administration |               |                     |
|                                |               |                     |
| Region III                     |               |                     |
+--------------------------------+---------------+---------------------+

Attachments:

Attachment A: Summary of Mitigation Measures

Attachment B: 2006 Environmental Assessment: Comments and Responses

Attachment C: Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement

ATTACHMENT A

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

The mitigation measures and other Project features that avoid or reduce
adverse impacts, to which FTA and the Project sponsor committed in the
Final EIS or 2006 EA, are now incorporated into the Project and are
summarized in the Table below. The Final EIS and 2006 EA provide a
complete description of these mitigation measures and design features.
FTA will ensure that the Project sponsor designs and builds the Project
in accordance with the mitigation measures contained in the Final EIS
and 2006 EA.

In addition, FTA will require that the Project sponsor establish a
mitigation-monitoring program to ensure adequate communication of
mitigation and design commitments to the teams working on final design
and construction, and to provide a means for the Project sponsor and FTA
to track the progress in accomplishing the mitigation commitments. FTA
will monitor implementation of mitigation measures through quarterly
reviews during design and construction or other appropriate means. The
table in this attachment will serve as a starting point for the
mitigation monitoring program. As mitigation commitments are advanced or
implemented, the status will be updated in the table to reflect that
state of implementation. As permits are received, DRPT will add the
conditions on those permits to this mitigation table to facilitate
monitoring of, and compliance with, those permit conditions.

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

The mitigation measures presented in the Final EIS and 2006 EA for the
LPA may not be altered or eliminated from the Project except by FTA's
written consent following an appropriate supplemental environmental
review. The Project sponsor 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 Final EIS;

(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns
    and bearing on the Project or its impacts would result in
    significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the Final EIS; or

(3) Where the significance of new impacts is uncertain.

