Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRt 29 Bypass- Sec 4f eval-finalU.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration FINAL SECTION 4(t) EVALUATION Albemarle County School Properties ROUTE 29 BYPASS State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE 101' RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130) Albemarle County. Virginia Prepared bx- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ,ADMINISTRATION and V IRGINIA DEPARTM£NT OF TRANSPORTATION The proposed project involves construction of a new four-lane, limited access bypass to the west of existing Route 29 to relieve congestion on existing Route 29 and to facilitate the movement of through traffic. Included in the project is a new access mad into the North Grounds of the University of Virginia. This Section 4(0 Evaluation addresses the project's effects on Albemarle County School Properties that have been identified as Section 4(f) resources. Apprloved b ': 51l Federal Highway Administration FINAL SECTION 4(0 EVALUATION CONTENTS Pa~e INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................ 4 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Earlier Studies ..................................................................................................................... 5 Base Case ............................................................................................................................ 5 Route 29 Corridor Study .................................................................................................... 6 Modifications to Alignment of Selected Bypass Alternative ............................................. 8 Elimination of Grade-Separated Interchanges .................................................................... 9 Additional Design Modifications ........................................................................................ 9 Current Shams .................................................................................................................... 10 D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT ......................................................................... 10 E. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4(f) INVOLVEMENTS ...............................................................16 DESCRIPTIONS OF SECTION 4(0 PROPERTIES ............................................................... 17 1. Albemarle County School Complex ................................................................................. 17 2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ........................................................................................ 22 G. RELATIONSI-IIPS TO OTI-IER SIMILAR PROPERTIES .................................................... 22 IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(0 PROPERTIES .......................................................................... 26 1. Albemarle County School Complex ................................................................................. 26 2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ........................................................................................ 33 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 35 1. Overview of considerations in Evaluating Avoidance Alternatives ................................. 35 2. Previous Alternatives from FEIS ...................................................................................... 41 3. Other Location Alternatives .............................................................................................. 56 4. Modifications to Current Design ....................................................................................... 58 J. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ........................................................................................ 61 COORDINATION ........................................................................................................................ 65 1. Coordination with local officials after identification of new 4(f) involvement ................ 65 2. Coordination with local officials before identification of new 4(f) involvemem .............66 3. Public Involvement ........................................................................................................... 71 L. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72 APPENDICES Appendix A Resolutions of the Commonwealth Transportation Board Appendix B Coordination with Local Officials Appendix C Comments on Draft Section 409 Evaluation Appendix D U.S. Department of Interior Comments on Draft Final Section 4(0 Evaluation i Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation FIGURES AND TABLES No. Title Page Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 2 Proposed Project Alignment ................................................................................................ 3 Candidate Build Alternatives from FEIS ............................................................................. 7 Albemarle County Land Use Plan ..................................................................................... 11 CATS Plan Roadway Improvements ................................................................................. 14 Traffic Data ........................................................................................................................ 15 Albemarle County School Complex .................................................................................. 18 Typical View of Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School ......................................................... 20 Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ......................................................................................... 23 Public Parks and Recreation Areas .................................................................................... 25 Privately Owned Trail Resources ...................................................................................... 27 Historic Properties ............................................................................................................. 29 Impacts to Albemarle County School Complex ................................................................ 30 Impacts to Agnor-Hurt Elementary School ....................................................................... 34 AgriculturalfForestal Districts ........................................................................................... 37 Constraints & Previous Altematives .................................................................................. 40 Altemative 6 and Darden Towe Park ................................................................................. 43 Alternative 6 and Pen Park ................................................................................................ 44 Alternative 6B and Ridgeway Historic Property ............................................................... 45 Alternative 7A and McIntire Park ...................................................................................... 47 Alternative 11 and Schlesinger Farm Historic Property .................................................... 49 Alternative 11 and the Barracks Historic District .............................................................. 50 Alternative 12 and Schlesinger Farm Historic Property .................................................... 51 Alternative 12 and Darby's Folly Historic Property .......................................................... 52 Alternative 12 and Crenshaw Farm Historic Property ....................................................... 53 Grade-Separated Interchanges ........................................................................................... 55 Eastern Design Altemative to Avoid Albemarle County School Complex ....................... 59 Western Design Alternative 1 for Albemarle County School Complex ............................ 60 Western Altemative 2 to Avoid Albemarle County School Complex ............................... 62 Measures to Minimize Harm ............................................................................................. 64 Tables 1 Other Section 4(f) Parks and Recreation Properties in the Study Area ............................. 24 2 Section 4(f) Historic Properties in the Study Area ............................................................ 28 3 Projected Year 2022 Peak-Hour Noise Levels on School Complex .................................. 31 4 Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 75 ii Rou~e 29 Bypass, Final Secgon 4(f) Evaluation A. INTRODUCTION Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303(c)) states that the Secretary of the U.S. Deparm~ent of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance only if: (1) (2) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and, the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting fxom the use. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and FHWA's regulations (23 CFR 771.135) specify the procedures for implementing Section 4(f) on federal-aid highway projects. The regulations identify the historic sites that are subject to Section 4(f) as those that are on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), except for archaeological sites that are important chiefly for the information they may contain. The regulations also provide procedures for evaluating Section 4(f) involvements that are discovered late in the project development process, as occurred with this project. The proposed Route 29 Bypass is located in Albemarle County as shown on Figures 1 and 2. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) approved in 1993 discussed the environmental effects of the proposed bypass. A Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) approved in 1995 discussed the environmental effects of changes to the proposed bypass termini locations. The current design of the Route 29 Bypass, adopted in 1997 after detailed design work and a design public hearing, would involve the use ora portion of property identified in 1998 as Section 4(f) property. The property is the Albemarle County School Complex. As designated by Albemarle County, the Complex encompasses the recreational areas at Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Greet Elementary School, and the Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) School, as well as the school buildings, parking lots, bus maintenance facilities, and other appurtenances, and also the wooded areas surrounding these facilities. Although FHWA is charged with determining the reasonableness of applying Section 4(f) to the entire parcel, it has not done so in this case because impacts would be limited to recreational trails and wooded areas on the northern edge of the property. However, based on comments received from County officials upon circulation of the Draft Section 400 Evaluation, the entire property encompassing the School Complex is being treated as a Section 4(f) property. The total area of the School Complex property designated by the County as a park is approximately 218 acres. A more complete description of the property is provided in Section F, Descriptions of Section 4(f) Properties. Another County school property adjacent to the project, Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, also has been identified in its entirety as a Section 4(f) property. A more complete description of it is also provided in Section F. The current design of the bypass does not require the use of land from the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property. Studies conducted in support of the FEIS (see discussion in Section C.3., Route 29 Corridor Study) examined the effects of the proposed bypass on public recreational facilities on public school property at the Albemarle County School Complex. These facilities were not discussed specifically as Section 4(f) involvements because, although the bypass would involve wooded land along the 1 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(f) Evaluation CHARLOTTESVILLE ALBEMARLE COUNTY Loca'l;ion 29BP002 Source: Route 29 Corridor Study FEIS Fig. I-1 F~'ojec~c Locat, ion Figure 1 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia 1 I i i I 1 I 1 I ! I ! Original Alternative 10 Current Design Section 4(f) Properties ' Along Project Alignment Fropose~l Project, Alignment, Figure 2 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) 0 1250 2500 Reference: USGS Quadrangles, Charlottesville West, Charlottesville East edge of the property, no use, direct or constructive, of the recreational facilities had been identified at that time. This was consistent with FHWA's regulations and policies wherein, for multiple use properties such as schools, Section 4(f) applies only to portions designated in the plans of the administering agency as being for significant 4(t') purposes such as parks and recreation (23 CFR 771.135(d) and FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper). The Agnor-Hurt Elementary School did not exist when the original alignment for the bypass was selected by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The FEIS noted that a portion of the property would be required for the bypass right of way and, again, this encroachment was not discussed specifically as a Section 4(f) involvement because there would be no use, direct or constructive, of the recreational facilities on the property. Subsequent design work has resulted in no use of property from the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. In 1998, information was received that there are recreational trails in the Albemarle County School Complex that had not been identified during previous studies. It was determined that the proposed bypass would displace (i.e., use) a portion of some of the trails, thereby invoking Section 4(f). Otherwise, the physical impacts of the bypass on the School Complex remained substantially the same as reported in the FEIS. After collecting additional information from County officials, a Draft Section 4(]) Evaluation was prepared for the bypass's involvement with the trails and it was circulated for review and comment in February 1999 to all who received copies of the FEIS. Based on comments received and other information obtained after circulation of the Draft Section 409 Evaluation, the entire School Complex property is now being treated as a Section 4(f) property. County officials stated that the entire parcel encompassing the Albemarle County School Complex (approximately 218 acres) is significant for public recreation and should be considered in its entirety as Section 4(f) property. The Albemarle County Code includes in the definition of"park" any public school parcel of land designated for public recreational use (Sec. 11-100 Albemarle County Code). The County's current Comprehensive Plan designates school properties to function also as district or community parks. Based on these considerations, the entire Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property encompassing approximately 19.5 acres also now is being treated as a Section 4(1') property. This Final Section 4fi) Evaluation takes into account the additional information and comments obtained as a result of circulation of the Draft Section 4~ Evaluation, as well as other data collected subsequently. The following sections of this document provide background on the history of project development, describe the project and its purpose and need, describe the Section 4(f) properties in the project area, discuss the project's impacts to them, and present avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm. B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION On April 17, 1997, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB), the decision-making body for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), approved the major design features of the proposed Route 29 Bypass as presented at the Design Public Hearing of February 25, 1997, with modifications to the interchange design at the north end. The proposed project would provide a new four-lane divided, limited access bypass to the west of existing Route 29. It would extend from the Route 250 Bypass and the North Grounds of the University of Virginia on the south end to existing Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River on the north end. The project also would include construction of a connector road into the North Grounds of the University of Virginia, located on 4 Route 29 Bypass, ]Final Section 4(t'J Evaluation the south side of the Ronte 250 Bypass. Access to the new highway would be via interchanges at both ends, with no intermediate access points to crossroads or adjacent properties. The proposed bypass would be approximately 6.24 miles long; its proposed alignment is shown on Figure 2. This alignment is referred to throughout this document as the "Current Design." As presented in the FEIS, the proposed action had also included construction of grade-separated interchanges at three locations (Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road) along existing Route 29. These interchanges previously proposed for existing Route 29 are no longer part of the project. C. BACKGROUND 1. Earlier Studies Planning, design, and construction of transportation improvements for the Route 29 corridor have been going on for a number of years. A study completed by VDOT in January 1979 recommended widening Route 29 to six lanes, building an eastern residential collector (now known as the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway), and building a limited access western bypass. These recommendations were unanimously adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in May of 1979. The Board of Supervisors later voted to rescind approval of the western bypass. The Piedmont Highway Corridor Study was prepared by VDOT to identify the types and locations of improvements needed for north-south transportation through central Virginia. The study, provided to Albemarle County officials in 1984, included a proposed 21-mile-long western bypass. When made public, this proposal drew strong opposition and was rejected by Albemarle County. The Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) Year 2000 Transportation Plan was approved by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in August 1985. The initial plan had included both six-Inning of existing Route 29 (which only had four lanes at that time) and construction of a western bypass. However, the plan ultimately adopted by the MPO did not include the proposed western bypass. In a 1985 study of the Route 29 corridor, from the Route 250 Bypass to the Greene County line, VDOT examined nine alternatives involving various widening schemes, service roads, and an eastern bypass. None of the nine alternatives considered at that time appeared to provide adequate capacity to accommodate projected year 2000 travel demands in the corridor. In April 1986, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County made a joint presentation to the Governors Commission for Transportation in the Twenty-First Century requesting funding for an eastern bypass. In May 1986, in response to a request by the Commission, Albemarle County indicated support for widening existing Route 29. 