DOCSLIB.ORG

FSEIS Appendix D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

February 27 2017 Ms. Mary Ellen N. Hodges Archaeologist Virginia Department of Transportation Environmental Division 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Ref: Proposed Hampton Roads Crossing Study Cities of Hampton and Norfolk, Virginia Dear Ms. Hodges: The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has received your notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on a property or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information you provided, we have concluded that Appendix A, Criteria for Council Involvement in Reviewing Individual Section 106 Cases, of our regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800), does not apply to this undertaking. Accordingly, we do not believe that our participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed. However, if we receive a request for participation from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, affected Indian tribe, a consulting party, or other party, we may reconsider this decision. Additionally, should circumstances change, and you determine that our participation is needed to conclude the consultation process, please notify us. Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Programmatic Agreement (PA), developed in consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and any other consulting parties, and related documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of the PA and supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to complete the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Thank you for providing us with your notification of adverse effect. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please contact MaryAnn Naber at (202) 517- 0218 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely, LaShavio Johnson Historic Preservation Technician Office of Federal Agency Programs UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE GREATER ATLANTIC REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276 January 23, 2017 Mr. Scott Smizik Virginia Department of Transportation Environmental Division 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Hampton Roads Crossing Study, VDOT Project: 0064-965-081, PlOl; UPC 106724 Dear Mr. Smizak: On November 16, 2016, the cooperating agencies for the Hampton Roads Crossing Study met with you to concur on a preferred alternative to be recommended to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). During our meeting, cooperating agencies concurred that Alternative A, as described in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) should be recommended to the CTB as the preferred alternative because it represents the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that meets the purpose and need of the project. The actions of the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning organization (HRTPO) and the Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC) to endorse Alternative A and commit to its implementation with a series of other projects in the HRTPO 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan was a factor in this concurrence, as was the dedication of funding for the continued study of a new crossing of the Elizabeth River in the vicinity of Craney Island. As we commented during the meeting, our concurrence is based on the planning level information that has been provided in the DSEIS. However, we are unable to provide substantive recommendations until the means, methods and materials for construction of various project elements have been determined. Therefore, as project planning and design advance, we reserve the right to provide conservation recommendations in the future under the Magnuson­ Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to protect essential fish habitat (EFH) designated for federally managed species. We also work to protect anadromous species from impacts under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Because federally listed threatened and endangered species may also occur within the project area, coordination under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act may also be required as this project moves forward. Your responsibilities for EFH, anadromous fish and ESA-listed species consultation with our agency are outlined in our letter to you dated August 6, 2015. Thank you for the opportunity to participate as a cooperating agency for the Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS). We look forward to continuing to be an active partner as the planning and design of the project moves forward. Please contact Mr. David O'Brien of our Virginia field office at david.l.o'[email protected] or 804-684-7828 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Karen M. Greene Mid -Atlantic Field Offices Supervisor Habitat Conservation Division cc: M. Murray-Brown - NMFS/GARFO/PRD TJnited States Department of the Interior NÄTION.A,L PARK SERVICE 1849 C Streer, N.W. Washington, D.C.20?40 IN N,f,PTTREFINTù H36(2287) December 21,2016 Mary Ellen Hodges Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA232l9 RE: Hampton Roads Crossing Study VDOT Project 0064-965-081, Pl01 (UPC 106724) Assessment of Effects SENT VIA EMAIL. NO HARD COPY. Dear Ms. Hodges, Thank you for contacting the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) concerning the Section 106 Coordination Process due to an U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers permit for the above referenced project in Virginia. The ABPP reviewed the materials sent by you via mail and received on December 1,2016 for the project's potential effects on Battlefìelds in the project's area. Historic Properties As acknowledged on the VDHR Coordination Form, ABPP recognizes that the proposed project's AOI falls within the study area for two Civil War Battlefields, as identified by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CV/SAC): Hampton Roads (VA 008) and Sewell's Point (VA 001); see attached maps. In addition, a battlefield from the'War of 1812 is within the study area: Hampton Battlefield ff4a01); see attached maps. Hampton Battlefield is listed as a Battlefield Commemorative Opportunity and the site is not intact enough to warrant any effect to the battlefield. Hampton Roads (V4008) is listed as Preservation Priority IL2, as determined by the 1993 Civil V/ar Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) Report on the Nation's Civil V/ar Battlefields. Sewell's Point (V4001) is listed as a Priority IY.2. Both Priorities I and II refer to battlefields in critical need of preservation action. Additionally, the presence or integrity of archeological remains (terrestrial nor underwater) was not taken into consideration when determining preservation priorities. This consideration must be made in regard to the potential effects within the AOI of the proposed project. On March 8, 1862, from berth at Norfolk, the Confederate ironclad Virginia steamed into Hampton Roads where it sank Cumberland andran Congress aground. On March 9, the Union ironclad Monitor,having fortuitously arrived to do battle, initiated the first engagement of ironclads in history. The two ships fought each other to a standstill ,but Virginia retired. The AOI additionally lies within a Potential National Register Area for Hampton Roads (V4008) and Sewell's Point (VA 001) is in the vicinity of many other historic properties, as noted in your November 22, 2016 letter. Potential Effects- Direct and Indirect The ABPP believes that the battlefields mentioned above, no longer retain terestrial integrity (excepting Fort Monroe and Fort Wool), and agree with the "No Effect" finding for the terrestrial portions of the proposed project. However, the portions of the battlefields which retain integrity are essentially on and underwater, and in particular Hampton Roads (V4008) has the potential of being affected by this project. The proposed project has the potential of affecting the historic integrity of these battlefield landscapes throtigh the construction and expansion of the existing roadways, tunnel, and associated infrastructure related to the project. The construction could damage or destroy underwater archeological resources and military terrain in the area, in particular, those associated with the Hampton Roads. In review of the project proposal and location, at this time the American Battlefield Protection Program cannot agree with VDOT's determination of "No Adverse Effect" for the portions of the Battles of Hampton Roads and Sewell's Point which are on or under water. The ABPP recommends a Phase I Remote Sensing Survey fside scan sonar and magnetometer] of the full extent of the APE, including the resurvey of any targets previously identified in the 1998 Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel survey, and Phase II investigations of any targets in the APE which are warranted to be conducted to fully determine the direct and indirect effects this proposed project will have on the identified battlefields. Please keep the ABPP informed of the Section 106 process due to the potential effects to Civil V/ar battlefield landscapes. If you have any further questions about these battlefields, please contact me at 202-3 5 4-221 5 or elizabeth-vehmeyer@nps. gov. Sincerely, tqtfubJrlnry-- Elizabeth Vehmeyer Archeologist and Grants Specialist American Battlefield Protection Program Enclosures cc: Julie Langan, Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Recommended publications
  • Draft Interpretive Master Plan Technical Support Manual - Vol