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

+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **DU |                       |            |        |       |        |
| LLES |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CORR |                       |            |        |       |        |
| IDOR |                       |            |        |       |        |
| M    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ETRO |                       |            |        |       |        |
| RAIL |                       |            |        |       |        |
| P    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ROJE |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CT** |                       |            |        |       |        |
|      |                       |            |        |       |        |
| **   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| MEAS |                       |            |        |       |        |
| URES |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TO   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| MITI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| GATE |                       |            |        |       |        |
| E    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| NVIR |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ONME |                       |            |        |       |        |
| NTAL |                       |            |        |       |        |
| I    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| MPAC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+======+=======================+============+========+=======+========+
| **Mi | **Mitigation          | **Implem   | *      | **Tim | **St   |
| tiga | Commitment^1^**       | entation** | *Respo | ing** | atus** |
| tion |                       |            | nsible |       |        |
| ID** |                       | **and      | Party  |       |        |
|      |                       | Mo         | ^2^**  |       |        |
|      |                       | nitoring** |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| LAND |                       |            |        |       |        |
| USE  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| AND  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| SOCI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| OECO |                       |            |        |       |        |
| NOMI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| LU-1 | Continue coordination | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | with Fairfax County,  | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | Loudoun County and    | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | Town of Herndon to    | design and |        |       |        |
|      | encourage appropriate | con        |        | Co    |        |
|      | transit-oriented      | struction. |        | nstru |        |
|      | development at        |            |        | ction |        |
|      | station locations.    |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| LU-2 | Incorporate Tysons    | Monitor    | DRPT,  | D     |        |
|      | West station          | compliance | in     | esign |        |
|      | park-and-ride         | during     | coordi |       |        |
|      | requirements (500     | design.    | nation |       |        |
|      | spaces) into Fairfax  |            | with   |       |        |
|      | County Comprehensive  |            | F      |       |        |
|      | Plan.                 |            | airfax |       |        |
|      |                       |            | County |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| LU-3 | Assist Fairfax County | P          | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | in pursuing           | articipate |        | esign |        |
|      | joint-development     | in the     |        |       |        |
|      | opportunities at the  | Fairfax    |        |       |        |
|      | Wiehle Avenue         | County     |        |       |        |
|      | station.              | joint-d    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | evelopment |        |       |        |
|      |                       | so         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | licitation |        |       |        |
|      |                       | process.   |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| PROP |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ERTY |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ACQ  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| UISI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TION |                       |            |        |       |        |
| AND  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| DIS  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| PLAC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| EMEN |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| RW-1 | Conduct all property  | Monitor    | DRPT   | Ri    |        |
|      | acquisitions in       | compliance |        | ght-o |        |
|      | accordance with the   | during     |        | f-Way |        |
|      | Uniform Relocation    | ri         |        | A     |        |
|      | Assistance and Real   | ght-of-way |        | cquis |        |
|      | Property Acquisition  | a          |        | ition |        |
|      | Act of 1970, as       | cquisition |        | and   |        |
|      | amended.              | and        |        | Co    |        |
|      |                       | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        | ction |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| RW-2 | Prepare detailed      | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Property Acquisition  | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | and Relocation Plan.  | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design.    |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| RW-3 | Provide relocation    | Monitor    | DRPT   | Ri    |        |
|      | assistance to all     | compliance |        | ght-o |        |
|      | displaced property or | during     |        | f-Way |        |
|      | business owners       | ri         |        | A     |        |
|      | without               | ght-of-way |        | cquis |        |
|      | discrimination.       | a          |        | ition |        |
|      |                       | cquisition |        | and   |        |
|      |                       | and        |        | Co    |        |
|      |                       | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        | ction |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| RW-4 | Acquire property      | I          | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | interest in the       | ncorporate | in     | esign |        |
|      | median and other      | property   | coordi | and   |        |
|      | parts of the Dulles   | transfer   | nation | Ri    |        |
|      | Connector Road and    | and use    | with   | ght-o |        |
|      | Dulles International  | terms into | MWAA   | f-Way |        |
|      | Airport Access        | intergo    | and    | A     |        |
|      | Highway and in parts  | vernmental | FAA    | cquis |        |
|      | of the Dulles Airport | ag         |        | ition |        |
|      | property sufficient   | reement(s) |        |       |        |
|      | to allow DRPT or      | with MWAA, |        |       |        |
|      | WMATA's continuing    | FAA,       |        |       |        |
|      | control and use of    | and/or     |        |       |        |
|      | Project facilities    | U.S. DOT.  |        |       |        |
|      | for the Project's     |            |        |       |        |
|      | useful life.          |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **VI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| SUAL |                       |            |        |       |        |
| and  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| A    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ESTH |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ETIC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| COND |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ITIO |                       |            |        |       |        |
| NS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| VS-1 | Consider designs for  | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Metrorail stations,   | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | aerial structures,    | during     |        |       |        |
|      | and portals that are  | design;    |        |       |        |
|      | compatible with the   | include in |        |       |        |
|      | surrounding           | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | environment.          | drawings   |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and specs. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| VS-2 | Provide landscaping   | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | at stations.          | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      |                       | drawings   |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | speci      |        |       |        |
|      |                       | fications. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| VS-3 | Using established     | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | WMATA designs, design | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | traction power        | during     |        |       |        |
|      | substations and       | design;    |        |       |        |
|      | tie-breaker stations  | include in |        |       |        |
|      | to be compatible with | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | surrounding           | drawings   |        |       |        |
|      | environment.          | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | speci      |        |       |        |
|      |                       | fications. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CULT |                       |            |        |       |        |
| URAL |                       |            |        |       |        |
| R    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ESOU |                       |            |        |       |        |
| RCES |                       |            |        |       |        |
| /SEC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TION |                       |            |        |       |        |
| 4(   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| f)** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CR-1 | Lower the at-grade    | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Metrorail alignment   | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | in the DIAAH median   | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | to the extent         |            |        |       |        |
|      | practicable to        |            |        |       |        |
|      | preserve historic     |            |        |       |        |
|      | "peek-a-boo" view     |            |        |       |        |
|      | sequence of main      |            |        |       |        |
|      | terminal control      |            |        |       |        |
|      | tower.                |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CR-2 | Develop treatment     | Monitor    | DRPT,  | D     |        |
|      | plan and implement    | compliance | in     | esign |        |
|      | specific measures     | during     | coordi | and   |        |
|      | (e.g., interpretive   | design and | nation | Co    |        |
|      | exhibits, public      | con        | with   | nstru |        |
|      | artwork, or photo     | struction. | MWAA   | ction |        |
|      | documentation) to     |            | and    |       |        |
|      | highlight Dulles      |            | VDHR   |       |        |
|      | Airport's unique      |            |        |       |        |
|      | historic              |            |        |       |        |
|      | characteristics.      |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CR-3 | Consider the historic | Monitor    | DRPT,  | D     |        |
|      | characteristics and   | compliance | in     | esign |        |
|      | other contributing    | during     | coordi |       |        |
|      | elements of the       | design;    | nation |       |        |
|      | Dulles Airport        | include in | with   |       |        |
|      | historic district in  | contract   | MWAA   |       |        |
|      | the design of the     | drawings   | and    |       |        |
|      | station, terminal     | and        | VDHR   |       |        |
|      | connections, aerial   | speci      |        |       |        |
|      | structures, and       | fications. |        |       |        |
|      | tunnel portals.       |            |        |       |        |
|      | Review these proposed |            |        |       |        |
|      | designs with the VA   |            |        |       |        |
|      | SHPO.                 |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| *    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| *PAR |                       |            |        |       |        |
| KLAN |                       |            |        |       |        |
| DS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| PK-1 | Design and construct  | Include    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Metrorail overpass of | re         |        | esign |        |
|      | the W&OD Railroad     | quirements |        | and   |        |
|      | Regional Park in      | in         |        | Co    |        |
|      | accordance with the   | contract   |        | nstru |        |
|      | *NVRPA Guideline for  | speci      |        | ction |        |
|      | the Development of    | fications. |        |       |        |
|      | W&OD Trail Bridge     | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | Crossings*.           | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| PK-2 | Maintain use and      | Monitor    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | access to the W&OD    | compliance |        | nstru |        |
|      | Railroad Regional     | during     |        | ction |        |
|      | Park, Pimmit Run      | con        |        |       |        |
|      | Stream Valley Park,   | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | Scotts Run Stream     |            |        |       |        |
|      | Valley Park, and      |            |        |       |        |
|      | Difficult Run Stream  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Valley Park during    |            |        |       |        |
|      | construction.         |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| PK-3 | Minimize disruption   | Monitor    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | to the W&OD Railroad  | compliance |        | nstru |        |
|      | Regional Park, Pimmit | during     |        | ction |        |
|      | Run Stream Valley     | con        |        |       |        |
|      | Park, Scotts Run      | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | Stream Valley Park,   |            |        |       |        |
|      | and Difficult Run     |            |        |       |        |
|      | Stream Valley Park    |            |        |       |        |
|      | during construction.  |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| PK-4 | Following completion  | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | of construction,      | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | restore all disturbed | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | public parklands to   | in         |        |       |        |
|      | pre-construction      | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | conditions.           | spec       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| PK-5 | Continue coordination | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | with Fairfax County   | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | and the Northern      | during     |        |       |        |
|      | Virginia Regional     | design.    |        |       |        |
|      | Park Authority on the |            |        |       |        |
|      | design of the Project |            |        |       |        |
|      | in the vicinity of    |            |        |       |        |
|      | public parklands.     |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **SA |                       |            |        |       |        |
| FETY |                       |            |        |       |        |
| AND  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| SE   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CURI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TY** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SS-1 | Update WMATA Safety   | As         | WMATA, | D     |        |
|      | and Security Program  | required,  | in     | esign |        |
|      | with elements         | include    | coordi | and   |        |
|      | required by           | necessary  | nation | Co    |        |
|      | Transportation        | elements   | with   | nstru |        |
|      | Security              | in         | MWAA   | ction |        |
|      | Administration or the | contract   | and    |       |        |
|      | Metropolitan          | documents. | TSA    |       |        |
|      | Washington Airports   | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | Authority.            | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SS-2 | Develop mutual aid    | Monitor    | DRPT,  | D     |        |
|      | agreements for        | compliance | in     | esign |        |
|      | emergency response    | during     | coordi | and   |        |
|      | with local            | design and | nation | Co    |        |
|      | jurisdictions.        | con        | with   | nstru |        |
|      |                       | struction. | MWAA,  | ction |        |
|      |                       |            | WMATA, |       |        |
|      |                       |            | F      |       |        |
|      |                       |            | airfax |       |        |
|      |                       |            | and    |       |        |
|      |                       |            | L      |       |        |
|      |                       |            | oudoun |       |        |
|      |                       |            | Co     |       |        |
|      |                       |            | unties |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SS-3 | Locate tunnel exits   | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | of any kind,          | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | including vent        | drawings.  |        | and   |        |
|      | shafts, emergency     |            |        | Co    |        |
|      | access shafts or any  |            |        | nstru |        |
|      | other kinds of        |            |        | ction |        |
|      | openings outside the  |            |        |       |        |
|      | secure zone of the    |            |        |       |        |
|      | airport.              |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **W  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ATER |                       |            |        |       |        |
| RES  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| OURC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ES** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-1 | Plant riparian        | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | buffers near the      | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | affected areas for    | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | two streams           | in         |        |       |        |
|      | \[Tributaries W-50    | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | and W-51\] converted  | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | to culvert or pipe.   | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-2 | Provide compensatory  | Purchase   | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | mitigation for        | additional |        | esign |        |
|      | unavoidable wetlands  | credits at |        | and   |        |
|      | impacts associated    | an         |        | Co    |        |
|      | with the Service &    | existing   |        | nstru |        |
|      | Inspection Yard on    | regional   |        | ction |        |
|      | Dulles Airport        | wetland    |        |       |        |
|      | property, stations,   | bank.      |        |       |        |
|      | and ancillary         | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | facilities. A 1:1     | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | replacement ratio for | during     |        |       |        |
|      | impacts to emergent   | design and |        |       |        |
|      | wetlands and 2:1      | con        |        |       |        |
|      | replacement ratio for | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | impacts to forested   |            |        |       |        |
|      | wetlands will be      |            |        |       |        |
|      | used.                 |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-3 | Acquire applicable    | Include,   | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Federal and state     | as         | in     | esign |        |
|      | water resource        | a          | coordi | and   |        |
|      | permits required for  | pplicable, | nation | Co    |        |
|      | construction.         | in the     | with   | nstru |        |
|      | Incorporate any       | contract   | USACOE | ction |        |
|      | permit conditions     | drawings   | and    |       |        |
|      | into required         | and        | VDEQ   |       |        |
|      | mitigation measures   | speci      |        |       |        |
|      |                       | fications. |        |       |        |
|      |                       | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-4 | Avoid changes in      | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | floodplain            | the        |        | esign |        |
|      | elevation(s) of more  | contract   |        | and   |        |
|      | than 1 foot.          | drawings   |        | Co    |        |
|      |                       | and        |        | nstru |        |
|      |                       | speci      |        | ction |        |
|      |                       | fications. |        |       |        |
|      |                       | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-5 | Coordinate design of  | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | new crossings with    | the        |        | esign |        |
|      | Fairfax and Loudoun   | contract   |        | and   |        |
|      | Counties to ensure    | drawings   |        | Co    |        |
|      | consistency with      | and        |        | nstru |        |
|      | stream protection     | speci      |        | ction |        |
|      | policies.             | fications. |        |       |        |
|      |                       | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-6 | Coordinate with the   | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Federal Aviation      | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | Administration to     | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | ensure compliance     | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | with FAA Advisory     | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | Circular No.          | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | 150/5200-33 and       |            |        |       |        |
|      | control potentially   |            |        |       |        |
|      | hazardous wildlife    |            |        |       |        |
|      | from interfering with |            |        |       |        |
|      | airport operations    |            |        |       |        |
|      | and safety.           |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-7 | Coordinate the design | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | of the stormwater     | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | management pond at    | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | the West Falls Church | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | Yard with the Fairfax | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | County Department of  | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | Public Works and      |            |        |       |        |
|      | Environmental         |            |        |       |        |
|      | Services and the      |            |        |       |        |
|      | Virginia Department   |            |        |       |        |
|      | of Conservation and   |            |        |       |        |
|      | Recreation to ensure  |            |        |       |        |
|      | that it meets the     |            |        |       |        |
|      | stricter of state and |            |        |       |        |
|      | county requirements.  |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-8 | Coordinate with the   | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Virginia Department   | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | of Conservation and   | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | Recreation on the     | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | design of all         | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | Project-related       | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | stormwater management |            |        |       |        |
|      | facilities to ensure  |            |        |       |        |
|      | compliance with the   |            |        |       |        |
|      | provisions of the     |            |        |       |        |
|      | Chesapeake Bay        |            |        |       |        |
|      | Preservation Act.     |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| WR-9 | Coordinate with the   | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Virginia Marine       | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | Resources Commission  | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | to determine if the   | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | Project encroaches    | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | channelward of        | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | ordinary high water   |            |        |       |        |
|      | along streams and, if |            |        |       |        |
|      | it does, obtain the   |            |        |       |        |
|      | required permit.      |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| W    | Comply with all       | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
| R-10 | applicable            | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | requirements of the   | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | Virginia Coastal      | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | Resources Management  | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | Program.              | struction. |        | ction |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| W    | Coordinate with the   | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
| R-11 | Virginia Department   | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | of Environmental      | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | Quality to ensure     | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | compliance with the   | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | Fisheries Management  | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | enforceable policy of |            |        |       |        |
|      | the Virginia Coastal  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Resources Management  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Program.              |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| W    | Coordinate with the   | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
| R-12 | Virginia Department   | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | of Conservation and   | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | Recreation to ensure  | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | compliance with the   | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | requirements of the   | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | Chesapeake Bay        |            |        |       |        |
|      | Preservation Act      |            |        |       |        |
|      | (Virginia Code        |            |        |       |        |
|      | sections 10.1-2100    |            |        |       |        |
|      | [et                   |            |        |       |        |
|      | seq]{.underline}.)    |            |        |       |        |
|      | and the [Chesapeake   |            |        |       |        |
|      | Bay Preservation Area |            |        |       |        |
|      | Designation and       |            |        |       |        |
|      | Management            |            |        |       |        |
|      | Reg                   |            |        |       |        |
|      | ulations]{.underline} |            |        |       |        |
|      | (9 VAC 10-20-10 [et   |            |        |       |        |
|      | seq.]{.underline}).   |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| W    | Design and construct  | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
| R-13 | the Project in        | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | accordance with the   | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | Permitting Plan that  | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | the Virginia          | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | Department of         | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | Conservation and      |            |        |       |        |
|      | Recreation (the       |            |        |       |        |
|      | agency responsible    |            |        |       |        |
|      | for stormwater        |            |        |       |        |
|      | management) and       |            |        |       |        |
|      | Fairfax County (the   |            |        |       |        |
|      | local agency with     |            |        |       |        |
|      | jurisdiction for      |            |        |       |        |
|      | implementation of the |            |        |       |        |
|      | CBPA) have agreed to. |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| *    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| *NOI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| SE** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| NS-1 | All aerial sections   | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | of the PE Wiehle      | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | Avenue Extension will | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | include parapet walls |            |        |       |        |
|      | or trackside barriers |            |        |       |        |
|      | to minimize noise     |            |        |       |        |
|      | impacts due to train  |            |        |       |        |
|      | operations,           |            |        |       |        |
|      | consistent with FTA   |            |        |       |        |
|      | noise criteria.       |            |        |       |        |
|      | Parapet and/or        |            |        |       |        |
|      | trackside noise       |            |        |       |        |
|      | barriers of increased |            |        |       |        |
|      | height will be        |            |        |       |        |
|      | provided at sensitive |            |        |       |        |
|      | receptors specified   |            |        |       |        |
|      | in the Wayside Noise  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Report (April 2006    |            |        |       |        |
|      | and June 2006).       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| NS-2 | Install box structure | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | to the new lead track | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | and the existing loop | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | track at the West     |            |        |       |        |
|      | Falls Church Yard to  |            |        |       |        |
|      | reduce noise impacts  |            |        |       |        |
|      | from yard operations. |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| NS-3 | Analyze reflective    | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | highway noise impacts | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | to the Hallcrest      | during     |        |       |        |
|      | Heights residential   | design.    |        |       |        |
|      | community during      |            |        |       |        |
|      | preliminary           |            |        |       |        |
|      | engineering and/or    |            |        |       |        |
|      | final design.         |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| NS-4 | Comply with WMATA     | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | guidelines, Federal   | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | law (for Wolf Trap    | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | Farm Park) and local  | in         |        |       |        |
|      | noise ordinances, as  | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | applicable, during    | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | construction.         | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| *    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| *VIB |                       |            |        |       |        |
| RATI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ON** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| VB-1 | Utilize dampening     | Include in | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | materials or devices  | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | under switches and    | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | crossovers near       |            |        |       |        |
|      | sensitive receptors,  |            |        |       |        |
|      | consistent with FTA   |            |        |       |        |
|      | vibration criteria.   |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **TR |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ANSP |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ORTA |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TION |                       |            |        |       |        |
| EFF  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ECTS |                       |            |        |       |        |
| --   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| STA  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TION |                       |            |        |       |        |
| and  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| FACI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| LITY |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ACCE |                       |            |        |       |        |
| SS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-1 | *Tysons Central 123   | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Construct | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | dedicated right turn  | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | lane for buses on     |            |        |       |        |
|      | Tysons Boulevard and  |            |        |       |        |
|      | acceleration lane on  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Route 123.            |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-2 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Construct | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | new left turn lane    | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | northbound on Wiehle  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Avenue.               |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-3 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Construct | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | new left turn lane to | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | the eastbound Dulles  |            |        |       |        |
|      | Toll Road exit ramp   |            |        |       |        |
|      | at Wiehle Avenue.     |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-4 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Widen     | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | eastbound Sunset      | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | Hills Road between    |            |        |       |        |
|      | Wiehle Avenue and     |            |        |       |        |
|      | Isaac Newton Square   |            |        |       |        |
|      | and provide new left  |            |        |       |        |
|      | turn lane.            |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-5 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Improve   | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | private roadway south | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | of Sunset Hills Road  |            |        |       |        |
|      | to VDOT standards.    |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-6 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Construct | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | new entry for bus     | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | ingress to the north  |            |        |       |        |
|      | side station          |            |        |       |        |
|      | facilities from the   |            |        |       |        |
|      | westbound Dulles Toll |            |        |       |        |
|      | Road entry ramp.      |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-7 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Construct | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | new acceleration lane | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | for bus egress from   |            |        |       |        |
|      | the station           |            |        |       |        |
|      | facilities onto the   |            |        |       |        |
|      | westbound Dulles Toll |            |        |       |        |
|      | Road.                 |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-8 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | Station* -- Add bus   | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | bays on eastbound     | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | Dulles Toll Road exit |            |        |       |        |
|      | ramp.                 |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| SA-9 | *Route 606 Station*   | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
|      | -- Construct new left | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | turn lane to          | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | northbound Route 789  |            |        |       |        |
|      | at both the north and |            |        |       |        |
|      | south station         |            |        |       |        |
|      | entrances.            |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| S    | *Yard Site 15* --     | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
| A-10 | Construct new left    | contract   |        | esign |        |
|      | turn and acceleration | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | lanes on Route 606    |            |        |       |        |
|      | for vehicular access  |            |        |       |        |
|      | to yard facilities.   |            |        |       |        |
|      | Complete construction |            |        |       |        |
|      | of roadway            |            |        |       |        |
|      | improvements prior to |            |        |       |        |
|      | use of the Y15 yard   |            |        |       |        |
|      | site for construction |            |        |       |        |
|      | staging activities    |            |        |       |        |
|      | associated with the   |            |        |       |        |
|      | Extension to Wiehle   |            |        |       |        |
|      | Avenue.               |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| # TR |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ANSP |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ORTA |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TION |                       |            |        |       |        |
|  EFF |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ECTS |                       |            |        |       |        |
|  --  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| STAT |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ION  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| VICI |                       |            |        |       |        |
| NITY |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-1 | *Tysons East*         | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | S*tation* --          | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | Construct second left | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | turn lane from Old    | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Meadow Drive to       | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | southbound Route 123. | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      |                       | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-2 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* -- Improve   | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | right turn lane from  | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | eastbound Sunset      | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Hills Road to         | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | southbound Wiehle     | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      | Avenue.               | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-3 | *Wiehle Avenue        | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* -- Improve   | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | right turn lane from  | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | westbound Sunrise     | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Valley Drive to       | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | northbound Wiehle     | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      | Avenue.               | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-4 | *Reston Parkway       | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* -- Add       | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | northbound through    | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | lane on Reston        | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Parkway at Sunrise    | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | Valley Drive          | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      | intersection.         | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-5 | *Reston Parkway       | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* -- improve   | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | right turn lane from  | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | southbound Reston     | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Parkway to westbound  | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | Sunrise Valley Drive. | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      |                       | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-6 | *Herndon-Monroe       | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* -- Add left  | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | turn lane from        | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | southbound Monroe     | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Street to eastbound   | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | Sunrise Valley Drive. | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      |                       | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-7 | *Herndon-Monroe       | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* --improve    | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | right turn lane from  | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | eastbound Sunrise     | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | Valley Drive to       | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | southbound Fairfax    | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      | County Parkway.       | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-8 | *Herndon-Monroe       | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | Station* --modify     | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | lane configuration at | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | the Van Buren         | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | (Monroe) Street and   | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      | Herndon Parkway       | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      | intersection.         | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| TR-9 | *Route 606 Station*   | Provide    | DRPT,  | St    | #      |
|      | -- Add right turn     | funding    | in     | ation |        |
|      | lane from southbound  | for        | coope  | Op    |        |
|      | Route 789 to          | im         | ration | ening |        |
|      | westbound Route 606.  | provement. | with   |       |        |
|      |                       | Monitor    | VDOT   |       |        |
|      |                       | VDOT       |        |       |        |
|      |                       | design and |        |       |        |
|      |                       | co         |        |       |        |
|      |                       | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      |                       | a          |        |       |        |
|      |                       | ctivities. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| T    | Consult with VDOT and | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
| R-10 | Fairfax County to     | design and |        | esign |        |
|      | refine the design of  | co         |        |       |        |
|      | the reconstructed     | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      | portion of Route 7    | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | and associated        |            |        |       |        |
|      | pedestrian facilities |            |        |       |        |
|      | and landscaping along |            |        |       |        |
|      | Route 7.              |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| T    | In the Tysons Corner  | Include in | DRPT   | D     | #      |
| R-11 | area, any new         | design and |        | esign |        |
|      | pedestrian crossings  | co         |        |       |        |
|      | and modifications to  | nstruction |        |       |        |
|      | existing pedestrian   | drawings.  |        |       |        |
|      | crossings will be     |            |        |       |        |
|      | constructed to meet   |            |        |       |        |
|      | current VDOT design   |            |        |       |        |
|      | and safety standards, |            |        |       |        |
|      | unless a deviation    |            |        |       |        |
|      | form these standards  |            |        |       |        |
|      | is approved by VDOT   |            |        |       |        |
|      | and Fairfax County to |            |        |       |        |
|      | improve the           |            |        |       |        |
|      | pedestrian            |            |        |       |        |
|      | environment.          |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| **S  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ECON |                       |            |        |       |        |
| DARY |                       |            |        |       |        |
| AND  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CU   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| MULA |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TIVE |                       |            |        |       |        |
| E    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| FFEC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TS** |                       |            |        |       |        |
|      |                       |            |        |       |        |
| (S   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| econ |                       |            |        |       |        |
| dary |                       |            |        |       |        |
| or   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| cu   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| mula |                       |            |        |       |        |
| tive |                       |            |        |       |        |
| eff  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ects |                       |            |        |       |        |
| to   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| the  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| b    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| uilt |                       |            |        |       |        |
| and  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| nat  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ural |                       |            |        |       |        |
| env  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| iron |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ment |                       |            |        |       |        |
| r    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| esul |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ting |                       |            |        |       |        |
| from |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ad   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| diti |                       |            |        |       |        |
| onal |                       |            |        |       |        |
| sta  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| tion |                       |            |        |       |        |
| area |                       |            |        |       |        |
| dev  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| elop |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ment |                       |            |        |       |        |
| w    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ould |                       |            |        |       |        |
| be   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| m    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| itig |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ated |                       |            |        |       |        |
| thr  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ough |                       |            |        |       |        |
| co   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| mpli |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ance |                       |            |        |       |        |
| with |                       |            |        |       |        |
| Fai  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| rfax |                       |            |        |       |        |
| and  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| Lou  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| doun |                       |            |        |       |        |
| co   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| unti |                       |            |        |       |        |
| es\' |                       |            |        |       |        |
| land |                       |            |        |       |        |
| use  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| poli |                       |            |        |       |        |
| cies |                       |            |        |       |        |
| and  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| dev  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| elop |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ment |                       |            |        |       |        |
| pe   |                       |            |        |       |        |
| rmit |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ting |                       |            |        |       |        |
| pro  |                       |            |        |       |        |
| cess |                       |            |        |       |        |
| es.) |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| #    |                       |            |        |       |        |
| CONS |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TRUC |                       |            |        |       |        |
| TION |                       |            |        |       |        |
|  EFF |                       |            |        |       |        |
| ECTS |                       |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-1 | Comply with all       | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | applicable laws,      | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | regulations, and      | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | permit conditions in  | design and |        | Co    |        |
|      | designing and         | con        |        | nstru |        |
|      | constructing the      | struction. |        | ction |        |
|      | Project.              |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-2 | Develop Erosion and   | Include    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Sediment Control Plan | re         |        | esign |        |
|      | that complies with    | quirements |        | and   |        |
|      | state law.            | in         |        | Co    |        |
|      |                       | contract   |        | nstru |        |
|      |                       | spec       |        | ction |        |
|      |                       | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-3 | Develop Stormwater    | Include    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Management Plan and   | re         |        | esign |        |
|      | complies with state   | quirements |        | and   |        |
|      | law.                  | in         |        | Co    |        |
|      |                       | contract   |        | nstru |        |
|      |                       | spec       |        | ction |        |
|      |                       | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-4 | Use Best Management   | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | Practices recommended | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | in the *Virginia      | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | Stormwater Management | in         |        |       |        |
|      | Handbook* and the     | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | *Virginia Erosion and | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | Sediment Control      | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | Handbook,* and the    | and        |        |       |        |
|      | *Northern Virginia    | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | BMP Handbook* for     | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | stormwater management | during     |        |       |        |
|      | and groundwater       | con        |        |       |        |
|      | protection during     | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | construction.         |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-5 | Use Best Management   | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | Practices recommended | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | in the *Virginia      | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | Stormwater Management | in         |        |       |        |
|      | Handbook* and the     | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | *Virginia Erosion and | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | Sediment Control      | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | Handbook,* and the    | and        |        |       |        |
|      | *Northern Virginia    | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | BMP Handbook* to      | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | minimize stream       | during     |        |       |        |
|      | disturbance during    | con        |        |       |        |
|      | construction.         | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-6 | Consult with the      | Determine  | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Virginia Department   | re         |        | esign |        |
|      | of Conservation and   | quirements |        | and   |        |
|      | Recreation and        | during     |        | Co    |        |
|      | acquire any permits   | design and |        | nstru |        |
|      | or approvals          | in         |        | ction |        |
|      | necessary for         | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | construction in       | speci      |        |       |        |
|      | floodplains.          | fications. |        |       |        |
|      |                       | Monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-7 | Consult with the      | Monitor    | DRPT   | D     |        |
|      | Virginia Marine       | compliance |        | esign |        |
|      | Resource Commission   | during     |        | and   |        |
|      | and, if deemed        | con        |        | Co    |        |
|      | necessary by the      | struction. |        | nstru |        |
|      | Commission, acquire   |            |        | ction |        |
|      | necessary permits for |            |        |       |        |
|      | encroachments in, on, |            |        |       |        |
|      | or over state-owned   |            |        |       |        |
|      | rivers, streams, or   |            |        |       |        |
|      | creeks from the       |            |        |       |        |
|      | Commission.           |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-8 | Conduct Project       | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | in-stream             | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | construction          | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | activities in         | in         |        |       |        |
|      | low-flow conditions   | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | following Virginia    | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | Department of Game    | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | and Inland Fisheries  | and        |        |       |        |
|      | guidelines.           | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| CN-9 | Conduct surveys to    | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
|      | determine the         | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | presence of mussel    | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | species six months    | in         |        |       |        |
|      | prior to any          | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | construction          | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | activities that       | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | affect perennial      | and        |        |       |        |
|      | streams. Relocate all | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | encountered mussels   | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | to suitable habitat   | during     |        |       |        |
|      | to avoid              | con        |        |       |        |
|      | construction-related  | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | impacts.              |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Prepare and           | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-10 | distribute            | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | information sheet on  | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | the identification    | in         |        |       |        |
|      | and treatment of wood | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | turtles to            | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | construction          | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | contractors. Require  | and        |        |       |        |
|      | contractors to        | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | relocate any wood     | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | turtles encountered   | during     |        |       |        |
|      | to suitable habitat   | con        |        |       |        |
|      | in the nearest        | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | perennial stream      |            |        |       |        |
|      | under the supervision |            |        |       |        |
|      | of a qualified        |            |        |       |        |
|      | biologist.            |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Prior to the start of | Include    | DRPT   | P     |        |
| N-18 | construction          | re         |        | re-co |        |
|      | activities, conduct   | quirements |        | nstru |        |
|      | surveys (using a      | in         |        | ction |        |
|      | qualified and         | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | permitted biologist)  | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | to determine the      | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | presence of wood      | and        |        |       |        |
|      | turtles in the        | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | vicinity of Pimmit    | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | Run and Difficult     | during     |        |       |        |
|      | Run. Any wood turtles | con        |        |       |        |
|      | encountered will be   | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | safely relocated to a |            |        |       |        |
|      | suitable habitat in   |            |        |       |        |
|      | the nearest perennial |            |        |       |        |
|      | stream. The survey    |            |        |       |        |
|      | and relocation shall  |            |        |       |        |
|      | be accomplished just  |            |        |       |        |
|      | before construction   |            |        |       |        |
|      | in order to prevent   |            |        |       |        |
|      | turtles from          |            |        |       |        |
|      | wandering into the    |            |        |       |        |
|      | Project area.         |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Minimize impacts to   | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-19 | Pimmit Run and        | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | Difficult Run during  | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | construction. The     | in         |        |       |        |
|      | mitigation of such    | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | impacts includes      | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | protection of the     | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | floodplains and       | and        |        |       |        |
|      | tributaries of these  | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | streams.              | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Limit impacts to      | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-20 | riparian buffers of   | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | 300 feet in width     | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | along Pimmit Run and  | in         |        |       |        |
|      | Difficult Run and of  | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | 100 feet in width     | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | along all other       | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | streams, including    | and        |        |       |        |
|      | intermittent streams. | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | Revegetate using      | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | native plant          | during     |        |       |        |
|      | materials within      | con        |        |       |        |
|      | permitted levels of   | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | disturbance.          |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Coordinate with the   | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-21 | Virginia Department   | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | of Conservation and   | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | Recreation to ensure  | in         |        |       |        |
|      | that the requirements | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | of the Virginia       | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | Erosion and Sediment  | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | Control Law are met.  | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Coordinate with the   | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-22 | Virginia Departments  | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | of Environmental      | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | Quality and of        | in         |        |       |        |
|      | Conservation and      | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | Recreation to ensure  | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | that the requirements | ifications |        |       |        |
|      | for the Virginia      | and        |        |       |        |
|      | Pollutant Discharge   | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | Elimination System    | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | (VPDES) program are   | during     |        |       |        |
|      | met and VPDES         | con        |        |       |        |
|      | stormwater permit for | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | construction is       |            |        |       |        |
|      | obtained.             |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Comply with local     | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-11 | regulations governing | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | noise and vibration   | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | during construction   | in         |        |       |        |
|      | and use construction  | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | methods that minimize | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | vibration.            | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Comply with VDEQ      | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-12 | requirements for      | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | fugitive dust control | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | (9 VAC 5-50-60 et.    | in         |        |       |        |
|      | seq.) and open        | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | burning (9 VAC        | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | 5-40-5600 et. seq.).  | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Prepare maintenance   | Develop    | DRPT,  | D     |        |
| N-13 | of traffic plans to   | m          | in     | esign |        |
|      | address               | aintenance | coordi | and   |        |
|      | construction-related  | of traffic | nation | Co    |        |
|      | traffic management    | plans and  | with   | nstru |        |
|      | and detours.          | monitor    | VDOT   | ction |        |
|      |                       | compliance | and    |       |        |
|      |                       | during     | MWAA   |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Maintain access       | Develop    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-14 | (pedestrian and       | outreach   |        | nstru |        |
|      | vehicular) to         | program    |        | ction |        |
|      | existing businesses   | and        |        |       |        |
|      | during construction.  | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      | Communicate with      | compliance |        |       |        |
|      | affected businesses   | during     |        |       |        |
|      | and residents in      | con        |        |       |        |
|      | order to minimize     | struction. |        |       |        |
|      | construction effects. |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Engage affected       | Develop    | DRPT   | D     |        |
| N-15 | stakeholders to       | outreach   |        | esign |        |
|      | participate in the    | program    |        | and   |        |
|      | development of        | and        |        | Co    |        |
|      | mitigation measures   | monitor    |        | nstru |        |
|      | for construction      | compliance |        | ction |        |
|      | effects and           | during     |        |       |        |
|      | maintenance of        | design and |        |       |        |
|      | traffic plans.        | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Coordinate            | Monitor    | DRPT,  | Co    |        |
| N-16 | construction          | compliance | in     | nstru |        |
|      | activities with VDOT  | during     | coordi | ction |        |
|      | for                   | co         | nation |       |        |
|      | Commonwealth-owned    | nstruction | with   |       |        |
|      | roadways and MWAA for |            | VDOT   |       |        |
|      | Dulles Airport        |            | and    |       |        |
|      | property, including   |            | MWAA   |       |        |
|      | the DIAAH.            |            |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+
| C    | Comply with federal,  | Include    | DRPT   | Co    |        |
| N-17 | state, and local      | re         |        | nstru |        |
|      | regulations governing | quirements |        | ction |        |
|      | the use and handling  | in         |        |       |        |
|      | of hazardous          | contract   |        |       |        |
|      | materials during      | spec       |        |       |        |
|      | construction.         | ifications |        |       |        |
|      |                       | and        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | monitor    |        |       |        |
|      |                       | compliance |        |       |        |
|      |                       | during     |        |       |        |
|      |                       | con        |        |       |        |
|      |                       | struction. |        |       |        |
+------+-----------------------+------------+--------+-------+--------+