2. Base Case In July 1986, FHWA approved a Draft Environmental Assessment for widening Route 29. The widening was to entail expansion of the road, which at that time was four lanes with a graded median, to provide six through lanes and continuous right-mm lanes between Hydraulic Road and the South Fork Rivanna River, with additional left-mm and right-mm lanes at selected intersections. 5 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 40) Evaluation A grade-separated interchange was proposed at Rio Road. Following the October 1986 Location and Design Public Hearing, it was recommended to proceed with the proposed improvements, except that the interchange at Rio Road would not be included. The interchange was to be eliminated because of opposition expressed at the hearing, and because of the impacts to businesses and disruption of access to the businesses surrounding the proposed interchange. These improvements came to be called the "Base Case" in subsequent studies. In July 1991, a Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) were approved by FHWA for the Base Case, and construction of these improvements was completed in 1997. 3. Route 29 Corridor Study Shortly after the Location and Design Public Hearing in 1986 for the Base Case improvements, representatives of Albemarle County asked VDOT to evaluate an "expressway" concept within the existing Route 29 Corridor. The City and County recommended to VDOT that construction of the Base Case improvements be held in abeyance until a comprehensive study of the Route 29 corridor in Albemarle County north of Charlottesville could be performed. In October 1987, VDOT hired a consultant to conduct such a study, which would include comprehensive analyses of traffic volumes and patterns and a thorough evaluation of alternatives, including expressway alternatives. In November 1987, a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental lmpact Statement for the Route 29 Corridor Study was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.7 and 23 CFR 771.123. Scoping letters announcing the study and soliciting input were sent to federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or potential interest in the project. During the Route 29 Corridor Study conducted between 1987 and 1993, numerous alternatives to relieve traffic congestion on Route 29 and expedite the movement of through traffic were evaluated. An iterative screening process was used to develop and evaluate alternatives, and to identify the reasonable alternatives to be considered in detail and documented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Identification of Section 4(f) resources was an integral pan of this process. Efforts to identify such resources included consultation with local officials, reviews of local land use mapping and comprehensive plans, field reconnaissance, public information meetings, meetings with local interest groups, and a comprehensive cultural resources identification survey that included coordination with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The alternatives presented in the DEIS included the already-programmed Base Case improvements (which served as the No-Build Alternative), eight Candidate Build Alternatives (seven alignment alternatives for a bypass on new location and an Expressway Alternative along existing Route 29 as shown on Figure 3), and mass transit and transportation system management alternatives. MINUTP, a widely used commercial software model for traffic forecasting, was used to generate traffic projections for the alternatives. This is the same model used by the MPO for its regional traffic forecasting in developing and updating the regional transportation plan. Inputs to the model included land use and socioeconomic data provided by the County and City for traffic analysis zones. The model was calibrated using counts of existing traffic and origin/destination survey data~ 6 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) g-valuation 12 / 0 9 PROFFIT Candi&ate 15uil& Alternatives from FEI,~ Figure 3 Source: Adapted from Route 29 Corridor Study FEIS Fig. 11-2 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Based on consideration of the relevant factors, including information in the DEIS, comments on the DEIS following its circulation, and comments received during and after the Location Public Hearing, the CTB on November 15, 1990 selected a combination of improvements for the Route 29 corridor (see resolution in Appendix A). These improvements were to be implemented in three phases: Phase I - Short-Range Recommendations. Construct the Base Case improvements, reserve rights of way for the grade-separated interchanges on Route 29, restriction by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville of further development within areas needed for the rights of way for the interchanges, acquire rights of way as necessary through advance acquisition procedures, develop a North Grounds access facility, and, with assistance of the County, preserve rights of way needed for the Alternative 10 Bypass. Phase II - Medium-Range Recommendations. Comtmct the grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 and continue right of way preservation for the Alternative 10 Bypass with advance acquisition as needed. Phase III - Long-Range Recommendation. Construct the Alternative 10 Bypass. An agreement executed in December 1991 by County and City officials, and in February 1992 by the University of Virginia, supported those improvements and requested that the improvements be implemented in the sequence listed, with the additional request that the Meadow Creek Parkway be constructed as soon as funding was available. On February 18, 1992, the MPO passed a resolution amending the CATS Plan to include the improvements adopted by the CTB. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documenting the CTB's decision and the reasons for it was approved by FHWA on January 20, 1993, and a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued by FHWA on April 8, 1993. (It should be noted here that neither the CTB's resolution nor the ROD mentioned the Meadow Creek Parkway became it was not part of the selected improVements. As an element of the CATS Plan, the Meadow Creek Parkway was considered as part of the future transportation network for the Route 29 Corridor Study. The Parkway is a separate project being advanced independently under different funding sources). 4. Modifications to Alignment of Selected Bypass Alternative Shortly after issuance of the ROD, Albemarle County officials approached VDOT regarding modifying the northern terminus of the Alternative 10 Bypass because of ongoing commercial development along existing Route 29 that would be disrupted by the proposed interchange at the selected northern terminus. VDOT conducted studies of the requested modification, along with studies of additional modifications at the southern terminus associated with reducing impacts to St. Anne's Belfield School and with the access into the University's North Grounds. As a result of these studies, the bypass alignment at the southern terminus was shifted from the west side to the east side of St. Anne's Belfield School and the northern terminus was shifted to the north side of the South Fork Rivanna River (see Figure 2 showing Current Design and Original Alternative 10). A Draft Environmental Assessment was prepared to determine the need for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the modifications. The Draft Environmental Assessment was presented to the public, along with other information, at a Location Public Hearing on February 13, 1995. After a decision by the CTB to adopt the changes (see resolution in Appendix A), a Final Environmental 8 Route 29 Bypass, Final !~ection 4(I') Evaluation Assessment was prepared and, because no significant environmental impacts were identified as a result of the modifications, a FONSI was issued by FHWA in July 1995. 5. Elimination of Grade-Separated Interchanges Also in 1995, another change involved eliminating the grade-separated interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road from the proposed improvements. As part of the design activities for these interchanges, a Public Information Meeting was held on October 26, 1994. Substantial citizen opposition was expressed at the meeting, particularly from the business community that would be most directly affected by the interchanges. Of the 4,372 citizens who submitted comments during or following the meeting (approximately 1,100 actually attended the meeting), 3,270 opposed construction of any of the interchanges and 2,297 requested that the bypass be constructed rather than the interchanges. VDOT received correspondence ~om local groups, such as the North Charlottesville Business Council and from individuals suggesting that the three interchanges be cancelled and that the bypass be advanced instead. The City of Charlottesville passed a resolution on January 17, 1995 requesting that the proposed Hydraulic Road interchange be eliminated because of impacts to businesses within the City, the disruptions to the Base Case improvements then under construction, and other impacts. Local groups supporting the interchanges and opposing the bypass, such as the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO) also weighed in on the discussions. Local officials, including the Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, the Mayor and the City Manager of Charlottesville, and the MPO were notified that discussion of the interchanges would be an item on the CTB's upcoming workshop agenda and the CTB's February 1995 meeting. MPO staff attended the workshop. VDOT's Chief Engineer gave an extensive presentation to the CTB covering the history of the project, preliminary plans for the grade-separated interchanges, traffic considerations, the status of the Base Case improvements then under construction, and the extensive public comments from the October 1994 public information meeting. The CTB passed a resolution (see Appendix A) on February 16, 1995 terminating further design and development of the interchanges based on City and citizen opposition and other considerations involving traffic benefits less than anticipated, projected construction costs, available funding, and the apparent need to reconstruct a substantial portion of the Base Case improvements (which were then nearing completion) to accommodate the interchanges. The CTB also reassigned funds allocated for interchange design and construction to enhancements of the Base Case improvements, and to plan development and right of way acquisition for the bypass so that the selected corridor could be protected from ongoing development. About this time, County officials had indicated that they did not have the ability to preserve right of way under their zoning and land use regulations. 6. Additional Design Modifications In mid-1995, VDOT began development of right of way and construction plans for the proposed bypass. Additional refinements and environmental enhancements to the bypass design features have been developed in close coordination with a Design Advisory Committee comprised of local community and County representatives. Recommendations from citizens at several Citizens Information Meetings and at the Design Public Heating, held February 25, 1997, were also considered in adjusting the design at several locations. 9 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation 7. Current Status The bypass is now in final design, which is approximately 65% complete. Approximately 80% of the necessary right of way has now been acquired, including all of the homes in the path of the proposed alignment. At present, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has withdrawn support for the bypass by a resolution passed on April 9, 1997, citing the CTB's 1995 action to eliminate the interchanges as one oft he reasons. The MPO's currently approved Transportation Improvement Program includes funding for engineering and right of way acquisition for the bypass and withholds federal funding for construction. Among the conditions cited by the MPO under which it would approve construction funding is the reinclusion of the grade-separated interchanges, excluding the one at Hydraulic Road, into the planned improvements. D. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The need for the proposed project is based on the inability of existing Route 29 to adequately accommodate projected traffic volumes, particularly through traffic volumes. As stated in the FEIS: The purpose of the Route 29 Corridor Study is to find a solution to existing and future traffic congestion on a three-mile section of U.S. Route 29 between U.S. Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County north of Charlottesville. A secondary purpose of the study is to complete a gap in ongoing improvements to U.S. Route 29 through central Virginia. Route 29 serves as a major thoroughfare providing access to the main commercial and residential areas of Albemarle County. Existing Route 29 between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River has eight lanes (three through lanes and a continuous fight-mm lane in both directions) with a variable-width median of concrete or grass. It serves as "Main Street" for "downtown" Albemarle County. There are 13 signalized intersections and 10 unsignalized intersections on this 3.5-mile stretch of Route 29. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. There are approximately 28 curb cuts on the east side of Route 29 and approximately 32 curb cuts on the west side providing ingress and egress to businesses. Lining Route 29 are four regional shopping centers, three industrial sites, a Wal-Mart, a Sam's Club, a post office, and numerous gas stations, motels, fast food outlets, restaurants, and grocery stores. Behind the commercial areas are some of the most densety developed residential areas of Albemarle County. Figure 4 illustrates the intensive land uses in this corridor. These land uses generate large volumes of traffic on Route 29 and adjacent streets. Some of this Waffle circulates within the corridor and some of it travels beyond the immediate area. The reference to completing a "gap in ongoing improvements to U.S. Route 29" has to do with the fact that, for most of its length through Virginia, Route 29 is a four-lane divided highway, with controlled or limited access features through or around urbanized areas. Route 29 has long been identified as part of the State Arterial System, mandated by the Virginia General Assembly to provide multi-lane divided, high-speed highways serving major towns and cities in the state. Route 29 is the only north-south highway linking the urbanized areas through and beyond central Virginia (Danville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Culpeper, Warrenton, Fairfax, Falls Church, and Arlington, 10 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(I3 Evaluation I Park; 8nd 6reenways I Tran;itlon81 ~l~emarle Count~ Land ~ee Plan / Communl~ Sewlce I Industrial ~wlce Fig~e 4 ~ Regional Sewice ~ Neighborhood Sewice ~ Offi~ ~wi~ ~ Instit~ion81 Neighborhood Densi~ ~ Urban ~nsi~ ~;O~CCt: 602~-002-~22, ~ ]0Z (R~ommend~ ~ DU/AC) (R~ommend~ 6.01~4 DU/AC) Source: Adapted From Coun~ of Albemarle ~nd Use Plan, R~-00~-00 ], ~ ] 0] a component of the Comprehensive Plan, adopt~ June 5, 1996. Virginia; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Washington, D.C.). As such, it provides mobility and vital linkage for economic and personal activities throughout central Virginia, as well as connections among other arterial and interstate routes that enable travel throughout the state and the nation. As discussed in the FEIS, Charlottesville remains the last metropolitan area along Route 29 where traffic would not be able to bypass the most congested areas. Regional and interstate traffic passing through the Charlottesville area have no alternative but to stay on Route 29. The closest other major north- south routes are 1-81 approximately 30 miles to the west across the Blue Ridge Mountains, and U.S. Route 15, a two-lane road through rural areas approximately 17 miles to the east. Neither of these routes are satisfactory substitutes for Route 29 because they are in different corridors, serve different traffic needs, and do not serve the areas served by Route 29. The importance of Route 29 beyond the limits of Charlottesville and Albemarle County has been recognized in the route's designation by Congress as part of the National Highway System and also as a Highway of National Significance. This importance also is attested to by the resolutions passed by at least a dozen other localities along Route 29 supporting a bypass of Charlottesville to enhance mobility for through traffic. However, mobility is reduced by the interruption of flow by traffic signals and by the friction caused by traffic entering and leaving the roadway at numerous intersecting streets and access points serving adjacent properties. The existing section of Route 29 between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River functions as a low-speed urban street and no longer adequately serves the mobility function intended for the State Arterial System and the National Highway System. This section is one of only a handful of sections along the 230 miles of Route 29 between North Carolina and Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia with a posted speed limit of less than 55 mph. It has a greater density of traffic signals than any other section except for one north of Lynchburg. These features represent a bottleneck that causes delays and inconvenience for traffic with origins and destinations beyond this urbanized section of roadway. Every other metropolitan area along Route 29 has, or soon will have, a limited access bypass to provide the mobility needed for moving people and goods efficiently through the corridor, During the Route 29 Corridor Study, intensive traffic analyses were conducted. These analyses included an origin and destination survey containing more than 23,000 records, nearly 1,200 telephone surveys on travel characteristics and patterns, traffic counts, and traffic modeling using inputs derived from the surveys, the counts, and socioeconomic and land use data. The study area for the traffic analyses was defined as the CATS region, which encompasses the City of Charlottesville and the urbanized portions of Albemarle County, extending to the North Fork Rivanna River 6.5 miles north of Charlottesville on the north, to the Shadwell area 3.3 miles east of Charlottesville on the east, to areas south of and along 1-64 on the south, and to the Mechums River 8.3 miles west of Charlottesville on the west. Around the perimeter of the study area, traffic counting and survey stations were established on major roads entering the study area (e.g., Route 29 from the south and north, 1-64 from the west and east, Route 250 from the west and east). Through traffic was defined as traffic passing entirely through the study area, from one external station to another. Local traffic was defined as traffic with origins or destination within the study area. Some people have misconstrued "local" traffic to mean only traffic with origins and destinations along the section of Route 29 between Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River, the section of roadway to which the Route 29 Corridor Study was addressed. This section of Route 29 is the most heavily travelled highway in the Charlottesville area, carrying more than twice as much traffic as 1-64. Through traffic, as a percentage of total traffic, is about 10% just north of Hydraulic Road. Farther north, for example in the vicinity 12 Route :~9 Bypass, Final Section 4(t) Evaluation of Route 649 near the airport, the volume of through traffic as a percentage of total traffic increases to about 19%. This change in percentage reflects the increasing volumes of automobile traffic generated by development closer in to the City of Charlottesville. Approximately 71% of through traffic entering or leaving the north end of the study area at Route 29 originates fi:om or is destined to Route 29 south of the study area or 1-64 west or east of the study area. Approximately 86% of that traffic was identified as using the western leg of the Route 250 Bypass west of existing Route 29 to reach 1-64 or Route 29 south. The FEIS reported 1987 traffic volume on Route 29 between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road at 50, 680. Projections for year 2010 indicated a volume of 61,000. Projections for year 2015 in the CATS Plan indicate a volume of 71,500 just north of Rio Road. As the volume increases, travel speeds decline, delays at signalized intersections increase, and congestion increases. These conditions make it impossible for existing Route 29 to simultaneously serve as a local business access route and a regional and interstate throughway. By diverting traffic to an altemate route, the proposed bypass would relieve congestion on existing Route 29. Year 2010 traffic estimates in the FEIS indicated a total volume on the proposed bypass of approximately 17,900 vehicles per day, with reduction of approximately 10,600 to 14,000 vehicles per day on existing Route 29 (approximately 16% to 27% of the total traffic). By the year 2022, the bypass is projected to carry approximately 24,400 vehicles per day. These are vehicles that would otherwise travel on existing Route 29 or other local streets. The .bypass also would provide a high-speed.route for through traffic to avoid the low-speed conditions on existing Route 29 through the business district, thus enhancing the mobility of traffic with origins and destinations beyond the local Charlottesville area. Direct access into the North Grounds of the University would expedite movement of traffic into facilities there. The County, the City, and the University endorsed the bypass as part of the selected improvements and the MPO included the bypass in the regional transportation plan. Although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution withdrawing support for the bypass, the bypass remains a component of the County of Albemarle Land Use Plan (see Figure 4), adopted in June 1996: The Western Bypass is a proposed 6 mile long roadway from the interchange of Route 29 and 29/250 Bypass to just north of Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road). It is planned to connect with Route 29 and the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. The purpose of the Bypass is to alleviate traffic on Route 29 North and allow the roads network to operate at a higher level of service in the State. (p. 175) And, although the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO has withheld federal funding for construction of the bypass, the bypass remains a committed project in the MPO's regional transportation plan (Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015 Project Plan, or CATS Plan, adopted in January 1998; see Figure 5). It is identified as among a group of projects intended to "improve the existing network of primary roads for local and through travelers." (p.37). Figure 6 illustrates traffic data from the CATS Plan showing the differences in projected traffic volumes in the year 2015 on 13 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation C~21 / · Transportation System Management Improvements (Bridge, Spot, and Intersection Improvements) m Committed Proiects - - Recommended for Development .... Recommended for Study Source: Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015. Adopted by Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization January 5, 1998 29BPO0= CAT5 Plan Roa&way IrnFrovement~ Figure 5 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 10l RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia (71500) Year 2015 No Build Average Daily Traffic (71500) Year 2015 Build Average Daily Traffic 29BP009 Tra~io Da~,a Figure 6 Source: Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2015. Adopted by Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization January 5, 1998 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia existing Route 29 with and without the transportation improvements included in the CATS Plan. The proposed bypass clearly is an important element of the overall improvements included in the Plan. In addition to the local and regional planning, the proposed Bypass also has remained an important element of statewide transportation planning as evidenced by its continued inclusion in VDOT's S/x- Year Improvement Program. Several comments received on the Draft Section 409 Evaluation referred to the Route 29 Corridor Development Study and substantial increases in traffic forecasted for Route 29 if a freeway were to be built fi.om the north end of the Charlottesville Bypass to 1-66, roughly 75 miles to the north. That Corridor Development Study was the Charlottesville-to-Warrenton phase of a transportation planning study mandated by Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) to evaluate multimodal transportation needs in the Route 29 corridor between Greensboro, North Carolina and Washington, DC. The freeway alternative that was evaluated in that study would involve a completely limited access (interstate-type) highway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. This is in contrast to the current corridor, which is posted at 55 miles per hour and has uncontrolled access to adjacent properties except on the bypasses of Madison, Culpeper, and Warrenton. Given the higher design standards and the higher speed associated with a freeway, the study found that such a facility would induce additional traffic into the Route 29 corridor, primarily as a result of diverting traffic from 1-81. Some of the local officials and elected representatives who participated in the study agreed that such a facility would not be appropriate through all of this part of the Route 29 corridor. The outcome of the study therefore was that Albemarle, Greene, and Madison Counties would conduct additional investigations as to how best to preserve the mobility functions of Route 29 by implementing land use and access controls at the local level. VDOT's current Six-Year Improvement Program includes funding for such investigations in Albemarle and Greene Counties. Advancement of any additional improvements in the corridor would be subject to detailed engineering and environmental analyses and the necessary documentation required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Under these circumstances, construction ora freeway along the entire length of Route 29 from Charlottesville to 1-66 is unlikely for the foreseeable furore. E. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4(t) INVOLVEMENTS The FEIS signed by FHWA on January 20, 1993 contained Section 4(f) Evaluations for three publicly owned public parks (Mclntire Park, Pen Park, and Rivarma Park [now Darden Towe Park]) and two historic properties eligible for the NRHP (Schlesinger Farm and The Barracks Historic District). These properties, along with other recreational (including school playgrounds and athletic fields) and historic properties, environmental and engineering constraints, and suggestions from citizens, public officials, and agency representatives, all were taken into account in developing and evaluating alternatives to meet the identified transportation needs. Based on information available at the time the decision was made, the Selected Altemative (the Alternative 10 Bypass and the grade-separated interchanges on existing Route 29) was the only prudent and feasible alternative that would both meet the transportation needs and avoid the use of any Section 4(1') properties. Since that time, additional information has determined that the Alternative 10 Bypass portion of the Selected Alternative, which has evolved to the Current Design, also would have a Section 4(f) involvement. 16 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4{f') Evaluation This involvement concems the Albemarle County School Complex, which encompasses Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Mary C. Greer Elementary School, and the Piedmont Regional Education Program (PREP) School. Figure 2 shows the locations of the schools. The entire School Complex is designated by the County as a park. The Current Design of the bypass requires the use of approximately 15.17 acres of land (about 7% of the total property acreage) from the School Complex and approximately 1,316 linear feet of recreational trails (about 10% of the total trail system) on school property. The Current Design would not encroach on any of the athletic fields, tennis courts, hard court areas, track, playgrounds, or buildings on the School Complex. Except for the impacts to the trails, the physical impacts of the bypass on the School Complex are substantially the same as those reported in the FEIS. Complete descriptions of the property, the trails, and other facilities on the property are contained in subsequent sections of this Evaluation. Another school property, the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School between Woodbum Road and Berkmar Drive as shown on Figure 2, also is designated by the County as a park. Complete descriptions of this property and its associated recreational facilities are also presented later in this Evaluation. The proposed bypass, though located adjacent to the property, would not use any land from this property. F. DESCRIPTIONS OF SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES As noted in the Introduction, Section 4(f) pertains to publicly owned public parks and recreation areas, publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Efforts to identify properties meeting these criteria were undertaken early in project development, when altematives were under study. These efforts included consultations with federal, state, and local officials; reviews of maps and aerial photographs; reviews of City and County Comprehensive Plans and Land Use Plans; consultations with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR); intensive historic resources surveys, and field reconnaissance. Extensive coordination with County and City representatives, community representatives, interest groups, and others serving on study committees, as well as the extensive public involvement activities, provided numerous oppommities for the identification of these types of properties as issues or concerns. During project development, all known public school and recreational facilities near the selected bypass alternative were avoided. Despite all these efforts, the trails on the Albemarle County School Complex property, the discovery of which initiated this new Section 4(f) Evaluation, had not been identified as a recreational facility. The coordination and other efforts also did not result in the entire School Complex being identified as a park. Even during preparation of the Draft Section 4(/) Evaluation and associated coordination with County officials (see correspondence in Appendix B), only the recreational facilities on the school property, not the entire property, were recognized as Section 4(f) resources. Now, based on additional information and comments received after circulation of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, these two public school properties located adjacent to the approved alignment, as shown on Figure 2, are considered as Section 4(f) properties in their entireties. 1. Albemarle County School Complex As shown on Figure 7, the Albemarle County School Complex includes Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, Mary C. Greer Elementary School, and the Piedmont Regional Education 17 Koute 29 Bypa.~, Final Section 4(f) EYa[u~tion Schlesinger Farm Histodc Property David G. Kale/gi$ & Me~y M. Kale~jis Montvue 00 o o~ o VDOT 0oO 0 0 o Trail Fpanch T. J ! % 1 % Soflt)all Jack Jouett MS Fields ~ PREP School Ma~y Greer ES Driver Training Ma~k Friedly VDO T ! Fueling Facility Practice Fields E Trail Albemarle HS .... " COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY "?-~_ 218.06 Ac. Parking Georgetown Green Ivy Ridge Albemarle Coun~:y .