    Draft Interpretive Master Plan Technical Support Manual - Vol

    FORT MONROE DRAFT INTERPRETIVE MASTER PLAN TECHNICAL SUPPORT MANUAL - VOL. 1 PROJECT #: FMFADA -101-2009 Submitted to the: By: Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority Interpretive Solutions, Inc. West Chester, PA 19382 Old Quarters #1 151 Bernard Road In association with: Fort Monroe, VA 23651 Leisure Business Advisors, LLC Richmond, VA 23223 and Trudy O’Reilly Public Relations JUNE 24, 2010 Hampton, VA 23661 Cover illustration credit: "Fortress Monroe, Va. and its vicinity". Jacob Wells, 1865. Publisher: Virtue & Co. Courtesy the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library Fort Monroe Interpretive Master Plan Technical Support Manual June 24, 2010 Interpretive Solutions, Inc. FORT MONROE DRAFT INTERPRETIVE MASTER PLAN TECHNICAL SUPPORT MANUAL Table of Contents Executive Summary . 6 Three Urgent Needs . 7 Part 1: Introduction . 8 1.1. Legislative Powers of the Fort Monroe Authority . 9 1.2. The Programmatic Agreement . 9 1.3 Strategic Goals, Mission and Purpose of the FMA . 10 1.3 The Interpretive Master Plan . 10 1.3.1 Project Background . 11 1.3.2 The National Park Service Planning Model . 12 1.3.3 Phased Approach . 13 1.3.4 Planning Team Overview . 13 1.3.5 Public Participation . 14 Part 2: Background . 16 2.1 The Hampton Roads Setting . 16 2.2 Description of the Resource . 17 2.3 Brief Historical Overview . 19 2.4 Prior Planning . 22 2.5 The Natural Resources Working Group . 22 2.6. The African American Culture Working Group . 22 Part 3: Foundation for Planning . 24 3.1 Significance of Fort Monroe . 24 3.2 Primary Interpretive Themes .
  • Environmental Assessment