**Notes:**

^1^ See the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 2006 EA for
complete descriptions of the mitigation measures.

^2^ Additional agencies may monitor compliance or review activities
associated with permits and regulatory approvals; Up to now, the DRPT
has been the lead sponsoring agency and the primary responsible party
for implementing mitigation commitments. However, the MWAA is working
with DRPT and FTA to take over as the lead sponsor, and if this should
occur, MWAA will become the responsible party wherever DPRT has been. As
a condition of any grant, FTA will require that the project sponsor
construct the Project in accordance with this ROD and the environmental
record referenced herein.

.

**Acronyms:**

**DRPT** -- Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

**FAA** -- Federal Aviation Administration

**MWAA** -- Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

**SHPO --** State Historic Preservation Office

**TSA** -- Transportation Security Administration

**USACOE** -- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

**U.S. DOT** -- U. S Department of Transportation

**VDCR -- Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation**

**VDEQ** -- Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

**VDHR** -- Virginia Department of Historic Resources

**VDOT** -- Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

**WMATA** -- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

ATTACHMENT B

2006 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

**1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action**

## 

## General Support for the Project

**Public Comment:** Despite some reservations about the proposed design
changes, especially those that will affect accessibility, we are highly
supportive of the effort to provide Metrorail in Tysons Corner and the
Dulles Corridor. We look forward to having service soon.

> ***Response:** FTA and DRPT have reconsidered the proposed changes
> that would affect accessibility by pedestrians, especially elderly and
> disabled pedestrians, and have decided to retain the pedestrian
> facilities and elevators in question.*

## 2. Public Involvement 

**Public Comment:** I urge you to embrace citizen input as you move
forward with decisions on Metro in Tysons. Rushing Metrorail
construction to provide access to Dulles Airport raises concerns that
months of community input, especially on the Tysons Corner portion, will
be forgotten.

> ***Response:** Public input has always been an important component of
> the decision-making process on this project. DRPT and WMATA prepared
> public hearing reports after each hearing and made those reports
> available to the public. DRPT has maintained a public Web site to make
> available documents related to the Project and to provide the public
> with information about public meetings, Project status, and other
> items.*

**Public Comment:** I do not think these hearings are necessary or
sufficient. This project needs to go to the ballot box.