~chool Comp, l~x Figure 7 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) I 600 1200 Program (PREP) School. The Albemarle County School Board owns the complex, which has a total acreage of 218.06 acres according to the recorded deed (DB 287 P414, 11/23/49). The Complex is designated in the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan, 1990-2000 (May 1991) as a District Park. Hours of availability for public recreational use are after 6 p.m. (after school hours) on school days and from 8:00 a.m. until dark on weekends. The facilities at the Complex provide a variety of recreational activities such as tennis, field sports, and walking. Albemarle High School is one of four County high schools. The school was first occupied in 1953 and has an enrollment of 1,528. Facilities include two gymnasiums, four lighted tennis courts, a 440-yard running track, a multi-purpose hard court area, a large multi-purpose field, and a lighted baseball field. Jack Jouett Middle School is one five County middle schools. The school was occupied in 1966 and has an enrollment of 500. The school has a gymnasium, two multi-purpose fields, two softball fields, a hard court area, and two tennis courts. According to County officials, these facilities, along with those at Greer Elementary School, are used every day of the week for recreational programs, 10 months of the year. They are open for public use from 6:00 p.m. until dark on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. until dark on Saturdays and Sundays. They are used for youth soccer, youth football, youth lacrosse, Little League baseball, and girls' softball. According to County officials, on a typical Saturday, approximately 1,000 people will be at these fields as participants or spectators. Mary C. Greer Elementary School is one 15 County elementary schools. The school was first occupied in 1974 and has an enrollment of 503. Facilities include two play areas, ahard court area, and multipurpose fields. The PREP School is a new school completed in 1999. It provides regional special education programs for five school systems in Central Virginia. Programs include services for the vision- impaired and hearing-impaired, the emotionally disturbed, and the disabled. The trails behind Jack Jouett Middle School and Albemarle High School consist of a system of unpaved paths roughly 3 to 8 feet wide and approximately 2.09 miles long. The trails are located on wooded portions of school property west and south of Jack Jouett Middle School, and south of Albemarle High School, as shown on Figure 7. According to County officials, there were crude trails in existence here in 1983/84. Between 1984 and 1990, the trails were opened up and improved, primarily by Albemarle High School's cross-country team. Other participants in developing the trails have included the Monticello Area Community Action Agency, the Boy Scouts, and various service fraternities and volunteer groups. The character of the trails varies from steep inclines on hillsides, to flat sections along streams in the bottoms of deep ravines, to relatively fiat sections on ridgetops. The surrounding deciduous forest is comprised of hickory, tulip poplar, and various species of oaks. Figure 8 shows a typical view of the trail. There are two wooden footbridges across streams. Maintenance of the trails is performed primarily by the track team. There are no signs designating the trail, nor are there any facilities, equipment, interpretive stations, or other similar appurtenances associated with the trails. The trails are also not listed in the Comprehensive Plan among the recreational facilities at the schools nor are they listed in the County's Open Space Plan. 19 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation ! I '-1 I I ! ! '-! 'i '1 - ! '! ' ! .... l I 1 ' -! ' ! I '! Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia County officials have stated that the trails are used by Albemarle High School's cross country and track teams (approximately 60 students), as well as other sports teams (soccer, lacrosse) for training purposes. The trails also are used by the earth science classes at the schools. The trails are available to the general public from 6 p.m. until dark on school days and from 8:00 a.m. until dark on weekends. According to the County's Chief of Community Development, the trails provide a"soft track facility in a natural setting for walking and jogging near the most populated and densely developed part of the County." No organized events are held on the trails and "There are no definite plans for the furore other than maintenance to the existing trails and use." Also, according to County officials, public use ranges from 20 to 35 persons per day (fewer in the summer due to warmer temperatures, and fewer in the winter due to early darkness), and school athletic teams who use the trails three to five times a week in season may have 40 to 50 team members on the trail at once. Access to the western portion of the trail is gained from the Jack Jouett Middle School athletic field. Access to the eastern portion of the trail is from the Georgetown Green residential development or by walking around the outside of the fence surrounding the baseball field. Access to the middle portion is south of the PREP School. Parking is available in a parking lot between Jack Jouett Middle School and Mary Greer Elementary School, a small lot behind Jack Jouett Middle School, and another lot at the PREP School. Parking is available also at Albemarle High School. No public parking is available at Georgetown Green. The trails behind Greer Elementary School consist of a system of unpaved paths roughly 3 feet wide and approximately 1.0 mile long. The lrails are located on wooded portions of school property and private property west and north of Greet Elementary School as shown on Figure 7. Approximately 0.39 mile of the trail is on school property and approximately 0.61 mile is on private property. An attorney for one of the private landowners has noted that there is no written agreement pertaining to school or public use of the trails on private property. No information was available on whether there are any agreements with the other private landowner regarding use of the trails. These trails are not as wide and do not appear to receive as much use as the trails behind Jouett Middle School. The character-of the trails is mostly narrow, relatively flat in some places, or inclined on hillsides in other places. The surface of the trails is composed primarily of leaf litter, and fallen trees lie across the trails at several locations. The surrounding deciduous forest is comprised of hickory, tulip poplar, and various species of oaks, with a few small stands of Virginia pine. Posts at various locations identify tree species. Some of the posts have been pulled up and were observed lying on the ground. There are no signs designating the trail, nor are there any facilities, equipment, or other appurtenances, except for the posts noted above. County officials have stated that the trails are used by earth science classes during the week and by the general public. Hours of availability to the public are from 6 p.m. until dark on school days and from 8 a.m. until dark on weekends. No use estimates or maintenance records were available for these trails. Access to the trails is gained from the south and west sides of the athletic field behind Greet Elementary School and from a clearing on the north side of the school. A parking lot is available on the east side of the school. Other facilities on the Albemarle County School Complex include offices, a vehicle maintenance facility, a fueling facility, and a driver-training course. 21 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation 2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary School As shown on Figure 9, Agnor-Hurt Elementary School is located on approximately 19.55 acres between Woodburn Road (Route 659) and Berkmar Drive. The property was acquired by the Albemarle County School Board in October 1990 (DB 1128 P650, 10/31/90). The school was first occupied in 1992 and has an enrollment of 542. The school play areas, baseball/softball field, basketball courts, and soccer field serve as a community park after 6:00 p.m. (after school hours) on school days and from 8:00 a.m. until dark on weekends. The entire property is designated by the County as a publicly owned public park and recreation area. No information was available on how many people use the recreational facilities. Access to the property is from Woodbum Road and Berkmar Drive, with parking areas on both sides of the building. G. RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES There are a number of other school properties, public parks and recreation areas, and historic sites in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville that come under the purview of Section 4(f). Table 1 lists the public parks and recreation areas, including school properties that the County has designated as parks, in the vicinity of the project. Figure 10 shows their locations. Those within a couple of miles of the School Complex are described below. The public park closest to the Albemarle County School Complex is Whitewood Road Park. This is a 20-acre wooded park approximately 0.2 mile east of the Albemarle High School parking lot. No designated public parking is available at the park, but an adjacent business site appears to have sufficient vacant parking spots to accommodate users of the park. The park is within easy walking distance of nearby neighborhoods. Trails through the park are either paved or gravel and are approximately 6 to 10 feet wide. This park was originally to be the site of an elementary school. However, County officials decided to use the site as a park for nearby residents and to build the school at the site where Agnor-Hurt Elementary School now stands. The park is open daily from 6:30 a.m. until dark. The 215-acre Ivy Creek Natural Area on the south bank of the South Fork Rivarma River Reservoir, approximately 1.3 miles north of the Albemarle County School Complex, contains more than 6 miles of walking trails and a 3/4-mile paved trail for visitors with special needs. }ogging and biking are not permitted on the trails. The trails are free and open to the public from 7:00 a.m. until dusk. The Natural Area features a mix of pine and hardwood forests, old fields, streams and natural springs, and 2 miles of shoreline. The volunteer Ivy Creek Foundation assists in the management and care of the area and operates nature programs throughout the year. More than 3,000 local schoolchildren participate in educational nature walks at the Natural Area on Monday, Thursday, and Friday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and noon, and over 40 programs are offered each year to the general public. A restored 19th-century barn provides office and education space. There are other trail facilities on private property in the vicinity of the project. Because they are not publicly owned, they do not come under the purview of Section 4(f). They are, however, open for public use and are therefore available to citizens tbr recreational use. These trails were established by the Rivanna Trails Foundation, a nonprofit volunteer organization supported by membership 22 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation -I :' I '1 ' I I I "i' ! ~ I I ']' ' I ' 1 · '-1 I ! -! '1 i / / / / / // Soccer Field Base~ll Will, bm W. Stevenson A~jnor-Hurt; Elcmcnt:ary 5chool Figure 9 Noise Analysis Site OF ALBE Project: 6029-002-F22, ?E 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) I 300 600 ! I- ' ' 1 -'-1 I ..... 1 I I I ! ! -"! I ....! 1 ! ! I 1 Table 1 OTHER SECTION 4(0 PARKS AND RECREATION PROPERTIES IN THE STUDY AREA Jogging Walking Tennis Playground/ Baseball Name Owner Acreage Trails Trails Bicycling Courts Play Area(s) Diamond(s) Other Chris Greene Lake Park Albemarle 182 X swimming, canoe rentals, picnic County (62 water shelters, boat launch, fishing pier acres) Ivy Creek Natural Area Albemarle 215 X observation areas, educational County/City of outings, school programs Charlottesville Pen Park City of 267 X fitness/ X X X golf course, club house, picnic Charlottesville nature shelters trail Darden-Towe Park Albemarle 111 X X X X X X 4 multi-purpose fields, picnic County/City of shelter, river access Charlottesville Mclntire Park City of 143 X X X wading pool, gotf course, picnic Charlottesville shelters Meadow Creek Park City of 16.7 community garden plots Charlottesville Greenbrier Park City of 35.8 X X none Charlottesville Whitewood Road Park Albemarle 20 X X none County Riverview Park City of 26.6 X X X picnic areas, interpretive nature Charlottesville trails Woodbrook Elementary Albemarle 12 X multi-purpose fields School County Sutherland Middle School Albemarle 21 X X X multi-purpose fields County Hollymead Elementary Albemarle 20 X X 3 multi-purpose fields School County Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation 24 CHRIS GREENE LAKE PARK ? CREEK NATURAL · AREA ALBEMARLE~' COUNTY SCHOOL COMPLEX WHITEWOOD ROAD PARK IREENBRIER ','...: MEADOW, CREEK:' ' ~ County and City Parks ~--~ County School/Park Properties t~ Neighborhood Parks (~) Schools -[ARLO ..TTESYH Source: Adapted from FEIS Fig. 111-7 SUTHERLAND MIDDLE SCHOOL HOLLYMEAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~BROOK NATURAL AGNOR-HURT~'-~ ELEMENTARY ~\ sc.ooL  WOODBROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MCINTIRE 3ARDEN TOWE PARK O RIVERVlEW PARK Ful~lic Farke an~l F, ecrea~ion Areas Figure 10 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia dues, contributions, and grants from private foundations. This organization obtains agreements with private property owners to allow public use of trails established on their properties by the Foundation. Figure 11 shows a system of trails established and maintained by the Foundation along Meadow Creek, approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Albemarle County School Complex. A future trail along the South Fork Rivanna River is called for in the County's Land Use Plan and Open Space Plan. No location for the trail has been established and the County does not own property on which to place the trail. Therefore, the planned trail is not in the purview of Section 4(f). The proposed design for a bridge to carry the bypass over the South Fork Rivanna River would have sufficient space underneath on either side of the river to accommodate any trail the County may wish to put there in the future. Table 2 lists historic properties in the vicinity of the project and Figure 12 shows their locations. All Section 4(f) historic properties in the project area are privately owned and are not open to the public. H. IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(0 PROPERTIES 1. Albemarle County School Complex Direct Use of the Property. The Current Design of the project, as shown on Figure 13, would require the use and acquisition of approximately 15.17 acres of wooded land from the northern edge of the property.. This constitutes approximately 7% of the 218-acre School Complex parcel. This use would displace approximately 545 linear feet of the trail west of the Jouett Middle School soccer field, which is approximately 5% of the 2.09-mile-long system on the portion of the School Complex below Jouett Middle School, the PREP School, and Albemarle High School. Approximately 771 feet (about 38% of the total 2,054 feet) of trails on school property west and north of Greer Elementary School would be displaced. The use of the property would not displace or encroach on any of the athletic fields, tennis courts, hard court areas, track, playgrounds, or buildings on the School Complex. Displaced portions of the trails on school property would be reestablished outside the project fight of way during construction. Use of these portions of the trail system would likely be interrupted for a period of time during construction. Such disruption is not without precedent as a portion of the trail system was severed to accommodate a stormwater pond during construction of the PREP School. The project would also displace approximately 1,975 feet (about 61% of the total 3,222 feet) of trails on private property north of the School Complex. The trails on private property near Greet Elementary School are not considered as Section 4(1) resources because they are not publicly owned and there are no agreements in place for public use of these trails on private property. The impacts to them are reported here to provide complete information. Noise Levels. In noise analyses conducted for the School Complex, projected worst-case noise levels were determined at various locations on the property shown on Figure 13. The noise analyses were conducted in accordance with FHWA standards (23 CFR 772). The FHWA-approved 26 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation I I '! -I '/ i I "i ~ I ! ] I ! - "~ "~ I ' I I I m; N LEGEND (~ t~rking {~ T~ailhead ~i GreenbelJ frail ~ Counfi/Gteenw~, Propos~ tra~l To find the trails Iota ~r a B~adow C[~k sign ot the ~roilh~ad 0 Source: Reproduced from map published by Rivan~a Trails Foundation (RTF). / / / / Prival;ely Owne~l Trail Resouroes Figure II 29BP010 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia ~ARL¥.~ f~ t ! ? / ( i Barracks Historic _ ~ Darby's ,/ Folly Woodlands Mountain Farm Historic Properties Sources: FEIS, Phase II Historic Architectural Investigations Report, VDHR records. Farm \ Hill Proffit Historic District Red Hills Ridgewal Farm Himtoric Propert, ie5 Figure 12 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Schlesinger Farm Ivy Ridge Historic Property 00 Da~fd G. Kale~is & Mary M. Kalergi$ Montvue °°3 rrail 1 % I \ Mark FEedly Sof'~all Fields Jac~ Jouett MS Driver Training Mary Greer ES School Bus Parking , Fueling Facility PREP School Practice Fields Albemarle HS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY \ 218.06 Ac. Parking Georgetown Green Area of Potential 4(0 Involvement (15.17 Acres) Noise Analysis Sites Im?aci:s to Albcmarl~ Coun'cy .