    Environmental Assessment

    ENVIRONMENTAL APPENDIX NORFOLK HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VIRGINIA APPENDIX E1: Biological Assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 2018 E1 -1 NORFOLK HARBOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Submitted To: Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia Field Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510 March 5, 2018 E1 -2 [This page intentionally left blank.] E1 -3 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction, Purpose, and, Need ...................................................................................... 3 2.0 Project Scope ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Current Norfolk Harbor Project Dredging and Dredged Material Placement/Disposal Practices ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Dredging and Dredged Material Placement Practices For The Preferred Alternative .... 8 2.3 Project Schedule and Dredging Frequencies ............................................................... 11 2.4 Action Area ................................................................................................................... 11 2.5 Federally LIsted Species With the Potential to Occur in the Action Area ..................... 11 2.6 Alternate Monitoring Methods for Unexploded Ordinance/Munitions of Explosive Concern Screening ........................................................................................................
  • Historian J Michael Cobb Shares Stories and Plans

    Historian J Michael Cobb Shares Stories and Plans

    Media Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 26, 2019 Contact: Leslie Baker, 757/728-5316 [email protected] Seamus McGrann, 757/727-6841 [email protected] Historian J Michael Cobb Shares Stories and Plans for Renovation of Fort Wool at the Hampton History Museum on August 5 HAMPTON, Va -Author, historian and former Hampton History Museum curator J Michael Cobb shares the fascinating story of Fort Wool, its history, and what lies ahead for the future of the venerable fortress, as part of the Hampton History Museum’s Port Hampton Lecture Series on Monday, August 5, 2019 7:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. A familiar site to commuters crossing the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel, Fort Wool, originally named Fort Calhoun, has been a patriotic symbol of freedom since its construction in 1819. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1969, Fort Wool is a visible landmark at the gateway to Hampton Roads. Like Fort Monroe, it is an important asset of Hampton, the Commonwealth, and the nation. A unique site tells the history of America following the War of 1812 through World War II. Enslaved men took part in the building of Fort Wool. Robert E. Lee oversaw construction of the fortification. Andrew Jackson governed America for extended periods from the island. Fort Wool took part in the epic Civil War Battle of the “Monitor” and “Virginia.” Abraham Lincoln watched the attempt to capture Norfolk from the ramparts of Fort Wool; and Fort Wool was part of the Chesapeake Bay defenses during World War II. It continued to serve until the Army decommissioned it in the 1970s.
  • The Design, Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Sea Barrier Systems in Norfolk, Virginia and the Comparative Cost of Shoreline Barriers by Charles H

    The Design, Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Sea Barrier Systems in Norfolk, Virginia and the Comparative Cost of Shoreline Barriers by Charles H