> ***Response:** The public hearing on the EA was held to facilitate
> public participation in the continuing environmental review process
> for this Project. The Commonwealth of Virginia, not the FTA, would
> determine the need for a referendum on the Project.*

**3. Agency Coordination**

**Comment:** The EA indicates that DRPT has reviewed plans for the
proposed stormwater management pond with the Department of Conservation,
Fairfax County, and WMATA, and that these agencies agree that the
proposed pond is appropriate (page 3-24). Fairfax County\'s Department
of Planning and Zoning is unable, so far, to identify the agency or
person that reviewed the plans for the pond, and so does not know the
basis of the statement.

> ***Response:** The plans for the stormwater management pond in
> question were provided to the Fairfax County Department of Public
> Works and Environmental Services (DPWES), Land Development Services.
> DPWES has reached an agreement with DRPT and the Virginia Department
> of Conservation and Recreation that this pond and all of the other
> Project related stormwater management facilities will be designed to
> meet the stricter of either state or county requirements.*
>
> *A letter to this effect has been submitted by Fairfax County to the
> Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to indicate that the
> outstanding agency coordination needed to complete the Coastal Zone
> Consistency Review has been completed.*

**Public Comment:** As a way to ensure that the project remains one of
regional benefit, the City of Falls Church calls for the creation of a
Dulles Rail Policy Committee, composed of elected representatives from
each of the Virginia jurisdictions, including the City of Falls Church.

> ***Response:** Chapters 5, 6, and 10 of the Final EIS (December 2004)
> clearly show the regional benefits of the Project. None of the design
> refinements evaluated in the EA would affect these anticipated
> benefits. The Commonwealth of Virginia, not the FTA, would determine
> the need for such policy committee.*

## 4. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Role in Project

**Public Comment:** MWAA should take over the Dulles Toll Road to ensure
that revenue is available for improvements in Dulles Corridor, including
rail to the airport.

**Public Comment:** The Dulles Rail Corridor Association embraces the
agreement between the state and the Airports Authority, and looks
forward to expediting this project.

**Public Comment:** How is this document relevant, given the takeover of
the project by MWAA?

**Public Comment:** Is the change of ownership to the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority going to change the relationship with the
Federal Transit Administration? Will that affect the cost-effectiveness
metric that's driving all these changes? Will local official objections
to the new MWAA relationship delay construction and operation of the
system?

> ***Response:** These issues were not related to the design refinements
> studied in the EA. The agreements between the Commonwealth and MWAA
> are currently under development and at this time, any changes in the
> scope, timing, and funding for the two phases of the Project are not
> known. FTA will require, as a condition of any FTA funding for the
> Project, that the Project's sponsor, be it DRPT or MWAA, design and
> build the Project in accordance with the Final EIS, 2006 EA, and this
> Amended Record of Decision.*

**5. Cost Saving Priorities and Preferences**

**Public Comment:** The design and construction of the rail system
should be first based on what is best for the riders and the community,
and then on the resources found to accomplish it.

**Public Comment:** Make every economy you can that is not
short-sighted.

**Public Comment:** The proposed design changes are necessary to make
the project cost-effective and keep it on schedule. Some of the features
we would have preferred to see in the plans should be deferred to move
ahead as quickly as possible. We can find a way to add these
enhancements back in after the project is built. An affordable rail
line, even with decreased accessibility, is better than no rail line at
all.

> ***Response:** In response to the many public comments on the
> accessibility issue, FTA and DRPT have decided to retain the elevators
> that the EA proposed for deletion as a cost savings measure. FTA and
> DRPT are committed to developing a cost-effective Project that meets
> the goals of the surrounding community.*

**Public Comment:** If you need to save money, cut back on the amenities
that won't affect the system's ability to carry passengers. Reduce the
number of escalators. Bring the line to the surface. But don't reduce
the number of rail cars.

> ***Response:** A reduction in the number of rail cars for the
> Extension to Wiehle Avenue was not a design refinement evaluated in
> the EA.*

**Public Comment:** With the scaling back of the design, certain choices
are going to be irrevocable. Once we build it above ground, we are not
going to be able to move it underground. So let's not make decisions
that damage what was previously a nice, urban friendly design.

**Public Comment:** Given the potential new fiscal capacity provided by
the project being turned over to MWAA, the Greater Washington Board of
Trade urges reinstating the design features that might adversely impact
future transit-oriented development in Tysons Corner if left out.

> ***Response:** The underground section of the alignment within Tysons
> Corner was shortened approximately 2,300 feet and raised approximately
> 45 feet. The Tysons Central 7 Station, previously proposed to be
> underground would now be at-grade. Other design changes include
> shifting the Tysons East Station to avoid stream impacts, moving the
> alignment to the median of the Route 7, reconstructing Route 7 to
> eliminate the service roadways and to add an additional through lane,
> and other minor modifications to station layouts.*
>
> *Pedestrian bridges continue to be part of the design. In addition,
> DRPT is not advancing the design refinement evaluated in the EA that
> would have eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances.
> The plans for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will be
> modified to include redundant elevators and associated equipment.*
>
> *The design refinements considered in the EA would result in minimal
> change in the transit-oriented development (TOD) potential in the
> station areas. The county's plans allow for an increase in intensity
> in each station area as well as a more diverse mix of uses if transit
> is implemented. The analysis of the potential for TOD documented in
> the Draft EIS is primarily dependent on the location of the stations,
> the existing uses within the station areas, and the amount of vacant
> or underutilized land.*
>
> *In May 2006, following the circulation of the EA and the close of the
> public comment period, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation
> commissioned an independent panel to investigate the feasibility and
> cost-effectiveness of constructing the aerial segment through Tyson's
> Corner in tunnel rather than on aerial structure. After reviewing the
> panel's findings and conferring with Federal, state and local
> officials, the Commonwealth made a determination to drop the tunnel
> alternative due to cost and schedule concerns and to advance the
> Project as described in this Amended Record of Decision.*

**Public Comment:** The accessibility of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail
Project is not an acceptable trade-off for cost savings. If we can't
build a system that will provide for easy accessibility and maximum
ridership, then we should not build the project. It is not reasonable to
expect that developers would restore critical pedestrian connections or
accessibility features after the fact. The project should be built right
from the start. The current cost containment efforts are short-sighted.
The project team should restore the features that ensure accessibility
for everyone and find a different way to save costs.

> ***Response:** Though narrower in width than originally proposed in
> the Final EIS, the pedestrian bridges continue to be part of the
> Project design. In response to public and agency comments, DRPT is not
> advancing the design refinement evaluated in the 2006 EA that would
> have eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances. The
> plans for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will include
> redundant elevators and associated equipment as originally proposed in
> the Final EIS.*

**Public Comment:** To save costs, I propose that the owners of
properties where the pedestrian bridges land should fund the
construction of the bridges.

**Public Comment:** Under no circumstances should pedestrian bridges be
value engineered out of the project or effectively cost shifted to
adjacent landowners as some have recently said in newspaper reports.

**Public Comment:** If the money won't cover pedestrian bridges, have
the County provide the bridges and all the sidewalks and roads. The
bridges are needed to safely cross Route 7 and Route 123.

> ***Response:** The design refinements resulting from the 2006 EA do
> not include elimination of the pedestrian bridges over Routes 123 or
> 7. The bridges remain in the Project's current design as does the
> elevator access to those bridges.*

# 6. Alternatives Evaluated

## PE Wiehle Avenue Extension -- Alignment 

**Public Comment:** Revised alignment drawings are submitted for review
and consideration. Revisions may or may not reduce costs.

> ***Response:** The suggestions submitted by the commenter were
> revisions of earlier plans that have already been superseded. Many of
> the suggestions proposed by the commenter have been integrated into
> the current design.*

**Public Comment:** Lowering the aerial structures is important for
aesthetics and cost. The project team should allow 4 to 5 percent grades
where trains are slowing to stop and accelerating to proceed.

> ***Response:** These recommended changes in the aerial structure
> grades are not possible because WMATA's design criteria call for a
> maximum slope of 4 percent.*

**Public Comment:** The West Falls Church yard connection is
particularly unnecessary since a yard will be built in Loudoun County.
Temporary operating inconvenience is tolerable.

> ***Response:** The new yard lead and the storage track improvements at
> West Falls Church Yard are necessary to support operation of the
> Wiehle Avenue Extension until the new Service and Inspection Yard is
> constructed on Dulles Airport property as part of the Project's second
> phase, the Extension to Dulles Airport/Route 772.*

**Public Comment:** The alignment along what we call the Cleveland site
between Colshire Drive and Anderson Road should be put back into its
previous alignment profile. The currently proposed alignment requires
more private property than the previously planned alignment.

> ***Response:** The vertical profile of this portion of the alignment
> was lowered to reduce capital costs, and the Tysons East station was
> shifted to avoid impacts to Scotts Run. The alignment referenced in
> the comment, previously presented in the Final EIS, is not compatible
> with the current design of the Tysons East station and its approaches.
> The current design is presented in the 2006 EA and is now part of the
> Project that is the subject of this Amended Record of Decision.*

**Public Comment:** An alternate site should be found for the temporary
construction easement which has been shown in some plans on Cleveland
Building parking lot.

[]{.mark}

> ***Response:** The proposed use of this site for construction staging
> has been included in Project plans and coordinated with the property
> owner since 2003. The site, which is slated for future redevelopment,
> currently includes an older office building that has been vacant for
> several years. DRPT will compensate the property owner for any
> temporary use of the property for construction-related activities in
> accordance with applicable Federal and state laws, including the
> Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and its
> implementing regulation (49 CFR part 24).*

**Public Comment:** A single box girder configuration on single piers
which combines both tracks should be utilized rather than the proposed
paired box girder configuration. This would improve the aesthetics and
possibly provide the opportunity for greater spacing between columns.

> ***Response:** Single piers and box girders have been used where
> possible, up to the point of the alignment where the track centers
> widen for the Tysons East station. A single pier and box girder
> configuration cannot be used for the station portion of the
> alignment.*

**Public Comment:** The viaduct at Colshire Drive and at Old Meadow Road
is too low and designed in a way that would preclude the future
possibility of grade separated road connections across Route 123 at
these key intersections. This could dramatically limit the potential for
improved road network access along this critical roadway.

> ***Response:** Grade separation of these intersections is not
> currently planned or programmed for construction by VDOT, Fairfax
> County, or the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments in their
> future transportation plans.*

**Public Comment:** We strongly believe that the Metrorail viaduct and
Tysons East Station should be realigned from the northern edge of Route
123 to the centerline of Route 123 between the Dulles Access Road and
the 1-495 Interchanges. We understand this option may need to be
evaluated under a separate environmental assessment.

> ***Response:** A shift in the Project's alignment from the north side
> to the median of Route 123 was not a design refinement evaluated in
> the EA. Over the long course of the EIS and EA, DRPT and Fairfax
> County have considered several possible configurations along Routes
> 123 and 7 and have settled on the configuration described in the 2006
> EA that is now part of the Project. Cost, system accessibility,
> property needs, disruption of adjacent land uses, and other
> considerations factored into this decision.*

## 

## PE Wiehle Avenue Extension -- Stations

**Public Comment:** The current plans should show a proposed future
station at Wolf Trap. The project should include engineering to ensure
that, at whatever future date it does make sense financially to have a
station there, it can be placed with minimal impact.

> ***Response:** The Project's current design does not include a station
> at Wolf Trap Farm Park. The current design includes a 1,400-foot
> section of retained fill to accommodate a future station at this
> location.*

**Public Comment:** The Tysons East Station should be moved back to a
location as close as possible to the previously planned location
equidistant between Colshire Drive and at Old Meadow Road.

> ***Response:** This station platform and pier locations were shifted
> to their current locations based on coordination with environmental
> resource agencies and associated permitting requirements.*

## PE Wiehle Avenue Extension -- Ancillary Facilities

**Public Comment:** Fairfax County recommends that DRPT and WMATA
coordinate with the County\'s Department of Public Works and
Environmental Services regarding the need for, the location of, and the
design of the stormwater management facility proposed for the West Falls
Church Rail Yard. If it is confirmed that the construction of the
proposed stormwater pond would be desirable and appropriate, the pond
should be designed and located to minimize impacts, as much as possible,
to the Resource Protection Area. The facility should also be designed
and constructed to minimize potential adverse visual impacts to adjacent
residential lots.

> ***Response:** As documented in the EA, the pond was designed and
> placed to minimize effects to Pimmit Run and its unnamed tributaries
> in the vicinity of the Yard. A Resource Protection Area (RPA) is a
> land use designation for an area adjacent to and landward of a water
> resource connected to the Chesapeake Bay. RPAs protect water quality
> by removal, reduction, or assimilation of sediments, nutrients, or
> potentially harmful or toxic substances in runoff before entering the
> bay or its tributaries. The addition of a stormwater pond within or
> adjacent to the RPA between the S&I Yard and Pimmit Run would serve
> the same purposes of the RPA and is needed to mitigate stormwater
> flowing from the S&I Yard. The pond will both correct an existing
> issue at the yard and mitigate the additional stormwater flow to
> Pimmit Run that would result from the new yard lead and storage tracks
> for the Wiehle Avenue Extension.*
>
> *The plans for this stormwater management pond were provided to the
> Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services
> (DPWES), Land Development Services. DPWES has reached an agreement
> with DRPT and the Virginia Department of Conservation that this pond
> and all of the other Project-related stormwater management facilities
> will be designed to meet the stricter of either state or county
> requirements. Fairfax County and DRPT will continue to coordinate on
> the design of all Project-related stormwater management facilities to
> ensure compliance with the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay
> Preservation Act.*

## Capital and Operating Costs

**Public Comment:** The current cost estimate does not account for the
effects of moving construction activity to the center of Leesburg Pike.
The productivity of construction crews will be reduced because of
limited space for operations and the need to maintain traffic. This will
require more night shifts, driving up costs.