~chool Corn?lex Figure 13 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 10l Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET} I 600 1200 STAMINA/OPTIMA computer noise model was used to compute year 2022 noise levels based on roadway geometry and peak-hour traffic data inputs. Table 3 shows the calculated noise levels. The analyses show that the northernmost edge of the athletic fields at Greet Elementary School would experience a peak-hour noise level in the year 2022 that exceeds FHWA's noise abatement criterion (NAC) by 1 dBA (the applicable NAC is 67 dBA). Portions of the fields closer to the school and the playgrounds would experience noise levels well below the NAC, but substantially higher than existing noise levels (substantially higher means 10 or more dBA higher). Similarly, the northernmost edge of the athletic fields at Jouett Middle School would experience a peak-hour noise level in the year 2022 equaling FHWA's NAC of 67 dBA, a level that is also substantially higher than the existing noise level. Portions of the fields and the other facilities closer to the school would experience noise levels well below the NAC and not substantially higher than existing noise levels. Table 3 PROJECTED YEAR 2022 PEAK-HOUR NOISE LEVELS ON SCHOOL COMPLEX Site Noise Level Number Location Description (dBA, Leqh) 1 Greet Elementary School Trail between athletic field and proposed project. 67 2 Greer Elementary School Athletic field near batting backstop. 68 3 Greer Elementary School Play area on north side of school. 62 4 Greet Elementary School Play area west of school near trail head. 60 5 Jack Jouett Middle School Amphitheater north of School. 56 6 Jack Jouett Middle School In athletic field near woods along western edge of 67 field. 7 Jack Jouett Middle School Trail halfway down hillside west of athletic field. 68 8 Jack Jouett Middle School Trail at bottom of ravine at the location nearest to 70 the project. 9 Jack Jouett Middle School Trail at point alongside Stream K in bottom of 63 ravine, approximately 250 feet fi.om proje~. 10 Jack Jouett Middle School Trail at approximate midpoint between Stream K 57 and athletic field to the north. 11 Jack Jouett Middle School Trail at point where it parallels the tributary of 58 Stream K. 12 Jack Jouett Middle School Trail at point on hilltop. 55 None of the facilities at Albemarle High School would experience noise levels either approaching the NAC or substantially exceeding, existing noise levels as a result of the project. After construction of the project, the nearest remaining portion of the trail system on the Jouett/PREP/High School portion of the Complex would be approximately 50 feet from the bridge 31 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f~ Evaluation carrying the northbound lanes of the bypass over the stream valley (a point between analysis sites 8 and 9 near the edge of the proposed right of way). The noise analyses indicate that this portion of the trail would experience a peak-hour noise level in the year 2022 of approximately 70 dBA (Leqh). Portions of the trail farther away from the road would experience incrementally lower noise levels, as shown in the table. Thus, the closest portion of the trail would experience future peak-hour noise levels approximately 22 dBA higher than the measured existing noise level of 48 dBA. This represents a substantial increase in the noise level and an exceedance by 3 dBA ofFHWA's NAC of 67 dBA. Approximately 27% of the trail system on the Jouett/PREP/High School portion of the Complex would experience peak-hour noise impacts (increases of 10 dBA or more) in the year 2022. Virtually all of the trail system at Greer Elementary School would experience peak-hour noise impacts in the year 2022 as a result of substantial exceedance of existing noise levels. Only those portions of the trails closest to the project would experience noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC (e.g., noise levels at site 1 would equal the NAC). The noise impacts reported above probably overstate the actual impacts that would be experienced by most members of the public utilizing the recreational facilities on the School Complex. This is because the analyses used peak-hour traffic volume, the highest volume of the day, which would result in the highest noise levels. Yet, most users from the public at large would be using these facilities during off-peak hours, on weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. An evaluation of noise abatement measures is provided in Section J, Measures to Minimize Harm. Air Quality. Air quality analyses conducted for the project included estimates of carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from traffic on the new roadway. The results reported in the FEIS for a site near the proposed roadway (athletic field at Mary Greer Elementary School) are well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and only 0.1 part per million (ppm) or less above background levels (background levels were estimated at 6 ppm for 1 hour and 3 ppm for 8 hours; the NAAQS are 35 ppm for 1 hour and 9 ppm for 8 hours). In its comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control stated that the "air pollution control issues have been adequately addressed." Therefore, the project would have a negligible effect on air quality on the property. Visual. The project would change the character of the view from westem portions of the trail system at Jack Jouett Middle School by introducing a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently present. Users of a portion of the trails near the new road below Jack Jouett Middle School would see bridges crossing the stream valley. A trail user approaching from the northeast would, upon entering the trail at the edge of the athletic field, initially be able to look over and beyond the road; however, upon reaching the westernmost part of the trail the view to the west would be underneath the bridges. A trail user approaching on the southern portion of the trail would travel northwestward along the stream valley and then encounter a view of the bridges carrying the roadway over the stream valley. These views are in contrast to the current views of the stream valley forested with medium-age to mature hardwoods. The steep slopes of the valley rise roughly 100 feet above the elevation of the stream. Users of the southern and eastern portions of the trail system would not see the road because of intervening terrain and vegetation. 32 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4{0 Evaluation Although there are no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or manmade features, County officials have emphasized that the quiet wooded setting is rare in the highly urbanized surrounding area, and thus the trails provide a unique recreational opportunity to nearby residents. Although these trails do provide a pleasant setting, they are not the only recreational oppommity of this type available to nearby residents. Individuals seeking areas with quiet wooded settings can visit the 20- acre Whitewood Road Park 0.2 mile to the east, the 215-acre Ivy Creek Natural Area 1.3 miles to the north, or the Meadow Creek Trails 1.3 miles to the southeast. If they are willing to travel a little farther, there are Greenbrier Park 1.6 miles to the southeast, Riverview Park 3.7 miles to the southeast, Darden Towe and Pen Parks 3.1 miles to the east, and the 980-acre Ragged Mountain Natural Area 5.0 miles to the southwest. These other resources do not have time-of-day restrictions on their use as do the trails on the School Complex (use is prohibited on school days before 6:00 p.m.). 2. Agnor-Hurt Elementary School Direct Use of the Property. The Current Design of the project, as shown on Figure 14, would not require the use or acquisition of any land from the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property. After being informed of the establishment of the school on property within the original selected alignment, VDOT shifted the bypass alignment as requested by the County to avoid use of school property. Noise Levels. The projected peak-hour noise level on the baseball field at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School in the year 2022 would be approximately 62 dBA. This projected noise level would not approach or exceed FHWA's NAC, but it would be a substantial increase over the existing level of 49 dBA. Therefore, abatement measures have been considered for this location. A noise barrier providing meaningful attenuation of the projected noise level would be approximately 1,340 feet long and 28 feet high and would cost an estimated $600,000. This barrier is not recommended for construction because the activities at the site are not dependent on low-noise conditions. The projected noise levels, though substantially higher than existing noise levels, would still be well below the NAC, and the cost is excessive in relation to the benefits that would be provided. Also, the County built this school and associated recreational facilities after the CTB selected the Alternative 10 Bypass alignment, and thus had full knowledge that the proposed bypass would be routed within close proximity of the property. Air Quality. Air quality analyses conducted for the project included estimates of carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from traffic on the new roadway. The results reported in the FEIS for a site similar to this one (athletic field at Mary Greer Elementary School) are well below the NAAQS and only 0.1 part per million or less above background levels (background levels were estimated at 6 ppm for 1 hour and 3 ppm for 8 hours; the NAAQS are 35 ppm for 1 hour and 9 ppm for 8 hours). Therefore, the project would have a negligible effect on air quality on the property. Visual. Both the bypass and the Woodbum Road overpass over the bypass would be below the elevation of the recreational facilities at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. They also would be beyond a wooded area at the north end of the school property. Therefore the new roadways would have minimal visual effect on the facilities on the property. 33 Route 29 Bypass, Final Sec~on 4(0 Evaluation i I -! I '! ' '1 I I I ' ! ' t '~ ! '! ! -! '-! t ! proposed Southbound / / / / / \ \ Soccer Field v~ Impact5 to A~jnor-Hurt Elementary School Figure 14 -.~ Noise Analysis Site The project will not use any of the school Property. 19 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) I 300 600 Constructive Use. Constructive use occurs when a project does not physically incorporate land from the Section 4(0 property, but the proximity impacts (e.g., due to noise or visual intrusion) are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired [23 CFR 771.135(p)(2)]. Based on the discussion above, the Current Design will not substantiaily impair activities, features, or attributes that qualify the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property for protection under Section 4(f). None of the recreationai activities occurring there are particularly noise-sensitive or dependent on low-noise conditions. The projected noise levels from the project would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the facilities. The new roadway would be screened from the property by the differences in elevations and the existing wooded buffer on the north end of the property. Based on these factors, there will be no Section 4(f) constructive use of the Ag, nor-Hurt Elementary School property by the proposed project. I. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES 1. Overview of Considerations in Evaluating Avoidance Alternatives With the discovery of Section 4(f) resources not previously identified as such along the Selected Alternative, avoidance alternatives must be evaluated. Avoidance alternatives can include location alternatives (other alignments) and design alternatives (design shifts or other measures that enable avoidance of Section 4(f) property). In evaluating the feasibility and prudence of such alternatives, the following factors are considered: · How well the identified transportation needs would be met by the alternative. Other environmental constraints, including other Section 4(f) properties and other resources that receive a comparable level of protection under the law, such as agricultural and forestal districts and federally listed threatened or endangered species. · The magnitude of community disruption. · Other unique or unusual factors or costs. Meeting Purpose and Need. As noted earlier, the Route 29 Corridor Study involved a comprehensive evaluation of numerous location and design alternatives to relieve traffic congestion and expedite through traffic movement. Location alternatives included the existing Route 29 alignment, near and far western bypass alignments, and near and far eastern bypass alignments. Alternatives following the existing Route 29 alignment had to be able to accommodate both the local access function in the heavily developed commercial and residential areas and the mobility function for through traffic on the same roadway. One approach was to separate the two functions by putting through traffic on an expressway and putting local traffic on service roads on either side of the expressway. This was Alternative 9 as presented in the FEIS. Another approach was to expedite the through movements by constructing grade-separated interchanges at crossroads that represented the greatest conflicts between through and crossing traffic. This was the Base Case with Grade- Separated Interchanges at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, as presented in the FEIS. The Base Case improvements, which involved the already-programmed, and since completed, 35 Route 29 Bypass, Final Seelion 4(0 Evaluation widening of Route 29 to six lanes and continuous fight-turn lanes between Hydraulic Road and the South Fork Rivanna River, served as the No-Build Alternative. Conceptually, potential bypass altematives on new location would meet the transportation needs by diverting traffic from existing Route 29, thereby reducing volumes on the existing road and reducing the attendant delays, and by providing a new high-speed roadway separate from the low-speed roadway through the urbanized area to enhance mobility for through traffic. In modeling the traffic movements associated with various possible bypass alignments, it was found that bypass alignments farther away from existing Route 29, whether to the west or to the east, would divert less traffic from existing Route 29, and therefore would not meet project needs as well as alignments closer to Route 29. Alignments to the east in particular would divert less traffic because they are too far removed from the principal travel desire lines for through traffic or for local traffic oriented to developed areas beyond the section of Route 29 addressed in the study. Approximately 65% of traffic interchanging between Route 250 bypass and Route 29 north of the Route 250 Bypass was found to be oriented to the west leg of the Route 250 Bypass. The characteristics of the Route 250 bypass differ west and east of Route 29. and therefore offer different attractiveness for traffic traveling to 1-64 and beyond. West of Route 29, the Route 250 Bypass is a fully limited access roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. East of Rome 29, the posted speed drops to 45 mph and there are several at-grade signalized intersections. With an eastern alignment, traffic in and out of the University of Virginia's North Grounds would continue to use existing Route 29. Likewise, traffic oriented to residential areas out Route 250 to the west and traffic oriented to the growing commercial/office development near the interchange of the existing Route 29 Bypass and Route 29 Business just north ofi-64 would continue to use existing Route 29 rather than an eastern bypass. Environmental Constraints. The parks and recreation areas and historic properties in the project area have already been discussed. Other major constraints included the agricultural and forestal districts shown on Figure 15, which have been established by Albemarle County in accordance with the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act. The Act established a state policy to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands of the Commonwealth for production of food and other products and as valued natural and ecological resources. State agencies, such as VDOT, are precluded from acquiring more than minor amounts of land from such districts unless there is no more economic and practical alternative and there will not be an unreasonably adverse effect upon state or local farmland protection policy. Other constraints inclUde newly recorded populations of James spinymussel, a federally listed endangered species. The FEIS reported that there were no federally listed threatened or endangered species within the proposed alternative corridors. This finding was based on consultations with state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over endangered species and field work conducted during the location study. The subsequent FEA for the termini modifications repeated this conclusion based on additional agency coordination and field investigations. In February 1997, concerned citizens in the area hired an ecologist to conduct a survey for the James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina), a federally listed endangered species. The ecologist surveyed a portion of Ivy Creek, which is downstream from the proposed project, and a portion of one tributary of Ivy Creek (designated as Tributary K during the stream and wetland analysis) that is crossed by the proposed project. He searched on February 22, 1997 in Tributary K from the project 36 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 l~valnation EAR ~ Agricultural/Forestal Districts Source: Albemarle Co. Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2, Natural Resources and Cultural Assets PROFFIT 0 'l Mile A0ricultu ral/Foreetal Dietrict~ Figure 15 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE !01 Albemarle County, Virginia crossing location to the confluence with Ivy Creek, and in Ivy Creek from the confluence to 700 meters (2,297 feet) downstream. Search efforts were limited primarily to areas considered most likely to represent suitable habitat for the James spinymussel. He found two shells of James spinymussel, one approximately 40 meters (131 feet) downstream from the confluence and one approximately 700 meters (2,297 feet) downstream from the confluence. In a second survey conducted in September and October 1997, he surveyed approximately 100 meters (328 feet) of Ivy Creek upstream of Tributary K and 1,400 meters (4,593 feet) of Ivy Creek downstream of Tributary K. He found two live specimens approximately 70 meters (230 feet) upstream of the confluence of Tributary K and Ivy Creek, two shells at unreported distances upstream of the confluence of Tributary K and Ivy Creek, one live specimen approximately 600 meters (1,969 feet) downstream of the confluence, and one shell approximately 1,000 meters (3,280 feet) downstream of the confluence. VDOT had a survey conducted by a malacologist on July 1 and 2, 1997, to verify the reported occurrence of James spinymussel and to determine if the species or its habitat occurs within the project limits and, if so, to take appropriate actions in accordance with the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the project would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.. Ivy Creek was surveyed from approximately 100 meters.(328 feet) upstream to approximately 700 meters (2,297 feet) downstream of Tributary K. Tributary K and 13 other tributaries also were surveyed. The survey found one fresh dead specimen of James spinymussel in Ivy Creek approximately 175 to 200 meters (574 to 656 feet) downstream from Tributary K. The two investigators differed in their opinions about the potential effects of the proposed project on the species. One contended that any activities that would increase the silt load into Ivy Creek would negatively affect the remaining populations of James spinymussel there and recommended consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The other contended that the proposed project would have no significant adverse effect on mussel populations in Ivy Creek. Because of these conflicting opinions, on January 5, 1998, FHWA requested input from USFWS regarding the need for formal consultation. FHWA met with a USFWS representative on March 27, 1998, to discuss data collected and additional consultations needed. On April 1, 1998, USFWS notified FHWA that formal consultation would be required and that a Biological Assessment should be prepared. FHWA submitted the Biological Assessment and requested formal consultation on April 10, 1998. The Biological Assessment concluded that the Current Design would not have a significant adverse effect on the mussel populations of concern and would not pose a significant threat of extinction to the James spinymussel, based on the following: The 14 surveyed tributaries in the Ivy Creek drainage area that would be crossed by the project had no mussels and were unsuitable for mussels because of small size and insufficient flow. 2. Tributary K contained no mollusks and there were obvious sediment and nutrient inputs into the lower reach resulting from livestock activity adjacent to and in the stream. 3. Although live individuals were found in Ivy Creek, the proposed project involves no work in Ivy Creek and the nearest site of roadwork on the project would be more than 1,000 feet from Ivy Creek. 38 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4{f) Evaluation 5. 6. 7. 8. Few mussels, no snails, and evidence of allochthonous silt in Ivy Creek are indicative of some ongoing environmental degradation in the watershed. There are documented occurrences of 11 other populations of James spinymussel outside the Ivy Creek watershed. Because the project would have no intermediate interchanges between the termini, the project is not likely to be a catalyst for secondary development within the Ivy Creek watershed. Extensive stormwater management provisions are incorporated into the project design to reduce the risks of immediate and long-term impacts from highway runoff. Extensive erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented and maintained before, during, and after construction. USFWS conducted a field inspection of the project site and adjacent areas with VDOT representatives on April 21, 1998. On June 5, 1998, USFWS issued its Biological Opinion that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the James spinymussel and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat because no critical habitat exists for this species. USFWS imposed several conditions that must be implemented during project construction. They include time-of-year restrictions on construction and erosion and sedimentation control measures. USFWS also indicated that any modifications to the Current Design that might cause effects on the James spinymussel populations would require reinitiation of formal consultation. Lands farther to the west of the study area have major terrain limitations as the land rises into the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. These lands also represent more rural and undisturbed land uses. They lie in an area designated by the County for low growth and consist primarily of farmland and forestland. These lands also contain 261 square miles of watershed for the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, a major water supply for Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Lands to the west closer to the study area that are not historic properties or agricultural and forestal districts are nearly all developed into residential subdivisions (e.g., Ivy Farm, Ivy Ridge, Farmington). All lands between the Current Design and existing Route 29 are completely covered by dense residential and commercial developments. Lands farther to the east likewise have major terrain limitations, primarily the Southwest Mountains, which rise as much as 1,000 feet above the surrounding lands. These lands too are more rural and undisturbed and lie outside the designated growth areas. The Rivanna River and its South and North Fork tributaries, and their associated floodplains, are generally oriented in a north-south direction between the Southwest Mountains and the densely developed area of Albemarle County north of Charlottesville. Lands that are not in the river floodplain between Route 20 and Route 29 south of the South Fork Rivanna River are almost completely occupied by residential and commercial development. Figure 16 is a composite map showing Section 4(1) properties, agricultural and forestal districts, James spinymussel locations, and residential community locations, along with the alignments of alternatives that were presented in the FEIS. These alternatives are discussed in the next section. 39 Route 29 Bypass, Final. Section 4(0 Evaluation Meadows Graemont 12 Ridgefield Hollymead Forest Lakes South PROFFIT Farmington Farm 9 Carrsbrook Woodbrook Dunlora Key West Bentivar  Bellair 0 '~ Mi~e ; ~ Agricultural/Forestal Districts (~) ~ Historic Properties ,~ ~ Parks ~ County School/Park Properties (~) Neighborhood Parks Source: Adapted from Route 29 Corridor Study FEIS Figs. 111-7, UI-9, VIII-l, and County & VDHR records. ;HARLOTTESV~[ Schools Recorded Occurrences Federally Listed Endangered James Spinymussel Ashcroft Con¢~,raint,5 & Freviou~ Ai'r, erna'cive5 FigUre 16 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Previous Alternatives from FEIS From the hundreds of possible alternatives identified initially, a set of 27 conceptual alternatives was derived. Those 27 were then further screened and reduced to a set of Candidate Build Alternatives to be carried forward for detailed analysis and documentation in the DEIS. These alternatives were endorsed by the Joint Transportation Committee (Route 29 Task Force), which included County and City officials, as the reasonable alternatives to be considered. Agency and citizen input also was reflected in the alternatives carried through and reported in the FEIS. As might be expected, citizens preferred alternatives that did not affect their neighborhoods. Consequently, the business owners and residents of neighborhoods along existing Route 29 strongly objected to the Expressway Alternative along the existing alignment, while residents along each bypass alternative strongly objected to that alternative. Environmental agencies expressed preferences for those alternatives with the least impact to resources under their jurisdiction. The FEIS thus presented a range of altematives both east and west of the existing alignment as well as alternatives along the existing alignment. Altematives discussed in the FEIS included seven bypass altematives (Altemative 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 10, 11, and 12) on new alignments, and an Expressway Alternative (Alternative 9) in the existing Route 29 corridor. Figure 16 shows the locations of these alternatives in relation to the locations of Section 4(f) properties. Other alternatives included the No-Build, or Base Case Alternative, the Base Case with Grade-Separated Interchanges Alternative, the Mass Transit Alternative, and the Transportation System Management Alternative. All but Alternative 10 (selected by the CTB as part of the overall improvements, and upon which the Current Design is based) would avoid use of land from the Albemarle County School Complex. The environmental impacts of the alternatives were tabulated and a comparative summary was presented in the FEIS. The Selected Alternative represented a balanced consideration of transportation needs, environmental impacts, and citizen input, and, based on information available at the time, it was the only alternative that met the project needs without Section 4(f) impacts. Alternative 10. Alternative 10, from which the Current Design was derived, was the nearest new- location alternative west of existing Route 29. Approximately 5.4 miles long, its southern terminus was at the interchange of Route 29 Bypass, Route 29/250 Bypass, and Route 250 Business (Ivy Road). Its northern terminus was at Route 29 near Woodbrook Drive. Traffic forecasts indicated that this alternative would divert between 16% and 27% (approximately 10,600 to 14,000 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. Alternative 10 passed along the northern edge of the Albemarle County School Complex. This alternative would require a small piece of this property (a wooded area on the edge of the property) but would not directly affect any of these schools. It would pass about 600 feet from Greer Elementary School and within 1,200 feet of Jouett Middle School. At the time of the FEIS preparation, only the recreational facilities known to be on the property were considered to be subject to Section 4(f). This alternative did not require the use, direct or constructive, of any of the recreational facilities known at that time to exist on the property. Consequently, there was no Section 4(f) involvement detennined for the property. There was no knowledge at that time upon which to base a determination that the entire School Complex property should be treated as a park. Nor was there any knowledge of recreational trails existing at 41 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation that time on the property. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Alternative 10 was determined to have no adverse effect on Westover and to have an adverse effect on the Schlesinger Farm, both properties determined to be eligible for the NRHP. There would be no direct or constructive use of either property by Alternative 10; therefore, no Section 4(1) involvement was identified. Alternative 10 did not cross the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, but would cross the reservoir watershed for approximately 4.2 miles. Alternative 6. Altemative 6, approximately 8.1 miles long, was located east of existing Route 29. Its southern terminus was at Route 250 in the Pantops area east of the Rivanna River and its northern terminus was at Route 29, just north of Route 649. Traffic forecasts indicated that this alternative would divert between 2% and 5% (about 1,400 to 2,600 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. Alternative 6 is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not adequately serve the identified transportation needs. This alternative would not divert enough traffic away from existing Route 29 to provide meaningful relief of congestion and it would provide a less direct route for through traffic. Also, as shown on Figures 17 and 18, Alternative 6 would require use of more than 30 acres of Section 4(1) lands from two publicly owned public parks, including displacement of two athletic fields, two softball fields, and several holes of a golf course. Alternative 6B. Alternative 6B, approximately 7.8 miles long, had the same termini as Altemative 6 but for most of its length would be located farther east. Alternative 6B was developed to avoid the Section 4(1) impacts of Alternative 6 on Darden Towe Park and Pen Park. Traffic forecasts indicate that this alternative would divert between 3% and 4% (about 2,000 to 2,600 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. Alternative 6B is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not adequately serve the identified transportation needs. This alternative would not divert enough traffic away from existing Route 29 to provide meaningful relief of congestion and it would provide a less direct route for through traffic. Also, as shown on Figure 19, it would require the use of 16 acres of land from the Section 4(1) historic property, Ridgeway, determined by VDHR to be eligible for the NRHP. This alternative would also encroach on a portion of the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, another Section 4(1) historic property. Alternative 7. Alternative 7, approximately 7.3 miles long, followed the general corridor planned for the Meadow Creek Parkway, a controlled access highway included in the regional transportation plan. At its southern end, it would relocate a short section of Mclntire Road and connect with existing Mclntire Road south of Route 250 Bypass. It had the same northern terminus as Alternatives 6 and 6B. This alternative was designed to avoid the impacts that Alternative 7A would have on Mclntire Park. Traffic forecasts indicated that this alternative would divert approximately 4% (about 2,000 to 2,700 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. Alternative 7 is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not adequately serve the identified transportation needs. This alternative would not divert enough traffic away from existing Route 29 to provide meaningful relief of congestion and it would provide a less direct route for through traffic. This alternative also is incompatible with City and County plans to provide a low-speed, parkway-type facility in this corridor. Alternative 7A. Altemative 7A, approximately 7.0 miles long, was identical to Alternative 7, except for the southern terminus. Instead of remaining east of Mclntire Park, this alternative passed through the eastern third of the park and connected with Route 250 Bypass just opposite Mclntire 42 Rout~ 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(t) Evaluation ~c R~u~e. 29 l .% Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement (18 Acres) Source: Adapted From FEIS Fig. VIII-4 29BP01~ Alt, er'native 0 and Dar'den Towe Far'k Figure 17 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-00I, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia 0 Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement (12.6 Acres) 4(f) .PROPERTY '.PEN PARK 267 Acres 29BP01." Source: Adapted From FEIS Fig. VIII-5 Alternative 0 and Pen Park Figure 18 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia r) / \ \ / mil JMA Nos. ~O58-.t:060 128.8 Acres o t~,l~ :NJ Existing Road/Right-of-Way Proposed Right-of-Way Property Boundary Source: Adapted From Phase II, Historical Architectural Investigations, Figure 3 i 29BP01, ^ll;ernal;ive O1~ and F-,idoewa)/Hi~l~orio FroFert,~/ Figure 19 '[] Area of Potential 4(f) involvement (16 Acres) m'Building Location Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Road. Alternative 7A followed the general corridor planned for the Meadow Creek Parkway, a controlled access highway included in the regional transportation plan. Traffic forecasts indicated that this alternative would divert between 1% and 8% (about 700 to 4,300 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. Alternative 7A is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not adequately serve the identified transportation needs. This alternative would not divert enough traffic, away from existing Route 29 to provide meaningful relief of congestion and it would provide a less direct route for through traffic. This alternative is incompatible with City and County plans to provide a low-speed, parkway-type facility in this corridor. Also, as shown on Figure 20, approximately 11 acres of Section 4(f) land in Mclntire Park would be used by the project and the alignment would traverse the park for approximately 2,000 feet. Three holes of the nine-hole golf course would be displaced. Alternative 9 (Expressway). Altemative 9, approximately 3.3 miles long, followed the existing corridor of Route 29 from the intersection of Route 250 Bypass to the South Fork of the R_ivanna River. It would consist of two separate roadways totaling 10 lanes: a 50 mph, four-lane, limited access freeway running in the middle of the facility and generally depressed below existing ground level, and northbound and southbound service roads, three lanes each, on each side of the freeway. Access to businesses on the west side of Route 29 would be from the southbound service road, and to businesses on the east from the northbound service road. Intersections would be provided at the service roads and 10 major cross streets, with the central freeway passing under these intersections. At the intersections, additional lanes would be provided on the service roads to accommodate taming movements. Slip ramps at various locations would allow traffic to move between the express lanes and the service roads. At the southern terminus, the freeway lanes would be elevated on a flyover bridge structure that would veer off'the Route 29 corridor to join the Route 250 Bypass corridor to the west. The freeway lanes would come back to grade in the median of the Route 250 Bypass in the vicinity of the Barracks Road interchange. Alternative 9, the Expressway Alternative, would have no Section 4(f) impacts and therefore represents a location avoidance alternative to the Section 4(f) involvement at the Albemarle County School Complex. However, it is not a feasible and prudent alternative because it would not adequately serve the identified transportation needs. It would not serve through traffic as well as the Current Design of the bypass because speeds would be slower, the level of traffic service would be lower, and the slip ramps between the freeway lanes and the local lanes would introduce conflict points between local and through traffic. The traffic analyses reported in the FEIS indicated that this alternative would have the worst level of traffic service of all the build alternatives. Because the expressway would be in a cut of limited width due to lateral constraints imposed by roadside commercial areas, snow removal and other maintenance activities would be difficult. Constmction of this alternative now would require complete demolition of the Base Case improvements that were completed recently at a cost of at least $32 million. The construction would severely disrupt traffic movements for several years and would interrupt access to businesses. Maintenance of traffic during construction also would be complicated and costly. At least 11 businesses, and probably more, would be displaced. This alternative was strongly opposed by the local business community and, as reflected in the City's resolution against an interchange at Hydraulic Road, also would be unacceptable to City officials. 46 mm Route 29 Bypass, Final Section -i(f) Evaluation // \ / / <.. \ \. I 4(f) Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement (11 Acres) Source: Adapted From FEIS Fig. VIII-6 143' Acres. 29BP01 ^lternat, ive 7^ an& Mcln~,ire Fark Figure 20 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Ill Alternative 11. Alternative 11, approximately 9.4 miles long, had the same southern terminus as Alternative 10. It crossed the South Fork R.ivanna River Reservoir and connected with Route 29 south of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Traffic forecasts indicated that this alternative would divert between 10% and 13% (about 5,200 to 7,800 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. It would meet the identified transportation needs, but not as well as the Current Design because it would not divert as much traffic from existing Route 29. It is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would require the use of land from two Section 4(t) historic properties (Schlesinger Farm and the Barracks Historic District) as shown on Figures 21 and 22. Approximately 17.7 acres along the eastern edge of the Schlesinger Farm historic property would be used and the roadway would be about 800 feet from the main house. The use of this historic property would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA. Approximately 30.6 acres along the eastem edge of The Barracks Historic District would be used and the alignment would be about 450 feet from the Farm Manager's House and about 1,600 feet from the main Barracks house. The use of property in the District, along with the visual and noise impacts, would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA. This alternative also would require the use of approximately 116 acres of agricultural/forestal district land, would cross Ivy Creek where populations of federally listed endangered James spinymussel have been recorded, and would destroy the community cohesion of the Ivy Farm subdivision. It also would cross 7.4 miles of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed and the reservoir itself. In balancing the Section 4(1) and other impacts of this alternative against the Section 4(f) impacts of the Current Design, it is clear that this alternative would have much more severe impacts. Alternative 12. Alternative 12, at a length of approximately 12.9 miles, was the farthest west and the longest of the bypass alternatives described in the FEIS. It had the same southern terminus as Alternatives 10 and 11, crossed the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, and connected with Route 29 approximately 0.3 mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River. Traffic forecasts indicate that this alternative would divert between 7% and 9% (3,900 to 5,600 vehicles per day) of the traffic on existing Route 29 by the year 2010. Alternative 12 is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not adequately serve the identified transportation needs. Tiffs alternative would not divert enough traffic away from existing Route 29 to provide meaningful relief of congestion and it would provide a less direct route for through traffic. Also, it would require use of nearly 42 acres of land from three Section 4(1) historic properties (Schlesinger Farm, Darby's Folly, and Crenshaw Farm) as shown on Figures 23, 24, and 25. This alternative also would require the use of approximately 174 acres of agricultural/forestal district land, would cross Ivy Creek where populations of federally listed endangered James spinymussel have been recorded, and would destroy the community cohesion of the Ivy Farm subdivision. It also would cross 8.4 miles of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed and the reservoir itself. No-Build (Base Case) Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would leave Route 29 in its existing condition between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River (i.e., with the Base Case improvements completed). Existing Route 29 has eight lanes (three through lanes and a continuous right-mm lane in both directions). There are 13 signalized intersections and 10 unsignalized intersections on this 3.5-mile stretch of Route 29. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. There are numerous curb cuts providing ingress and egress to businesses that line both sides of the road. These conditions impede mobility of through traffic in the Route 29 corridor. 48 Rout~ 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Bvaluation 4(f) 'PROPERTY SCH[~S~' FARM 2.70 'Acres 29BP01E [] of Potential Area 4(f) Involvement (17.7 Acres) Source: Adapted From FEIS Fig. VIII-7 Alternative 11 and 5ohle~inger Farm Historic Property Figure 21 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia 4(f) PROPERTY THE BARRACKS 335 Acres THE B~RRA; HO~.~E 29BP017 Area of Potential Involvement 4(f) (30.6 Acres) Alternative 11 and TH~ I~arrack~ Historic District Figure 22 Source: Adapted From FEIS Fig. VIII-8 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia 4(f) ..PROPERTY SCHLES~ 'FARM .270 Acres HORSE BAR,t, &' HOUSE 29BP018 Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement (25.2 Acres) Source: Adapted From FEIS Fig. VIII-9 AIt, ernative 12 an~l ~hle~inoer Farm Hist, oric Frol~ert, y Figure 23 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia 18.7 Acres Da~by's Folly Existing Road/Right-of-Way .... Proposed Right-of-Way ----.-,* Property Boundary [] Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement (1.6 Acres) ~ Building Location Source: Adapted From Phase II, Historical Architectural Investigations, Figure 13 AIl;ernat, ive 12 ancJ Parby's Folly Hisl;oHc FroFert, y Figure 24 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Grenshaw Far.m 1. JMA .No, 3006 130 Acres !. I ! Existing Road/Right-of-Way Proposed Right-of-Way Property Boundary Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement (15 Acres) Building Location 29BP02 ^ll;emat, ive 12 and Crenehaw Farm Hiel;oric FroFert,3/ Figure 25 Source: Adapted From Phase II, Historical Architectural Investigations, Figure 9 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia The No-Build Alternative would have no Section 4(f) involvements and therefore represents a total Section 4(f) avoidance alternative as well as an avoidance alternative to the involvement at the Albemarle County School Complex. However, it is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not satisfy the identified transportation needs. It would not relieve congested conditions projected for this roadway and no accommodation would be provided for through traffic. Base Case with Grade-Separated Interchanges. This alternative would involve adding three grade-separated interchanges to the now-completed Base Case improvements on existing Route 29. As shown on Figure 26, the interchanges would be at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road. Each interchange would be constructed in a tight urban diamond configuration to achieve the least impact to adjacent businesses. This alternative would eliminate the at-grade crossings of Route 29 by Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, one of the Fashion Square Mall entrances, Rio Road, and Albemarle Square Court, and thereby eliminate the conflicts of crossing traffic with mainline Route 29 traffic, and the traffic signals regulating those conflicts, at those locations. Implementation of this alternative including the interchanges would improve the flow of through traffic on the 1.5 miles of Route 29 that would be involved in the construction, and thus improve the overall average travel speed on Route 29 between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River. The CTB originally included these improvements as part of the overall selected improvements (in addition to the Alternative 10 Bypass). The Base Case with Grade-Separated Interchanges Altemative would have no Section 4(f) involvements and therefore represents a total Section 4(f) avoidance alternative as well as an avoidance alternative to the involvement at the Albemarle County School Complex. However, it is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would not satisfy the identified transportation needs. As noted in the FEIS, the average operating speed by the year 2010, though faster than it would be without the interchanges, would remain low in the range of 30 to 33 miles per hour, with stop-and-go conditions still persisting at the remaining eight signaliZed intersections. As further noted, these conditions are not consistent with an arterial route's function as a high-speed facility for uninterrupted travel. Also, although conditions for through traffic on Route 29 would be incrementally improved, turning movements onto and off of the cross streets at the interchange ramp termini would still be controlled by traffic signals. In essence, the intersection congestion would be relocated from the existing intersection locations to the interchange ramp termini. So, although the interchanges would improve travel conditions on segments of existing Route 29, they would not do so to the extent that the bypass would not be needed, and so the selected alternative also included the bypass. Additional traffic analysis for the year 2015 conducted during the design of the three interchanges showed that the interchanges alone would improve the intersection level of traffic service at only three of the nine intersections analyzed. Average travel speeds would remain in the range of 15 to 17 mph and average delay would be reduced approximately 17%. In contrast, the bypass alone would improve the intersection level of traffic service at eight of the nine intersections analyzed and would reduce average delay for vehicles remaining on existing Route 29 by approximately 23%. The vehicles using the bypass would experience no delay. The CTB subsequently withdrew its approval of the grade-separated interchanges and terminated their design and development in a resolution dated February 16, 1995. Among the reasons cited were 54 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation Carrsbrook I~dge Birnam Wood ~C~r Westmoreland Ten-ell Canterbury ~ Hills Unive~Jb/ of Virginia No~h Grounds 0 2000' 4000' Proposed Interchange Area Existing Signal Traffic Source: Adapted From ADC Map of Albemarle County 29BP021 Grade-SeFarat, ed Interchangee Figus~ 26 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia citizen opposition, citizen requests to proceed with the Route 29 Bypass instead of the interchanges, a request from Charlottesville's City Council to stop development of the Hydraulic Road interchange, cost (approximately $15 million per interchange) and available funding considerations, the need to reconstruct more than 60% of the Base Case improvements (then nearing completion), inconvenience to the local and arterial traveling public and businesses during construction, and the minimal improvement in the ultimate level of service that construction of the interchanges would produce. Construction of the interchanges would still leave eight traffic signals in place. No traffic would be diverted from existing Route 29, and the 24,400 vehicles per day projected to use the proposed bypass would continue to contend with low speeds on sections not included as part of the interchange improvements. Construction of the interchanges would displace at least 11 businesses, and possibly as many as 23 depending on whether impacts to parking and access would render the businesses nonviable, and it would reduce available parking for 36 other businesses. It would take about two years to build each interchange and, during that time, the local and through traffic would be disrupted by temporary constrictions and detours. Access to businesses also would be disrupted during the construction period. In addition, this alternative would require substantial reconstruction of a major portion of the Base Case improvements that were recently completed at a cost of $32 million. 3. Other Location Alternatives There are no other feasible and prudent location alternatives east of existing Route 29. Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, and 7A represent the reasonable alternatives east of Route 29 evaluated and described in the FEIS. The problems with these alternatives already have been discussed. These alternatives would not adequately serve the identified needs and their Section 4(f) and other environmental impacts render them not prudent. Any other alternatives east of Route 29 would have even greater impacts on the human and natural environment because of the numerous residential developments, parks and recreation areas, historic properties, natural resources, and other constraints. Any alternative between existing Route 29 and Alternatives 7 and 7A would pass through the most densely developed pan of Albemarle County, causing considerable community disruption. Any alternative east of Alternative 6B would divert even less traffic than Alternative 6B and would get involved in the ragged terrain of the Southwest Mountains as well as the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. There are no other feasible and prudent location alternatives west of existing Route 29. Alternatives 11 and 12 represent the reasonable alternatives west of Route 29 evaluated and described in the FEIS. The problems with these alternatives also have been discussed. Alternative 12 would not adequately meet the project needs. Alternative 11 would have Section 4(f) and other environmental impacts that, when balanced against the Section 4(f) impacts of the Current Design, are so severe as to render this alternative not prudent. Any other alternatives west of Alternative 12 would not meet the project needs and would have even greater impacts on the human and natural environment because of the numerous residential developments, historic properties, agricultural and forestal districts, natural resources, and other constraints. Any alternative between existing Route 29 and the Current Design would pass through the most densely developed part of Albemarle County, causing considerable community disruption. Any alternative west of Alternative 12 would divert even less traffic than Alternative 12 and would involve rougher terrain while moving to the west as well as a greater portion of the reservoir's watershed and the more pristine rural areas of the county. 