    The Design, Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Sea Barrier Systems in Norfolk, Virginia and the Comparative Cost of Shoreline Barriers by Charles H. Hasenbank Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Naval Engineer and Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY May 2020 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2020. All rights reserved. Author................................................................ Department of Mechanical Engineering May 15, 2020 Certified by. Daniel Frey Professor of Mechanical Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by . Nicolas Hadjiconstantinou Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Theses 2 The Design, Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Sea Barrier Systems in Norfolk, Virginia and the Comparative Cost of Shoreline Barriers by Charles H. Hasenbank Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering on May 15, 2020, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of Naval Engineer and Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering Abstract Protecting a coastline from the damage of a storm surge, or tidal flooding associ- ated with sea level rise, is a challenging and costly engineering endeavor. Low lying properties located directly on an ocean coastline are limited in protective solutions to include constructing shoreline barriers, increasing building elevations, or relocation. However, shoreline properties on an estuary are afforded the additional protective option of a dynamic sea barrier spanning the mouth of the bay or river. The Delta Works projects in the Netherlands pioneered the design and construc- tion of large scale dynamic sea barriers. Although similar projects have been built or proposed, the high costs have minimized wide spread implementation.
  • State of the River 2020

    State of the River 2020

    State of the Elizabeth River Scorecard 1 State of the Elizabeth River Steering Committee 2020 Acknowledgements Chesapeake Bay Project Funders: Elizabeth River monitoring was enhanced in 2018–2020 through the generous support of the Virginia General Assembly, with special Norfolk James River Naval thanks to Chief Patrons Sen. Lynwood Lewis and Del. Matthew Base Lafayette James. Additional data cited was made possible by multiple project partners and funders including the federally funded Chesapeake Bay Program, National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, the Virginia ODU Department of Environmental Quality, the Virginia Department Craney Island B C of Health, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, National Institute Contents Main of Environmental Health Sciences - SRP grant RO1ES024245, E Norfolk VA Zoo Stem li HRSD, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Acknowledgments 2 za Broad Creek Map: Elizabeth River Health 2020 3 b Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary, and Old e What the scorecard measures 4 th Dominion University. Special thanks to members of the Elizabeth Summary 5 Port R River Project for making all of our work possible through your iv Nauticus Eastern Emerging challenges 7 Norfolk e D generous support. Western r Branch Special victory 8 Branch C C Contributing Partners: Precautions 9 Portsmouth The Elizabeth River Project took the lead to interpret findings for Swimming 9 the public with coordination of data collection by Mary Bennett, Fishing 9 C Woodstock environmental scientist. Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences managed Southern Branch 10 The little mummichog 13 research funded through a new state allocation for Elizabeth River C Indian River Virginia monitoring, with special thanks to Dr.
  • 20121214,0,843952.Story Consultant: Sustainability D

    20121214,0,843952.Story Consultant: Sustainability D

    Media coverage since December 2012 http://www.dailypress.com/news/hampton/dp-nws-fort-monroe-december-meeting- 20121214,0,843952.story Consultant: Sustainability decades away at Fort Monroe Conservation groups asking preservation not take a back seat to economics By Robert Brauchle, [email protected] | 757-247-2827 December 14, 2012 HAMPTON — The cost of operating Fort Monroe will continue to outpace revenue indefinitely unless the state agency overseeing the property finds creative ways to earn money, according to an accounting firm hired to plan the property's future. Just three options are being considered for Fort Monroe's master plan, all of which run an operating deficit exceeding $3 million annually, according to a presentation given Thursday by master planner Sasaki Associates. Those options include reusing the existing buildings for civilian uses, creating a Wherry Quarter park, and building homes in Wherry. Wherry Quarter — an area north and east of the stone fort that is not included in the National Park Service monument — has been a focus for Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, which has lobbied for that 72-acre area to remain park land. The area has been a wild card of sorts throughout the planning process. While public input has overwhelmingly supported green space in Wherry Quarter, state officials have said developing that property may be vital to making Fort Monroe economically sustainable. "We see it as an economic benefit to use that area as park space," said Scott Butler, of the Citizens group. "There are some tourism revenues that we feel haven't been considered." The Fort Monroe Authority has hired consultants to create a master plan to transition the property from military uses to civilian uses.
  • Appendix I War of 1812 Chronology