> ***Response:** The current cost estimate includes the costs associated
> with construction of the Metrorail alignment in the median of Route
> 7.*

## Alternatives to Current Design

**Public Comment:** The Dulles Corridor Rail Line should be underground
through the entire Tysons Corner area. It is especially important to
have the line underground where it passes through residential areas.
Advanced tunnel technology is available that could reduce costs; we
should not ignore this option. Many communities in the Tysons Corner
area have expressed a desire for an underground plan.

**Public Comment:** The costs of the tunnel option merit independent
review.

**Public Comment:** A subway alternative is not appropriate for Tysons
Corner. The costs of such an alternative are too high. Much higher than
when Metro was originally built. Moreover, the perception that subway
construction will be less disruptive than aerial construction is not
true.

> ***Response:*** *A tunnel alternative was not one of the design
> refinements evaluated in the EA. A full tunnel alternative through
> Tysons Corner was eliminated during the alternatives analysis
> conducted during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
> Following publication of the Draft EIS, a tunnel version of the
> Project's current alignment was re-evaluated and again eliminated from
> further consideration due to the additional costs and risks associated
> with underground construction. For more detailed information, please
> refer to the Final Alternatives Analysis Report (May 2001), the Final
> Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum (November 2004), and Chapter 2
> of Appendix J of the Final EIS (Public and Agency Comments and
> Responses).*
>
> *In May 2006, following the circulation of the EA and the close of the
> public comment period, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation
> commissioned an independent panel to investigate the feasibility and
> cost-effectiveness of constructing the aerial segment through Tyson's
> Corner in tunnel rather than on aerial structure. After reviewing the
> panel's findings and conferring with Federal, state and local
> officials, the Commonwealth made a determination to drop this tunnel
> alternative due to cost and schedule concerns and to advance the
> Project as described in this Amended Record of Decision.*

**Public Comment:** The project team should consider an alternative that
keeps Metrorail in the median of the Dulles Toll Road, with a connection
to a bus or light rail circulator loop in Tysons Corner. Such a service
would provide a better connection to destinations in Tysons Corner.

> ***Response:** This alternative was not a part of the design
> refinements evaluated in the EA. An alternative that included
> Metrorail in the median of the Dulles Connector Road with a connection
> to transit feeder service through Tysons Corner (called Alignment T8)
> was eliminated during the alternatives analysis conducted during the
> preparation of the Draft EIS. For more detailed information, please
> refer to the Final Alternatives Analysis Report (May 2001) and Chapter
> 2 of Appendix J of the Final EIS (Public and Agency Comments and
> Responses).*

**Public Comment:** It is time to reconsider a bus rapid transit option,
or a combination of rail and bus rapid transit. The Federal Transit
Administration is supportive of this new mode.

> ***Response:** This alternative was not a part of the design
> refinements evaluated in the EA. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was
> eliminated from further consideration following publication of the
> Draft EIS. Based on the evaluation of alternatives contained in the
> Draft EIS, the record of public comments, and agency coordination, a
> Metrorail extension was formally adopted as the region's Locally
> Preferred Alternative (LPA) by the Commonwealth Transportation Board
> and the WMATA Board of Directors. A more detailed discussion of the
> rationale for this decision is presented in the Final EIS. FTA is
> generally supportive of BRT nationwide, but defers to local
> decision-makers in the planning of specific projects.*

**Public Comment:** We need to have access from all four corners of the
Wiehle Avenue/Dulles Toll Road interchange. The lack of this access is a
short-coming of the current design. Hopefully, this will be addressed
during the process of considering developer proposals at that station
area.

> ***Response:** The proposed modification was not a part of the design
> refinements evaluated in the EA. The current design includes
> pedestrian bridges from the Wiehle Avenue station to both the north
> and south sides of the Dulles Toll Road. None of the proposed
> improvements is anticipated to preclude the ability to further enhance
> connections to the north and south sides of the station along the
> Dulles Toll Road.*

**Public Comment:** The Dulles Corridor System must be a three-track
system capable of providing express service.

> ***Response:** This alternative was not a part of the design
> refinements evaluated in the EA. An alignment that included such
> express service (called Alignment T12) was eliminated during the
> alternatives analysis conducted as a result of comments received on
> the Draft EIS. For more detailed information, please refer to the
> Final Alternatives Analysis Report Addendum (November 2004) and
> Chapter 2 of Appendix J of the Final EIS (Public and Agency Comments
> and Responses).*

**Public Comment:** A heavy rail system like this will not work. The
Dulles Corridor needs to be redesigned with 400-feet right-of-way. It
needs to be redesigned for congestion relief. This project provides no
congestion relief.

**Public Comment:** Instead of building a new rail line, we should
establish more bus routes between West Falls Church and Dulles Airport.

> ***Response:** The need for a high-quality, high-capacity transit
> improvement in the Dulles Corridor is well documented. During the
> early studies of alternatives in the Dulles Corridor (Dulles Corridor
> Transportation Study (1997) and Supplement to the Dulles Corridor
> Transportation Study (1999)), express bus service and highway
> improvements were eliminated from further consideration as stand-alone
> alternatives because they could not adequately address future demand
> in the Dulles Corridor.*

# 7. Environmental Effects

## Displacements and Relocation

**Public Comment:** There is no indication whether any of the parcels to
be targeted for acquisition are Fairfax County Park Authority-owned or
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors-owned properties.

> ***Response:** None of the parcels slated for acquisition is owned by
> the Fairfax County Park Authority or is a "parkland" as defined by
> Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act. The
> Project's Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS contained
> detailed assessments of potential impacts to the parklands within the
> Dulles Corridor, including those owned by Fairfax County Park
> Authority. For further information, see Chapter 7 (Section 4(f)
> Evaluation) of the Final EIS (December 2004).*
>
> *As documented in Table C-1 of the EA, no changes in effects to parks
> and recreation areas would occur as a result of the design refinements
> evaluated in the EA.*

## Visual and Aesthetic Conditions

**Public Comment:** The power lines that cross Route 7 from the south
side near Tysons West Station are ugly and must present some sort of
safety issue. I would like to see these lines relocated below grade
along Route 7 at this early stage as opposed to later when development
begins.

> ***Response:** During the reconstruction of Route 7, the local
> distribution lines will be placed underground. The Virginia Dominion
> Power transmission lines will remain above ground unless Virginia
> Dominion Power decides to relocate them underground.*

**Public Comment:** The proposed, above-ground design will be ugly and
very detrimental to the Tysons Corner area. The project will result in
noise and visual clutter for those who live close by, and will decrease
property values. Urban, pedestrian-oriented development is not likely to
increase because of the visual and auditory disturbance.

> ***Response:** Changes in the environmental effects from the design
> refinements---including the additional portion of aerial alignment
> along Route 7---are documented in the EA. The changes in visual and
> aesthetic conditions were found to be modest and no additional
> mitigation was required beyond what is already documented in the Final
> EIS. The new portion of aerial alignment along Route 7 will not result
> in any additional noise impacts beyond those discussed in the Final
> EIS. Like all other sections of aerial track, a parapet wall (a wall
> placed along the track on the aerial structure) is planned to mitigate
> noise.*

## Noise

**Public Comment:** Where will the noise walls along Route 7 be?

> ***Response:** Along Route 7, all aerial sections of the Metrorail
> alignment will include track-side barriers (called parapet walls).
> These barriers will be approximately 4 feet high and serve to block
> the noise from its primary source---the train running along the
> track.*

## Water Resources

**Public Comment:** A permit may be required from the Marine Resources
Commission if project encroaches channelward of ordinary high water
along natural rivers and streams.

> ***Response:** DRPT does not expect such encroachment but will
> continue to coordinate with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
> as the Project is designed and constructed.*

**Public Comment:** Based on the information submitted and the comments
of reviewing agencies, we confirm our earlier concurrence that the
proposed project (taking into account the proposed design refinements)
is consistent with the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program,
provided that FTA, DRPT, and WMATA and their contractors comply with all
applicable requirements.

> ***Response:** FTA and DRPT are committed to complying with all of the
> applicable requirements of the original (October 27, 2004) coastal
> zone consistency determination.*

**Public Comment:** If the project meets the requirements of the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, it is consistent with the
non-point source pollution control enforceable policy of the Virginia
Coastal Resources Management Program.

**Public Comment:** Provided that strict erosion and sediment control
measures are implemented, the revised project is consistent with the
Fisheries Management enforceable policy of the Virginia Coastal
Resources Management Program.

> ***Response:** DRPT will continue to coordinate with the Virginia
> Department of Conservation and Recreation to ensure that the
> requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law are met
> as the Project is designed and constructed.*

**Public Comment:** Projects causing land disturbance of one acre or
more are subject to the requirement to obtain a Virginia Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Stormwater General Permit for
Construction Activities.

> ***Response:** DRPT will continue to coordinate with the Virginia
> Department of Conservation and Recreation to ensure that the
> requirements for the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
> (VPDES) Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities are met
> as the Project is designed and constructed.*

**Public Comment:** The project appears to be consistent with the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Virginia Code sections 10.1-2100 [et
seq]{.underline}. and the [Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation
and Management Regulations]{.underline} (9 VAC 10-20-10 [et
seq.]{.underline}), which constitute the Coastal Lands Management
enforceable policy of the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program.

> ***Response:** DRPT will continue to coordinate with the Virginia
> Department of Conservation and Recreation to ensure that the
> requirements for protection of the Chesapeake Bay are met as the
> Project is designed and constructed.*

**Public Comment:** Non-linear features of the project, such as parking
lots and stations, are not exempt from the requirements of the
[Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management
Regulations]{.underline} and are required to be consistent with the
general performance criteria found in 9 VAC 10-20-120 [et
seq]{.underline}.) of the Regulations and the development criteria for
Resource Protection Areas (9 VAC 10-20-130 [et seq]{.underline}.). The
Tyson\'s East Station site plan places the Kiss & Ride facility almost
entirely within the Resource Protection Area (RPA) and is not an exempt
activity. However, it appears that the design has been modified to
minimize the impervious pavement.

> ***Response:** A Resource Protection Area (RPA) is a land use
> designation for an area adjacent to and landward of a water resource
> connected to the Chesapeake Bay. RPAs serve to protect water quality
> by removal, reduction, or assimilation of sediments, nutrients, or
> potentially harmful or toxic substances in runoff before entering the
> bay or its tributaries. The portion of the Tysons East Station
> facilities that are in the RPA have not changed since the Final EIS
> and therefore were not included in the EA. A description of these
> facilities and how they relate to the regulations and performance
> criteria for development in an RPA, are included in the Project's
> Permitting Plan.*
>
> *DRPT has reviewed the Project's Permitting Plan with the Virginia
> Department of Conservation and Recreation (the agency responsible for
> stormwater management) and Fairfax County (the local agency with
> jurisdiction for implementation of the CBPA). These agencies are in
> agreement with the Plan. The Project will be designed and constructed
> in accordance with this agreed-upon Permitting Plan.*

**Public Comment:** The EA indicates that the \"new stormwater pond
would be placed adjacent to the Resource Protection Area" (page 3-24,
first bullet, first paragraph). However, it goes on to discuss the
\"addition of a stormwater pond within the RPA between the S&l Yard and
Pimmit Run\" (page 3-24, first bullet, second paragraph). Fairfax
County, pointing out this discrepancy, states that a comparison of the
pond site in the EA (Figure 2-16, \"Changes to West Falls Church Rail
Yard\") with the County\'s map of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas
suggests that there will be at least some encroachment into the RPA.

> ***Response:** The plans for the stormwater management pond in
> question were provided to the Fairfax County Department of Public
> Works and Environmental Services (DPWES), Land Development Services.
> DPWES has reached an agreement with DRPT and the Virginia Department
> of Conservation that this pond and all of the other Project related
> stormwater management facilities will be designed to meet the stricter
> of either state or county requirements.*
>
> *Fairfax County and DRPT will continue to coordinate the design of all
> of the Project-related stormwater management facilities with the DPWES
> and the Virginia Department of Conservation to ensure compliance with
> the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.*

## Cultural Resources and Parklands

**Public Comment:** Cultural resources must be identified and evaluated
prior to the establishment of construction staging areas and in areas to
be affected by construction.

**Public Comment:** The report does not address cultural
(archaeological) resources at all. The Park Authority recommends that if
there are no changes to effects on cultural resources, this category
should be added to Table 3.1 with a note indicating there are no changes
from those presented in the EIS.

**Public Comment:** The project has the potential to have direct impacts
on Pimmit Run Stream Valley Park, Olney Park, Scotts Run Stream Valley
Park near Route 123, Ash Grove/Courthouse Spring Branch, and Difficult
Run Stream Valley Park near the Dulles Toll Road. Potential impacts from
the project could be loss of park land, structures and grading in the
Resource Protection Area (RPA), impacts to wetlands, and stormwater
impacts.

**Public Comment:** The maps and information provided do not allow
assessment of what direct impacts may occur to Fairfax County-owned park
properties. The Park Authority cannot fully evaluate the potential
archaeological and environmental impacts of the Dulles Rail Extension
project because the EA report is extremely vague. The Park Authority
would like more information on specific properties, wetlands and stream
segments to be impacted in order to make an adequate assessment.

> ***Response:** The purpose of the EA was to document the changes in
> effects between the Final EIS Wiehle Avenue Extension and the
> Project's current design, the PE Wiehle Avenue Extension. Only those
> areas where changes in effects occurred were included in the
> Environmental Effects chapter.*
>
> *Appendix C of the EA included a complete comparison of the effects
> between the Final EIS Wiehle Avenue Extension and the PE Wiehle Avenue
> Extension. This table includes the changes in effects documented in
> Table 3-1 and documents that no changes occurred to the topics not
> included in Chapter 3, such as cultural resources and parklands.*
>
> *Cultural resources, parklands, and recreation areas were studied in
> detail in the Section 4(f) Evaluations prepared for the Draft EIS,
> Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS. As a part of these efforts,
> both a Cultural Resources Technical Report (Phase Ia) and
> Identification and Evaluation Reports for both archaeology and
> historic architecture were prepared to fulfill the requirements for
> identification and evaluation under Section 106 of the of the National
> Historic Preservation Act, as amended. The Section 106 Memorandum of
> Agreement between VDHR, FTA, and DRPT which is included as Attachment
> D of this Amended Record of Decision was executed on October 5, 2004,
> and outlines measures to address the Project's effects on historic
> resources and a process to deal with unanticipated discoveries during
> construction.*

## Biota and Habitat

**Public Comment:** The proposed project will not affect any documented
state-listed plants or insects.

**Public Comment:** The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF)
indicates that the first phase of the project may adversely affect wood
turtles and recommends the following measures to protect this species:

-   Avoid Impacts to Pimmit Run and Difficult Run. The avoidance or
    mitigation of such impacts includes protection of the floodplains
    and tributaries of these streams.

-   Preserve Riparian Buffers. Undisturbed riparian buffers of at least
    300 feet in width should be preserved along Pimmit Run and Difficult
    Run. Buffers of at least 100 feet in width should be preserved along
    all other streams, including intermittent streams.

-   Survey for Wood Turtles. Immediately before the commencement of
    construction activities, a qualified and permitted biologist should
    conduct a survey of wood turtles. Any wood turtles encountered
    should be safely relocated to suitable habitat in the nearest
    perennial stream. The survey and relocation should be accomplished
    just before construction in order to prevent turtles from wandering
    into the project area.

> ***Response:** No changes in the effects to water resources, including
> Difficult or Pimmit Run are anticipated due to the design refinements
> evaluated in the EA.*
>
> *However, FTA and DRPT have agreed to include in the Project certain
> actions to protect wood turtles, as follow: during design and
> construction, the impacts to Pimmit Run and Difficult Run, including
> the riparian buffers, will be minimized; information sheets about the
> identification and treatment of wood turtles will be distributed to
> construction contractors, and if a wood turtle is encountered, it will
> be safely relocated to suitable habitat in the nearest perennial
> stream; and surveys for wood turtles will be conducted in Pimmit Run
> and Difficult Run immediately prior to construction activities by a
> qualified and permitted biologist, and if a wood turtle is
> encountered, it will be safely relocated to suitable habitat in the
> nearest perennial stream.*

## 8. Traffic

### General Traffic Concerns

**Public Comment:** Existing traffic in Tysons Corner is very bad. You
cannot allow further development without addressing the existing
shortcomings of the roadways. Especially since transit-oriented
development tends to also bring too much traffic to adjacent
neighborhoods.

> ***Response:** This subject was not a part of the design refinements
> evaluated in the EA, although the proposed reconfiguration of Route 7
> is expected to help address congestion issues on this Tysons Corner
> roadway.*
>
> *Local development policies and permitting processes would mitigate
> the impacts due to increased densities within the corridor. Fairfax
> County has adopted non-degradation policies that will limit
> development that would result in traffic congestion, thus reducing the
> level of development and limiting any negative impacts due to
> congestion. Actual implementation of transit-oriented development and
> the timing and increase in densities within Tysons Corner is under the
> jurisdiction of Fairfax County. The developers would be responsible
> for any mitigation needed to address the effects of increases in
> development densities that is mandated by Fairfax County.*

**Public Comment:** Service on the Dulles Toll Road is going to get
worse and worse. As a result, the ultimate decision on whether to do
this project should be based on its ability to provide congestion
relief. The projections from the EIS show there will be no congestion
relief whether or not Dulles Rail is built. Have these projections been
updated?

> ***Response:** This subject was not a part of the design refinements
> evaluated in the EA. The travel demand projections documented in the
> Final EIS were not updated for the EA. The Dulles Corridor Metrorail
> Project would provide an alternative mode of transportation within the
> region. The Final EIS (December 2004) notes that the Project most
> likely would not solve the current congestion problems on the Dulles
> Toll Road and other regional roadways, but the Project would increase
> the capacity, mobility, and accessibility in the corridor. In general,
> every six "new riders" attracted to transit by this Project would
> result in roughly five fewer automobiles on the Dulles Toll Road or
> other corridor roadways.*

**Public Comment:** How is all the traffic coming to the stations for
Kiss & Ride not going to create a huge environmental impact? What
improvements are planned for the existing exits from Route 123 to I-495
north and south? Because I'm sure you haven't counted on all the people
coming from Maryland to use this Metro system.

> ***Response:*** *This subject was not a part of the design refinements
> evaluated in the EA, but it was studied in detail in the Draft EIS,
> Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS. Only the Tysons East and Tysons
> West stations are proposed to have Kiss & Ride spaces. As documented
> in the Final EIS (December 2004), traffic conditions are expected to
> deteriorate at two of the intersections in the Tysons East Station
> vicinity. The Project includes roadway improvements to address these
> impacts. Traffic conditions in the Tysons West Station vicinity are
> expected to remain the same or improve. Improvements at the Route
> 123/I-495 interchange are being studied by VDOT as part of the Capital
> Beltway Study.*

**Public Comment:** The City of Falls Church has concerns about the
Dulles extension's effect on traffic, transit access and service, and
safety issues at the existing East Falls Church and West Falls Church
Metrorail stations. The City has repeatedly spoken to this issue at each
step of the EIS review and heard no meaningful response.

> ***Response:** The design refinements evaluated in the EA would not
> result in any changes to the operation or passenger volume of the East
> Falls Church or the West Falls Church stations. DRPT held several
> meetings with the City of Falls Church during the course of the
> environmental process to more fully understand the concerns and
> position of the City as it relates to the Project. Issues ranged from
> parking problems at and near the existing Metrorail stations to the
> noise levels at the West Falls Church Service and Inspection Yard.
> Additional traffic and safety issues in the vicinity of the East Falls
> Church and West Falls Church Metrorail stations are not anticipated as
> a result of the Project.*

### Specific Concerns about Traffic Discussions in EA

**Public Comment:** On page 3-28, Section 3.7 of the EA, the last bullet
item in the listing of road modifications should include westbound as
well as eastbound dual left turns at the Route 7 intersection with
Westpark Drive/Gosnell Road intersections.

> ***Response:** The intersection will be configured as proposed by the
> commenter.*

**Public Comment:** On page 3-29, Section 3.7.1.1 of the EA, it is not
clear whether the analysis considers the dual left turn from westbound
Route 7 to southbound Gosnell Road. The dual left has been added since
January 2006, but the level-of-service numbers in Table 3-9 do not
reflect this addition.

> ***Response:** The traffic analysis conducted for the EA assumed dual
> left-turn lanes from westbound Route 7 to southbound Gosnell Road. The
> Project plans have been updated to show the correct lane configuration
> at this location.*

**Public Comment:** On page 3-29 (second paragraph below Table 3-9), the
EA states that traffic volumes at the interchange between Routes 7 and
123 were not reanalyzed because the design refinements would not alter
the lane configuration at the interchange. The Virginia Department of
Transportation disagrees with this conclusion, stating that the removal
of the signalized intersection and left turn restriction at the entrance
to Marshall\'s Drive would affect traffic volumes. For example, drivers
heading eastbound on Route 7 with a destination of Clyde\'s would be
unable to turn left to get to it; they would have to make a U-turn at
the next intersection east of Routes 7 and 123, head back westbound on
Route 7, and then turn right.

> ***Response:** Traffic operations along this section of Route 7 were
> re-analyzed as part of the EA. This analysis concluded that the
> turning movements at this intersection were redistributed along Route
> 7. With this design refinement, traffic along Route 7 would continue
> to operate at LOS F during peak periods, a level of congestion similar
> to today\'s conditions.*

**Public Comment:** Tables 3-10 and 3-11 are deceptive because they
present the improvements in delay as a benefit of the rail project. This
is not true because the intersection improvements along Route 7 could be
built without the rail project.

> ***Response:** The design refinements proposed along Route 7 were
> developed in conjunction with VDOT and Fairfax County. The
> reconfiguration of the roadway is intended to support both traffic
> flow and rail alignment needs. Because the improvements will be
> developed as part of the Project, the anticipated changes in traffic
> effects are documented in the EA. As stated in the EA, the anticipated
> reduction in delays "can be directly attributed to the additional
> through lanes and additional left-turn storage capacity at
> intersections along Route 7."*

## 9. Transit Operations

### Access for the Disability Community

**Public Comment:** WMATA is not shy in asserting that Metrorail is one
of the most accessible subway systems in the United States. And in many
ways, they, and all of us, should be proud of the progress they have
made.

**Public Comment:** The Dulles Corridor rail line should provide better
access for everyone, including people with disabilities. An accessible
public transportation allows people with disabilities to be a vital part
of the community. Persons with disabilities want to be able to use the
regular public transportation system; they don't want to rely on
MetroAccess. The project plans should create an environment that is
friendly to persons with disabilities.

**Public Comment:** I am extremely concerned that many of the cuts in
the plans will affect mainly people with disabilities.

> ***Response:** Based on public and agency comments, DRPT is not
> advancing the design refinement evaluated in the EA that would have
> eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances. The plans
> for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will be modified to
> include redundant elevators and associated equipment.*

**Public Comment:** I urge project planners and designers to work
closely with the Disability Services Board and other members of
disability community to ensure the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project is
fully accessible and usable.

**Public Comment:** When you do other plans or make changes to the
current ones, please include one person on your staff who is disabled or
specializes in accessibility for people with disabilities.

**Public Comment:** If the stations are not accessible, then Fairfax
County and other jurisdictions will have to spend more money on
MetroAccess service for people to travel to and from the Tysons and
Dulles areas. The money you save in capital expenditures will instead
increase operating expenditures.

> ***Response:*** *Based on public and agency comments, DRPT is not
> advancing the design refinement evaluated in the EA that would have
> eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances. The plans
> for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will be modified to
> include redundant elevators and any associated equipment.*

### Opposition to Elimination of Elevator Redundancy at Station Entrances

**Public Comment:** Eliminating the second elevator at the entrances to
pedestrian walkways at stations is an unacceptable design change.
Redundant elevators are needed to ensure that people can still use the
local station if one elevator is out of service. Past experience with
the Metrorail system has shown stations with only one elevator quickly
become unusable for anyone that needs that elevator if it is out of
service. The lack of redundant elevators reduces accessibility,
especially for seniors and the disability community. But elevator
redundancy is important for everyone, not just for the disabled
population. Especially during times of heavy ridership. Please restore
the original design.

**Public Comment:** One elevator is affordable at most stations, but two
are needed for redundancy at Tysons 123 and Wiehle Avenue.

**Public Comment:** Some have argued that providing one elevator at
entrances is sufficient to meet ADA requirements. But what happens if
that one elevator breaks down? That elevator outage can cause extensive
delays and impose undue hardships on persons with disabilities. Crossing
the road poses a nearly impossible task for many in the disability
community.

**Public Comment:** Note that ADA requires that accessible features must
be maintained in order to ensure that stations are readily accessible
and usable. Moreover, it is important that the project follow not only
the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.

**Public Comment:** The provision of one escalator at the entrances to
pedestrian walkways is inadequate. Dual direction escalators are a
needed feature for all users of the Metrorail system. (where is this
escalator comment responded to?)

**Public Comment:** WMATA developed a policy (or standards), in
coordination with the disability community, that requires all new
stations to have redundant elevators throughout. This policy was
developed based on a long history of problems with elevator outages and
trip interruptions. The proposed design refinements are a violation of
this policy.

> ***Response:** Based on public and agency comments, DRPT is not
> advancing the design refinement evaluated in the EA that would have
> eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances. The plans
> for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will include redundant
> elevators and associated equipment.*

### Accommodations for Second Elevator

**Public Comment:** The plan proposes only one elevator at the ends of
pedestrian bridges. Oddly, revised plans call for second elevator shaft,
but the shaft will be left empty.

**Public Comment:** The station designs should include provisions to
allow the later incorporation of the elevators and escalators that may
not be built initially, with minimal disruption.

**Public Comment:** Our checks with elevator experts suggests that
adding the second elevator would cost substantially less than DRPT
claims.

**Public Comment:** The plans could be revised to include a second
elevator at some locations in lieu of an escalator. This would result in
a cost savings because escalators are more expensive to install and
maintain than elevators.

> ***Response:** Based on public and agency comments, DRPT is not
> advancing the design refinement evaluated in the EA that would have
> eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances. The plans
> for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will be modified to
> include redundant elevators and associated equipment.*

### Concerns about Proposed "Bus Bridges"

**Public Comment:** Although well-intentioned, the bus shuttle or bus
bridge is fraught with problems. Having to wait for the shuttle, ride to
another station, and later be bused back is extremely inconvenient and a
major barrier to using the system. Existing bus bridge operations often
leave passengers with disabilities stranded, waiting for the shuttle for
30 to 60 minutes (sometimes more). In Tysons, congestion would severely
hamper bus bridge operations. Moreover, a bus shuttle system would be
costly to implement and operate, possibly costing more than installing
the second elevator.

> ***Response:** In the event of an elevator outage at a station, WMATA
> uses "bus bridges" to provide connections to the nearest operating
> elevator. In many cases, the bus bridge service proposed in the event
> of an elevator outage at one station entrance would provide
> connections to the station entrance on the opposite side of Route 7 or
> Route 123 or to a nearby station. For this kind of service, area
> congestion would be unlikely to result in substantial delays.*

**Public Comment:** How would the bus shuttle service work? How would
the person at the entrance notify the station manager that the elevator
wasn't working? How long would the person have to wait for the bus? Is
there a sheltered place to wait?