    Appendix I War of 1812 Chronology

    THE WAR OF 1812 MAGAZINE ISSUE 26 December 2016 Appendix I War of 1812 Chronology Compiled by Ralph Eshelman and Donald Hickey Introduction This War of 1812 Chronology includes all the major events related to the conflict beginning with the 1797 Jay Treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and ending with the United States, Weas and Kickapoos signing of a peace treaty at Fort Harrison, Indiana, June 4, 1816. While the chronology includes items such as treaties, embargos and political events, the focus is on military engagements, both land and sea. It is believed this chronology is the most holistic inventory of War of 1812 military engagements ever assembled into a chronological listing. Don Hickey, in his War of 1812 Chronology, comments that chronologies are marred by errors partly because they draw on faulty sources and because secondary and even primary sources are not always dependable.1 For example, opposing commanders might give different dates for a military action, and occasionally the same commander might even present conflicting data. Jerry Roberts in his book on the British raid on Essex, Connecticut, points out that in a copy of Captain Coot’s report in the Admiralty and Secretariat Papers the date given for the raid is off by one day.2 Similarly, during the bombardment of Fort McHenry a British bomb vessel's log entry date is off by one day.3 Hickey points out that reports compiled by officers at sea or in remote parts of the theaters of war seem to be especially prone to ambiguity and error.
  • 2013 Update and Boundary Increase Nomination

    2013 Update and Boundary Increase Nomination

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name Fort Monroe (2013 Update and Boundary Increase) other names/site number VDHR #114-0002 2. Location street & number At the intersection of Mercury Boulevard and Mellon Street not for publication city or town Fort Monroe vicinity state Virginia code 51 county Hampton (Ind. City) code 650 zip code 23651 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this x nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property x meets does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: x national statewide local ____________________________________ Signature of certifying official Date ____________ ____________________________________ ________________________________________ __ Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
  • Volume 32, Issue 26 Virginia Register of Regulations August 22, 2016 3443 PUBLICATION SCHEDULE and DEADLINES

    Volume 32, Issue 26 Virginia Register of Regulations August 22, 2016 3443 PUBLICATION SCHEDULE and DEADLINES

    VOL. 32 ISS. 26 PUBLISHED EVERY OTHER WEEK BY THE VIRGINIA CODE COMMISSION AUGUST 22, 2016 VOL TABLE OF CONTENTS Register Information Page ......................................................................................................................................... 3443 Publication Schedule and Deadlines ....................................................................................................................... 3444 Regulations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3445 1VAC30-105. Regulations Banning Concealed Firearms in Offices Owned or Occupied by Executive Branch Agencies (Proposed) ............................................................................................................................. 3445 2VAC5-685. Regulations Governing Pesticide Applicator Certification under Authority of Virginia Pesticide Control Act (Final) ............................................................................................................................... 3448 6VAC20-230. Regulations Relating to Special Conservator of the Peace (Final) ................................................................. 3455 8VAC20-440. Regulations Governing the Employment of Professional Personnel (Proposed) ............................................ 3457 8VAC20-441. Regulations Governing the Employment of Professional Personnel (Proposed) ............................................ 3457 9VAC25-260.
  • Structures of Coastal Resilience Phase 1 Context, Site, and Vulnerability Analysis February 2014

    Structures of Coastal Resilience Phase 1 Context, Site, and Vulnerability Analysis February 2014