> ***Response:** The current design includes call boxes at all station
> pavilions to alert the station manager in the event of an
> elevator/escalator outage. The station manager notifies the operations
> department, which in turn dispatches a bus to provide a bus bridge to
> the nearest elevator.*

### Pedestrian and Bicycle Access

**Public Comment:** The project's success depends on safe and convenient
access by pedestrians and bicyclists. Currently, you take your life in
your hands if you try to walk around the Route 7 area. Wide sidewalks
and extensive bike parking need to be included. In particular, the
project should include 8- to 10-foot paved trails along Route 7, as
called for in the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan.

**Public Comment:** Many of proposed design changes, such as eliminating
elevators and narrowing pedestrian bridges, will make station access
less convenient and more difficult. In particular, the reduction in
width of the pedestrian bridges will increase the difficulty of getting
to and from stations during periods of heavy use. Crowding in the
12-foot walkways will be substantial. Walkways of at least 18 feet would
be preferable. In addition, the changes would eliminate the service
roads which bicyclists currently use. These roads are appropriate and
safe for cyclists to use; however, the 6-foot sidewalks included in the
new design are not appropriate for bicycle access. Overall, the proposed
changes will make Route 7 even more hostile to non-motorized
transportation users. The changes will lead travelers into the path of
auto traffic.

**Public Comment:** The refinements in EA are not consistent with the
vision outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the County Trails Plan.
Route 7 would have minimal sidewalks, no landscaping, and no bike
accommodations. Bridges are no substitute for a pleasant pedestrian
environment.

> ***Response:** The width of the paved area adjacent to Route 7 will
> vary in width, design, and degree of landscaping along Route 7 due to
> differing site conditions. During Final Design, Project staff will
> consult with VDOT and Fairfax County to refine the design of the
> reconstructed portion of Route 7 and associated pedestrian
> facilities.*

### Feeder Bus Service

**Public Comment:** Shuttle bus service is needed to transport people
from their homes to transit stations, especially at stations without
parking garages. At stations with transit-oriented development, shuttles
will be especially important for reducing auto traffic. Shuttle service
should operate every 5 to 10 minutes, rather than every 15 to 20
minutes.

**Public Comment:** I recommend cutting back on plans for feeder bus
service. Most of this vital service is already in place. Existing routes
now serve or could serve Wiehle Avenue, Tysons 123, Tysons 7, and Spring
Hill Tyco. New route 19-G is needed to serve more of McLean and Great
Falls.

> ***Response:** The feeder bus network in the Dulles Corridor is an
> essential part of the overall corridor transit network. Feeder bus
> service plans for the Wiehle Avenue Extension were developed in
> consultation with technical staff from Fairfax County. These plans
> also reflect the County estimates of demand for the feeder service as
> well as additional demand estimates developed for the EIS. The plans
> have been developed with a focus on providing service from multiple
> origins to multiple destinations in the counties, and are designed
> specifically to provide mobility options that are attractive relative
> to making a trip by private automobile.*
>
> *Circulation within Tysons Corner via transit was a key focus of the
> effort to develop feeder bus plans for the Wiehle Avenue Extension.
> This service includes both Fairfax Connector service as well as WMATA
> Metrobus service. In addition to existing services, new Tysons
> circulator services are recommended to provide internal circulation
> for Metrorail riders alighting at Tysons Corner stations.*
>
> *An integral part of the Project development will be the continued
> examination of the feeder bus systems serving specific stations;
> however, ultimately, Fairfax County and WMATA will be responsible for
> implementing the feeder bus network planned for the Wiehle Avenue
> Extension and/or modifying existing routes.*

### Effect on Ridership

**Public Comment:** The loss of direct pedestrian connections and major
alterations in bus service (to produce the longer headways necessary for
staggered arrivals) would result in reductions in boardings at the
stations. The EA does not reflect this. Table 3-1 indicates there would
be no reductions.

> ***Response:** The preliminary engineering design includes the same
> pedestrian connections at stations proposed for the Final EIS Wiehle
> Avenue Extension. As a result, no major alterations in bus service
> have been proposed. Several minor route changes were proposed to
> provide improved connections to the relocated bus bays at the Tysons
> West Station. These re-routings would have minimal impacts on bus
> running times. In addition, for some circulator routes, schedules were
> modified to stagger arrival times at the Tysons West Station. However,
> service frequencies were not changed. Therefore, no effects on
> ridership are anticipated.*

# 10. Other Issues 

## Land Use and Air Rights

**Public Comment:** The plans for the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project
should support both rail service and the walkable community envisioned
for the Tysons Corner area in the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan.
Development plans should not compromise commuter access, and rail plans
should encourage a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use community. We
are concerned that the current plans may not support the County's vision
for the area, especially regarding pedestrian accessibility. The station
designs should be better integrated with the urban design of Tysons
Corner.

> ***Response:** The Project team is working closely with Fairfax County
> to integrate the new Metrorail stations into the surrounding
> development. As designed, the stations provide access to commuters,
> whether they arrive as pedestrians, cyclists, on feeder buses or from
> any transit-oriented development that might be implemented in
> proximity to the stations.*

**Public Comment:** We must de-couple the redevelopment of Tysons Corner
from the rail project. Redevelopment is necessary but should not depend
on this expensive project that requires huge subsidies.

> ***Response:** This subject was not a part of the design refinements
> evaluated in the EA. The approval of new developments and decisions on
> the appropriate locations and timing of growth within Tysons Corner is
> controlled by Fairfax County.*

**Public Comment:** I think moving the Route 7 alignment to the median
provides opportunities to create a really handsome boulevard.

> ***Response:** Moving the rail alignment to the median of Route 7 does
> provide the opportunity for Fairfax County to implement balanced and
> transit-oriented future development in the corridor*. *The County
> would decide whether a boulevard is appropriate in this context.*

**Public Comment:** The community of Reston has long asked for air
rights development to be planned as part of the Wiehle Avenue station.
My understanding is that it will not be possible to put the supports for
air rights development in the station area. This is a very negative
impact for the community. Allowing air rights development could reduce
the negative impacts of the Wiehle Avenue Station. We need to find a way
to accommodate air rights development.

> ***Response:** As currently designed, the Wiehle Avenue Station does
> not preclude future air rights development by others. However at this
> time, no specific provisions are planned to accommodate such
> development. If specific air-rights project(s) are proposed at this
> location in the future, any associated technical issues would have to
> be addressed at that time.*

## Station Access

### Pedestrian and Bicycle Access

**Public Comment:** We are concerned about reports that the pedestrian
walkways are going to be eliminated as a cost savings measure.
Elimination of these walkways would eliminate the ability of many people
to get to the Metrorail trains, especially people with disabilities.

**Public Comment:** The pedestrian bridges are absolutely necessary
except where a traffic signal and crosswalk with pedestrian signals and
center island are available. VDOT should provide pedestrian bridges at
all locations where pedestrians will benefit---not just at rail
stations. VDOT should be held responsible for pedestrian safety on their
highways.

> ***Response:** The preliminary engineering design includes the same
> pedestrian connections at stations proposed for the Final EIS Wiehle
> Avenue Extension. In addition, based on public and agency comments,
> DRPT is not advancing the design refinement evaluated in the EA that
> would have eliminated some elevators at pedestrian bridge entrances.
> The plans for the pedestrian bridge entrance pavilions will be
> modified to include redundant elevators and associated equipment.*

**Public Comment:** What features will the project include to ensure
people can safely cross Routes 7 and 123 if there are no pedestrian
walkways or the entrance elevator is out of service? Are you going to
change Virginia code for right-of-way to add enough crossing time to the
light cycle so that older people and people with disabilities can cross
safely? Will you have raised lines on the edge of the crosswalk so
visually impaired people can walk in a straight line to the safety of
refuge? Will there be pedestrian walk buttons in the median? Provisions
to allow pedestrians to cross at street-level to median stations could
make Tysons Corner traffic problems worse.

> ***Response:** The preliminary engineering design includes the same
> pedestrian connections at stations proposed for the Final EIS Wiehle
> Avenue Extension. In the event of an elevator outage at one entrance,
> "bus bridge" service would be provided to adjacent entrances. Any new
> pedestrian crossings (or modifications to existing pedestrian
> crossings) would be constructed to meet current VDOT design and safety
> standards unless a deviation from those standards is approved by VDOT
> and Fairfax County to improve the pedestrian environment.*

### Parking

**Public Comment:** Parking should be provided at Tysons Corner
stations. People will want to drive to stations, and if enough parking
is not provided, then people will park illegally in neighborhoods and at
local businesses.

**Public Comment:** There are tremendous opportunities to work with
shared parking facilities. Perhaps the private sector could come in and
share some of the parking at their developments.

**Public Comment:** There is no solution to the parking issue in Tysons.
If you provide parking, you'll get more rail ridership, but you'll kill
urban development.

> ***Response:** Long-term park-and-ride facilities at the three other
> Tysons Corner stations were not pursued because these stations are
> being designed as urban stations oriented to pedestrian access. These
> designs reflect Fairfax County\'s plans to transform Tysons Corner
> into a more densely developed, pedestrian-oriented urban center.*

## General Environmental

**Public Comment:** Construction of the project should follow the U.S.
Green Building Council guidelines to help mitigate environmental issues.

> ***Response:** FTA does not require green building design.*

**Public Comment:** The over the Beltway portion and lack of parking
facilities will have "serious negative" environmental impacts, such as
noise, light pollution, stream and green space deterioration, overflow
parking on residential streets, degradation of neighborhood quality.

> ***Response:** The design refinements evaluated in the EA did not
> include changes to the Beltway crossing or the parking in Tysons
> Corner. Any adverse environmental effects from the alignment across
> the Capital Beltway and the lack of parking at the stations within
> Tysons Corner are documented in the Final EIS along with mitigation
> measures to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of the Project.*

**Public Comment:** Dulles rail should use cleaner sources of electric
power. Consider purchasing power from low-emissions sources.

> ***Response:** The electricity used to power the Metrorail extension
> will be purchased from existing sources.*

## Purchase of Rail Cars

**Public Comment:** I am disappointed by plans to reduce the number of
rail cars as a cost savings measure.

**Public Comment:** The rapid transit cars which are planned for the
extension should be incorporated into an order for the entire Metro
system. This would be more economical.

**Public Comment:** Only 41 cars should be purchased for Phase I of
Dulles Rail. The other needed cars can come from the existing "trippers"
on the Orange Line.

> ***Response:** The proposed design refinements for the PE Wiehle
> Avenue Extension do not include any changes in the planned rail car
> procurement. The initial phase of the Dulles Corridor Metrorail
> Project would include the purchase of 64 rail cars. These cars are
> needed to support the new service on the Wiehle Avenue Extension. The
> required number of cars was determined by Project planners, based on
> the operations plan for the Dulles Corridor line and the needs and
> resources of the existing Metrorail system*

## Funding 

**Public Comment:** So half the local funding for Metrorail to Reston
will come from a temporary \$0.25 increase in the toll on the Dulles
Toll Road and the other half will come from the State of Virginia. A
temporary \$0.25 increase is equal to the entire contribution of a
state. Is this the best the state can do? Why can't MWAA kick in some
money?

> ***Response:** The Project benefits from MWAA agreeing to make
> available the medians of the Dulles International Airport Access
> Highway and Connector Road for right-of-way at no cost to the Project.
> The amount and percentage of funding by jurisdiction and/or entity are
> based on a capital cost allocation agreement among the non-federal
> funding partners.*

**Public Comment:** It looks like with the Airports Authority proposal
that the users of the Toll Road will be paying about 85 percent of the
cost of this project.

> ***Response:** Dulles Toll Road revenues are currently slated to fund
> a portion of the Commonwealth's share. The implications of the MWAA
> proposal on Project funding are not known at this time.*

**Public Comment:** I am willing to have my taxes raised to have this
project done correctly.

**Public Comment:** I support massive funding for this and other rail
projects---VRE, light rail, Amtrak, and high-speed interurban.

**Public Comment:** This project is so urgent that, should money run
short, despite economies, Transit Revenue Bonds should be sold to
complete the budget.

> ***Response:** The funding sources proposed by the commenters are not
> expected to be necessary.*

## General/Miscellaneous Issues

**Public Comment:** Has the date for the public hearings on the design
and structure of new stations been set?

> ***Response:** Fairfax County will hold one or more hearings during
> its development of a comprehensive plan that incorporates the
> stations. The dates of the hearings are not yet set.*

**Public Comment:** The result of continuing this project will be to
make the Dulles Corridor and Tysons the most expensive place in Virginia
in which to do business.

> ***Response:** Metrorail has been built in other locations in northern
> Virginia without adversely affecting the business environment.*

**Public Comment:** The current design is not a realistic design for
commuters. I call on elected officials to rethink this project and not
put through a \$2 billion lemon.

**Public Comment:** It is clear, now, that matching the project to the
transit needs of the people of Fairfax and Loudoun counties is not a
motivating factor. We could have had better.