    Structures of Coastal Resilience Phase 1 Context, Site, and Vulnerability Analysis February 2014 Structures of Coastal Resilience Phase 1 Context, Site, and Vulnerability Analysis February 2014 Princeton University School of Architecture Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Harvard University Graduate School of Design City College of New York Spitzer School of Architecture University of Pennsylvania School of Design Table of Contents 6.0 Ocean State: Research and Site Characterization, 30 Greater Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island 6.1 Introduction 31 6.2 Methodology 43 6.3 Areas of Interest 48 Executive Summary vii-xxx 6.4 Vision 57 6.5 References 60 1.0 Introduction to Structures of Coastal Resilience 2 1.1 Background Context 3 7.0 Shifting Sands: Sedimentary Cycles for Jamaica Bay, New York 62 1.2 The Structures of Coastal Resilience (SCR) Project 5 7.1 Introduction and Purpose 63 1.3 References 8 7.2 Context 65 7.3 Storm Risk Reduction at Jamaica Bay, 1964-2014 75 2.0 Hurricane Storm Surge Risk Assessment for Structures of 10 7.4 Post-Sandy Case Studies 81 Coastal Resilience 7.5 Bathymetric / Topographic Merged Model 83 2.1 Objectives 10 7.6 Jamaica Bay Morphology 85 2.2 Methodology 10 7.7 Jurisdictional Dynamics 93 2.3 References 13 7.8 Vulnerability and Risk 97 3.0 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Modeling For Structures 16 7.9 Methodology 105 of Coastal Resilience 7.10 Strategic Approaches for Storm Risk Reduction
  • General Information

    General Information

    General Information Section Includes: General Overview ~ What is a Capital Improvement Plan? …… Page 2-1 ~ Objectives of the Capital Improvement Plan …… Page 2-2 ~ Development Process and Discussions …… Page 2-2 ~ Revenue Sources …… Page 2-3 ~ Financial Policy Statement …… Page 2-4 Capital Improvement Plan Timeline …… Page 2-5 Neighborhood District Map …… Page 2-6 Organizational Policy Framework …… Page 2-7 City Profile …… Page 2-10 City of Hampton Historial Timeline …… Page 2-12 General Information Overview What is a Capital Improvement Plan? A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a five-year expenditure plan that addresses the acquisition of property and equipment, new construction and other major improvements to existing public facilities. The first year of the CIP is incorporated into the Manager’s Recommended Budget as the Capital Budget component for the respective year. Each locality establishes its own criteria for capital improvement projects. The criterion established by the City of Hampton is that a capital project must have a total cost in excess of $50,000 and a life expectancy of at least five years, at a minimum. Although the nature and scope of capital improvement projects vary, each project can usually be classified into one of the following Strategic Priority categories: 1. Economic Growth – generating the resources necessary to support the services the community desires and produce quality jobs for our citizens. 2. Educated and Engaged Citizenry – partnering with the Schools System, Hampton University, Thomas Nelson Community College and other formal and informal educational providers to keep, develop and attract a talented citizenry that will have a positive impact on their community and be able to succeed in the global economy.

  • EUIDE to IIISTORIU Poiilts

    EUIDE TO IIISTORIU POIilTS ,I MAIN SAI,I,YI'0R'I' IONI MONNOE IIIINEINII Q to*T MONRoE-Fort Algernoume occupied this site The Fort's full armament was to consist of three hundred from 1609 to 1667.Ttre next was Fort George built n 1727 eighty guns. Today Fort Monroe houses the United States and destroyed by a hurricane in 1749.During the War of 1812 Army Training and Doctrine Command which is responsible the ineffectual system of coastal defense allowed the British to for training (service schools, training centers, and ROTC sack Hampton and sail up the Chesapeake Bay to capture programs) and the combat development process. The Washington. The government then planned a new system of Department of the Interior named Fort Monroe a Registered coastal defense which included Fort Monroe. Begun in 1819, National Historic Landmark on May 9, 1961. the largest stone fort ever built in North America, Fort Monroe was named for President James Monroe. It has been continuously occupied since t823 and celebrated its sesquicentennial on July 25, 1973. >/ @ url- Ftit w,ct(@ RO r0 CHESAPEAKE o A @ aotuMATE MUSEUM-Located within the old fort's walls, it displays the cell in which Jefferson Davis was imprisoned May 22 to October 2, 1865. (He was later moved to Carroll Hall). In addition the museum tells the story of the battle between the Monitor and Merrimack, the history of Fort Monroe, and Old Point Comfort. It is also the starting point of the walking tour. @Oro CISTERN-Since no drinkable water was ever found on Old Point Comfort, Fort Monroe obtained its drinking water from cisterns like this one and water brought from the mainland.