> ***Response:** The Commonwealth Transportation Board and the WMATA
> Board of Directors selected a Metrorail extension as the locally
> preferred alternative after extensive study of alternatives, impacts,
> and benefits. Fairfax County, Loudoun County, the Metropolitan
> Washington Airports Authority, and the Town of Herndon endorsed this
> selection.*

ATTACHMENT C

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

SECTION 106

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

**MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT**

**AMONG THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION,**

**VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, AND**

**VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION,**

**CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF**

**THE DULLES CORRIDOR METRORAIL PROJECT ON**

**HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES**

WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation
(DRPT) proposes to construct, in phases, the Dulles Corridor Metrorail
Project (Project) in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia, a 23.1 mile
extension of the existing regional Metrorail system as shown in Exhibit
A. Project elements will include an electrically-powered rapid rail
transit line operating in an exclusive right-of-way with at-grade,
aerial, and subway sections, stations and parking facilities, new and
improved yard and shop facilities, and ancillary facilities for the
distribution of electrical power and stormwater management; and

WHEREAS, DRPT has applied to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
for financial assistance in designing and constructing the first phase
of the Project (*Extension to Wiehle Avenue*), which will extend from
the existing Metrorail Orange Line near the West Falls Church Station
and terminate at Wiehle Avenue in Reston, and plans to apply for
separate FTA funding for the subsequent extension west of Wiehle Avenue
to Dulles International Airport and eastern Loudoun County (*Extension
to Dulles Airport/Route 772*). FTA has determined that the Project will
constitute a federal undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a) if FTA
financial assistance is provided; and

FTA is the lead federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 USC §§4321 et seq.) and is responsible for
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966 (Section 106, 16 USC §470f).

WHEREAS, FTA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), whose
approval is required for any change in the use of land at Washington
Dulles International Airport for the Project, have agreed that the FTA
will serve as the lead Agency Official who shall act in cooperation with
the FAA in fulfilling their collective responsibilities under Section
106; and

WHEREAS, FTA and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA),
as the lessee and operator of Washington Dulles International Airport,
have agreed that the FTA will serve as the lead Agency Official who
shall act in cooperation with MWAA in fulfilling their collective
responsibilities under Section 106; and

WHEREAS, FTA has consulted on the Project with DRPT and the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, which is the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) for Virginia, pursuant to Section 106 and its
implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 (FTA, DRPT and the SHPO are the
"required signatories"); and

WHEREAS, FTA, in consultation with the SHPO, has determined the Area of
Potential Effects (APE) for the Project, as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d),
as shown in Exhibit B and has completed the identification and
evaluation of historic resources within the APE; and

WHEREAS, the FTA, in consultation with the SHPO, has determined that the
*Extension to Wiehle Avenue* phase of the Project will not adversely
affect historic properties; and

WHEREAS, the FTA, in consultation with the SHPO, has determined that the
*Extension to Dulles Airport/Route 772* phase of the Project will have
an adverse effect, as defined in 36 CFR 800.5(a), on the Washington
Dulles International Airport historic district shown in Exhibit C, which
is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register), by altering the remaining historic "peekaboo" views of the
main terminal control tower for approaching travelers from the Dulles
International Airport Access Highway (DIAAH); and

WHEREAS, the FTA, in consultation with the SHPO, has determined that the
Project will not affect archaeological properties; and

WHEREAS, FTA and DRPT have informed and involved the public in Section
106 review through public NEPA scoping meetings held in July 2000,
public information meetings held in January 2001, public hearings on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) held in July 2002 and on the
Supplemental Draft EIS held in December 2003, and through additional
informal meetings and outreach materials, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d),
and has specifically invited comments on the Section 106 process; and

WHEREAS, the FAA has been invited to concur in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, MWAA has been invited to concur in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), as
the operator and future owner of the Project's facilities, has been
invited to concur in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, Fairfax and Loudoun counties, have participated in the Section
106 consultation and have been invited to concur in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been invited
to participate in the Section 106 process for this Project and has
declined; and

WHEREAS, the Virginia Council on Indians has been invited to participate
in the Section 106 process for this Project and has declined; and

WHEREAS, FTA's decision to fund each phase of the Project for design and
construction will be made independently in accordance with its
regulations on major capital investment projects (49 CFR 611) and any
stipulations specific to a particular Project phase are not applicable
until FTA financial assistance is provided; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the FTA and the SHPO agree that upon FTA's decision to
proceed with a particular phase of the undertaking, the FTA shall ensure
that the following stipulations are implemented in order to take into
account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and that
these stipulations shall govern the Project and all of its parts until
this Agreement expires or is terminated.

**STIPULATIONS**

**1. Unanticipated Discovery**

A.  [Historic Properties]{.underline}

> In the event that unanticipated effects on historic properties are
> found during the implementation of this Agreement, DRPT will stop any
> work that may adversely affect the historic property or that may
> foreclose opportunities to avoid such adverse effects. FTA shall
> consult with the SHPO and with the other required and concurring
> signatories to this Agreement, as appropriate, to determine the
> appropriate course of action to comply with Section 106. If necessary,
> the required signatories shall review the terms of this Agreement and
> determine whether revisions are needed. Any revisions to the Agreement
> shall be made in accordance with Stipulation 5 below.

B.  [Archaeological Resources]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  In the event that a previously unidentified archaeological resource
    is discovered during ground disturbing activities, DRPT will halt
    all construction work involving subsurface disturbance in the area
    of the resource and in the surrounding area where further subsurface
    deposits may reasonably be expected to occur. An archaeologist
    meeting the Secretary of the Interior's *Professional Qualifications
    Standards* (36 CFR 61) will immediately inspect the work site and
    determine the extent and the nature of the affected archaeological
    property. The archaeologist may consult the SHPO and other parties
    as deemed appropriate by the archaeologist in setting the boundaries
    of the archaeological resource. Construction work may then proceed
    in the Project area outside of the site area.

2.  Within two (2) working days of the discovery, DRPT shall notify FTA
    and the SHPO. The notification shall describe DRPT's assessment of
    the National Register eligibility of the property and proposed
    actions to resolve the adverse effect (if any). The SHPO shall
    respond within two (2) working days of notification and construction
    may resume when the SHPO agrees. DRPT shall take into account the
    SHPO's recommendations regarding National Register eligibility and
    proposed actions, and then carry out appropriate actions. DRPT shall
    provide SHPO with a report of these actions once they are complete.

3.  If the resource is determined to meet the National Register Criteria
    (36 CFR Part 60.6), FTA shall ensure compliance with Section 800.13
    of the Council's regulations.

> C. [Human Remains]{.underline}
>
> DRPT will ensure that human remains and associated funerary objects
> encountered during the course of actions taken as a result of this
> Agreement shall be treated in a manner consistent with the provisions
> of the *Virginia Antiquities Act*, Section 10.1-2305 of the *Code of
> Virginia*, final regulations adopted by the Virginia Board of Historic
> Resources and published in the Virginia Register on July 15, 1991. In
> addition, human remains and associated funerary objects that may be of
> Native American origin, encountered on Federal land, including but not
> limited to the land of the Washington Dulles International Airport and
> the Dulles International Airport Access Highway, shall be treated in a
> manner consistent with the provisions of the *Native American Graves
> Protection and Repatriation Act* (25 U.S.C. 3001).

**2. Washington Dulles International Airport Historic District**

A.  At the extant Saarinen "peekaboo" view locations shown in Exhibit D,
    the vertical profile of the Metrorail tracks and the concrete safety
    barrier will be constructed as low as practicable given site
    conditions to minimize any obstruction of these views of the main
    terminal control tower.

B.  The design of the Dulles Airport Metrorail station and terminal
    connections will consider, and incorporate where appropriate,
    established airport design themes and finishes within the context of
    the WMATA design criteria, approved system-wide facility
    requirements and operational practices in effect at the time of the
    design. The design of aerial structures and portals located within
    the historic district boundaries will consider, and incorporate
    where appropriate, concepts and materials that are mutually agreed
    to be compatible with the historic terminal and other contributing
    elements of the historic district. No later than the completion of
    Preliminary Engineering for the *Extension to Dulles Airport/Route
    772* phase of the Project, DRPT shall submit the proposed designs to
    the SHPO for review and approval and to the other required and
    concurring signatories for review and comment.

C.  No later than the completion of Preliminary Engineering for the
    *Extension to Dulles Airport/Route 772* phase of the Project, DRPT
    will submit a treatment plan to the SHPO for review and approval and
    to the other required and concurring signatories for review and
    comment. This treatment plan will identify specific treatments that
    would provide users of the Metrorail station and airport travelers
    with an appreciation for the airport's unique historic
    characteristics. Several potential measures will be considered,
    including, but not limited to: interpretive exhibits or artwork
    within the station facilities, connecting walkways, or terminal
    buildings; photo or video documentation of the view sequence; and
    removal of non-historic vegetation on airport property to enhance
    the historic views. DRPT will ensure that all measures in the
    approved treatment plan are completed or installed prior to the
    beginning of revenue service for this phase of the Project.

D.  The SHPO shall, within 30 calendar days of receipt, review any
    treatment recommendations and designs submitted pursuant to this
    Agreement and either approve or provide comments. If no response is
    provided by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of receipt, DRPT may
    assume SHPO concurrence and approval. DRPT will review any comments
    and take them into account in the continued development of Project
    design. Should the SHPO object to any plans submitted pursuant to
    this Agreement, the provisions of Stipulation 4 will apply.

**3. Annual Report**

> DRPT, in consultation with MWAA, will prepare an annual report
> summarizing the activities carried out in accordance with this
> Agreement. This report will be transmitted to all required and
> concurring signatories by January 15^th^ of each year this Agreement
> is in effect, beginning in the year following the execution of the
> Agreement and continuing until the year following completion of
> construction activities associated with the Project. The DRPT shall
> also ensure that this annual report is made available for public
> review and that members of the public are invited to provide comments
> to the SHPO and other required and concurring signatories to the
> Agreement.
>
> The required signatories to this Agreement shall review the annual
> report and provide any comments to the DRPT. Concurring signatories to
> this Agreement may review and comment on the annual report at their
> discretion. Based on this review, the required signatories to this
> Agreement shall determine whether this Agreement shall continue in
> force, be amended, or be terminated. If requested by any required or
> concurring signatory to this Agreement, the FTA shall ensure that a
> meeting is held to facilitate review and comment, to resolve
> questions, or to resolve adverse comments.

**4. Dispute Resolution**

A.  If any required or concurring signatory should object in writing
    regarding any action specified in the Agreement, then FTA shall
    consult with the objecting party to resolve this objection. If after
    such consultation, FTA determines that the objection cannot be
    resolved through consultation, then DRPT shall prepare documentation
    relevant to the objection in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11, and FTA
    shall forward such documentation to the Council, including FTA's
    proposed response to the objection. Within 30 days after receipt of
    all pertinent documentation, the Council is expected to exercise one
    of the following options:

-   Provide FTA with a staff-level recommendation, which FTA shall take
    into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to
    the objection; or

-   Notify FTA that the objection will be referred for formal comment
    pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Section 800.7(c), and proceed to refer the
    objection and comment. FTA shall take into account the Council\'s
    comments in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the
    objection.

B.  The responsibility of each required signatory to this Agreement to
    carry out all actions under the Agreement not affected by the
    dispute shall remain unchanged.

C.  If the dispute cannot be resolved upon involvement of the Council,
    FTA, DRPT, or the SHPO may terminate the Agreement in accordance
    with Stipulation 6.B below.

**5. Amendments**

> Any required signatory to this Agreement may request that it be
> amended, whereupon the required and concurring signatories shall
> consult to consider the proposed amendment in accordance with 36 CFR
> 800.6(c)(7). Any amendment shall be in writing and signed by all
> required signatories of this Agreement.

**6. Termination**

A.  This Agreement shall terminate on January 15^th^ of the year
    following completion of construction activities associated with the
    Project.

B.  Any required signatory to this Agreement may terminate it by
    providing a 30 day written notice to the other required and
    concurring signatories, provided that these parties consult during
    the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or
    other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of
    termination, work on the Project in the area(s) with affected
    historic properties will cease until FTA has fulfilled its Section
    106 responsibility in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.13.

Execution of this Agreement by the FTA and the SHPO and its submission
to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in accordance with 36
CFR 800.6(b)(1)(iv), shall, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(c), be considered
to be an Agreement with the Council for the purposes of Section 110(l)
of NHPA. Execution and submission of this Agreement, and implementation
of its terms evidences that FTA has afforded the Council an opportunity
to comment on the Project and its effects on historic properties and has
taken into account the effects of the Project on historic properties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed
intending thereby to be bound by its provisions.

**FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [10/5/04]{.underline}**
[.]{.underline}

Herman Shipman

Acting Regional Administrator

**VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [9/14/04
]{.underline}**[.]{.underline}

Karen J. Rae

Director

**VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HISTORIC RESOURCES**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [9/28/04
]{.underline}**[.]{.underline}

Kathleen S. Kilpatrick

Director

**[CONCUR]{.underline}:**

**FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [10/25/04
]{.underline}**[.]{.underline}

Terry Page

Manager, Washington Airports District Office

**[CONCUR]{.underline}:**

**METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [11/05/04
]{.underline}**[.]{.underline}

Margaret E. McKeough

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

**[CONCUR]{.underline}:**

**WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [11/16/04
]{.underline}**[.]{.underline}

Richard A. White

General Manager and Chief Executive Officer

**[CONCUR]{.underline}:**

**FAIRFAX COUNTY**

**By: [/signed by/]{.underline} Date: [11/03/04
]{.underline}**[.]{.underline}

Michael Kane

Director, Fairfax County Park Authority

[^1]: Up to now, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public
    Transportation (DRPT) has been the lead sponsoring agency and the
    presumed recipient of any grant provided by FTA. However, the
    Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) is working with
    DRPT and FTA to take over as the lead sponsor, and if this change
    occurs, MWAA will become the recipient of any FTA grant already in
    place or awarded after such a transition. As a condition of any
    grant, FTA will require that the project sponsor construct the
    Project in accordance with the environmental record referenced
    herein. (The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
    is not a Project sponsor, but is serving as technical manager to the
    Project since WMATA will assume ownership and operation of the
    Project after it is constructed.)