56 Route 29 Bypass, Final Sec*ion 4(f) Evaluation Two modified versions of Alternative 11 were investigated that would avoid all direct uses of Section 4(f) properties. These modifications would involve shifting the Alternative 11 alignment to avoid the Section 4(f) uses of the Schlesinger Farm historic property and The Barracks Historic District. One version would shift the alignment to the east away from the Section 4(f) Schlesinger Farm historic property to mn between the Schlesinger Farm and the Albemarle County School Complex. A shift would also be made to the east away from The Barracks Historic District to mn between The Barracks and the Woodlands historic property. These shifts would avoid direct use of the Albemarle County School Complex, the Schlesinger Farm historic property, and The Barracks Historic District. However, there would be a constructive Section 4(0 use of the westernmost portion of the Albemarle County School Complex because of the substantial increase in noise levels that would occur on that portion of the property under this alternative. Constructive use occurs when a project does not physically incorporate land from the Section 4(f) property, but results in proximity impacts (e.g., due to noise or visual intrusion) that are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired [23 CFR 771.135(p)(2)]. County officials have stated that serenity and quiet are important attributes of the trails on the School Complex and indicated that substantial increases in noise levels on the trails should be considered a constructive use. This alternative would cross Ivy Creek at a location with recorded occurrences of the federally listed endangered James spinymussel, and could result in the loss of individuals of the species as well as suitable habitat. This alternative would increase the acreage of agricultural and forestal district impacts to approximately 119 acres, a level of impact that is precluded by state law with which VDOT must comply. This alternative would destroy community cohesion in the Ivy Farm subdivision by splitting the neighborhood and displacing at least 14 homes. Other impacts associated with this alternative include traversal of more than 7 miles of reservoir watershed, and a crossing of the reservoir. In balancing these impacts against the Section 4(f) impacts of the Current Design, the impacts of this alternative are clearly more severe. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. The second version of a modified Alternative 11 would involve shifting the alignment to the west to run around the south and west sides of the Schlesinger Farm, and then following the above- mentioned shift to the east away from The Barracks Historic District. This alternative would avoid all direct and constructive uses of Section 4(f) properties. However, this alternative too would involve a crossing of Ivy Creek upstream of the recorded populations of James spinymussel and could adversely affect individuals of the species and its habitat. This alternative also would require the use of approximately 116 acres of agricultural and forestal district lands, a level of impact that is precluded by state law with which VDOT must comply. This alternative would negatively impact community cohesion in the Colthurst Farms neighborhood due to splitting the subdivision. It would destroy community cohesion in the Ivy Farm subdivision by splitting the neighborhood and displacing at least 15 homes. Other impacts associated with this alternative include traversal of more than 7 m/les of reservoir watershed, and a crossing of the reservoir. In balancing these impacts against the Section 4(f) impacts of the Current Design, the impacts of this alternative are clearly more severe. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. 57 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation 4. Modifications to Current Design Modifications to the Current Design would involve shifts of a portion of the alignment to the east or west of the Albemarle County School Complex a sufficient distance to avoid any direct or constructive use of the property. Shift to the East. Figure 27 shows a shift that would move the alignment to the south and east of the School Complex. This shift would result in splitting the Montvue and Terrell subdivisions, encroachment on dense residential and commercial developments east of Hydraulic Road, two bridge crossings of Hydraulic Road, and displacement of the Roslyn Heights subdivision. More than 35 additional residential displacements and at least five business displacements would occur. Clearly, this is not a prudent avoidance alternative. Shift to the West. A shift to the west has been developed to avoid direct use of the Albemarle County School Complex (see Figure 28). This alternative would entail a shift of approximately 1.3 miles of the alignment a maximum distance of approximately 700 feet to the west. With this alternative, the northbound lanes would be approximately 350 feet from the School Complex at their closest point. Noise impacts from the Bypass would be reduced but not eliminated. Although this altemative would avoid the direct Section 4(f) use of the School Complex, it would still have a constructive use. Based on the assertion by County officials that noise impacts would substantially impair the trail's value as a quiet place to walk, jog, or enjoy the woods, any alignment close enough to substantially increase noise levels over existing noise levels would have a constructive use. Consequently, based on noise impacts, this alternative would constructively use roughly 13 acres of the School Complex property (about 6%) and approximately 900 feet of the trail system (about 8%) below Jouett Middle School. This, along with the additional impacts listed below, make this alternative not a prudent avoidance alternative. The crossing of tributary K would be within 500 feet of its confluence with Ivy Creek (compared to over 1,000 feet under the Current Design). This closer proximity to Ivy Creek may heighten the concern for potential effects on downstream populations of James spinymussel, a federally listed endangered species recorded in Ivy Creek. The determination of no jeopardy to the mussel made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the Current Design would need to be revisited with additional formal consultation with USFWS. The encroachment on the Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District would increase to approximately 5.6 acres, more than the minimal amount allowed under state law. Agricultural and forestal districts are established to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands of the Commonwealth for production of food and other products and as valued natural and ecological resources. State agencies are precluded from acquiring more than minor amounts of land from such districts unless there is no more economic and practical alternative and there w/Il not be an unreasonably adverse effect upon state or local farmland protection policy. · One residence would be displaced that has already been relocated beyond the limits of the existing previously acquired fight of way. 58 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Carrsbrook Ridge Squirrel Ridge Turtle Creek Bimam Wood lall ) Qr ~Canterbury Hills University of Virginia North Grounds Avoidance Alternative for Route 29 Bypass Source: Adapted From ADC Map of Albemarle County 29BP02 Eael;ern Deei0n Al~,ernal;ive t,o Avoid Albemarle Coun~,y School Complex Figure 27 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 'RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Schlesinger Farm Histodc Property 00 MatyM/~ 0 Montvue o% rrail 11 Terrell Ivy Ridge Frerlch T. Jackson & '1 t % I 1 Softail Fields Jack Jouett MS Mary Greer ES Driver Training VDo'r School Bus Pafldng Fueling Facility ; '.~ PREP School Practice Fields _~_. Trail Albemarle HS .... '- COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY 218.06 Ac. Parking Georgetown Green Area of Potential 4(f) Involvement Direct = 0.0 Acres Constructive = 13.0 Acres Noise Analysis Sites Western Des~on Alternabve I for Albemarle County School Complex Figure 28 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 10l RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) I 600 1200 · Community cohesion in the Ivy Ridge subdivision would be negatively impacted and seven homes in that neighborhood would be displaced. To avoid both direct and constructive use of the School Complex, another design shift to the west was evaluated (see Figure 29). This alternative would require a shift of approximately 2.1 miles of the alignment for a maximum distance of approximately 1,400 feet to the west. With this alternative, the northbound lanes would be approximately 1,100 feet from the School Complex at their closest point. Noise impacts from the Bypass would be eliminated and virtually all of the alignment would be hidden from view by intervening terrain and vegetation. This alternative would push the alignment onto the Schlesinger Farm historic property, resulting in a Section 4(f) direct use of approximately 6.7 acres of the property. This shift and use would constitute an adverse effect under Section 106 of the NHPA because it would physically damage a portion of the property, would change the character of some of the property's features that contribute to its historical significance, and would introduce visual and audible elements that would diminish the integrity of the property's historic features. This impact is considered more severe than the impact on the School Complex by the Current Design because the historical significance of the site is intrinsic in the property and cannot be replicated elsewhere; whereas the recreational attributes of facilities on the School Complex cau be recreated elsewhere. This altemative also would involve two crossings of Ivy Creek at the location of recorded occurrences of the federally listed endangered James spinymussel, which could result in losses of individuals and suitable habitat of the species. This altemative also would involve a longitudinal encroachment of nearly 1,000 feet on a tributary of Ivy Creek. In addition, it would negatively impact community cohesion in the Ivy Ridge and Roslyn Ridge subdivisions. This alternative is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative because it would have more severe impacts on another Section 4(f) property and could adversely affect a federally listed endangered species. J. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM VDOT has attempted throughout the project's development to minimize impacts to public school properties by avoiding them entirely, as in the case of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, or by limiting encroachment on them to the minimum amount necessary, as in the case of the Albemarle County School Complex. VDOT also has avoided other nearby and equally sensitive resources, and has satisfied the identified transportation needs within established design criteria. County officials were regular participants throughout the Route 29 Corridor Study, which established the initial location of the proposed bypass, and endorsed the selected alternative running across the edge of the Albemarle County School Complex. County officials also were closely involved in the design development of the selected alignment. Input from these officials was instrumental in locating, designing, and minimizing the impacts of the proposed bypass so that it would not encroach on recreational or educational facilities found on school properties (as indicated previously, the presence and encroachment of the trails was a late discovery). The Current Design uses only about 7% of the School Complex property and that is restricted to the northern edge of the property. Less than 10% of the trail systems on the property would be displaced by the Current Design, and only at the extremities of the trail systems near the property's edge. Less than 40% of the trail systems would experience noise impacts in the peak hour under the Current Design and Only those areas nearest the road would experience noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC. When viewed in the context 61 P. oute 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation Logan Village Turtle Creek 'rerrell ~ Canterbury Hills Universily of Virginia North Grounds Avoidance Alternative for Route 29 Bypass Section 4(f) Property Agricultural & Forestal District Source: Adapted From ADC Map of Albemarle County and Albemarle County Tax Maps Ridge 3 Ctr 0 ~O00' 40OO' 29BP024 Western De~ion Alterna'r, ive 2 1;o AvoM ^lbemarle County School ComFlex Figure 29 Project: 6029-002'F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia of the limited hours of availability to the public and the relatively low reported usage by the public. of the trails in such a densely populated area, these impacts become even less substantial. After discovery of the trails and initiation of the preparation of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, County officials were initially receptive to discussing potential mitigation measures. However, after circulation of the Draft Section 409 Evaluation, County officials stated in their review comments that "This beautiful area will be totally destroyed in ways that cannot be mitigated" and that '~qo amount of landscaping can mm this [a landscaping plan] into a substitute for the current experience of walking in a quiet woods along a stream." The County Department of Planning and Community Development noted that "The County will essentially lose the only multi-use trail system within an undisturbed naturalsetting near this densely populated area." The County's Director of Parks and Recreation suggested that "With the proposed bypass in place, no one would walk the trails just to get away from the hectic and noisy 'hubbub' of everyday life." He further noted that "There is no way any landscaping plan can begin to mitigate the intrusion into this beautiful area." These statements are in contrast to earlier statements during project development wherein suggestions were made by school officials to reduce harm to the school properties and statements during early coordination immediately following discovery of the trails (see correspondence in Appendix B). It should also be noted that the measures to minimize harm identified below are not intended to completely mitigate the impacts of the Section 4(f) use of the trail. Nevertheless, the following additional measures have been developed to minimize harm to the School Complex: The alignment will be shifted slightly to the west as shown on Figure 30 to avoid the trail system at Jack Jouett Middle School. Only 771 feet of the trails at Greer Elementary School would be displaced (about 6% of all the trail systems on the School Complex). Despite a County official's statement that "This area is very steep and not conducive to placement of a trail," the displaced sections of the trails will be reconstructed on portions of the property outside the proposed right of way. Although the setting of the trails at this location would be' diminished, the recreational needs that the trails meet for walkers and joggers would be reestablished by reconnecting the trail outside the highway right of way. · The cross section will be reduced by narrowing the median's width. · The cross section will be reduced by crossing the stream on bridge instead of earthen fill. The roadway profile will be lowered to reduce the amount of fill and to further reduce the visibility of the new road from activity areas on the school property. Such lowering also would reduce noise levels by 1 to 7 dBA within various locations on the property. ThiS would reduce the peak-hour noise level on the edge of the Jouett Middle School athletic fields to 64 dBA, which is 3 dBA below the NAC. It would reduce the peak-hour noise level on the edge of the Greer Elementary School athletic fields to 61 dBA, which is 6 dBA below the NAC. The design changes would reduce the total acreage of direct use from approximately 15.17 acres to approximately 12.43 acres. 63 east Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation Schlesinger Farm Histodc Property Mat~ M. Kal~gis Montvue ~ 0 Trail Frer~ · .E~elia J. Barnes Mark FrieoTy Softball Jack Jouett MS Fields Driver Training PREP School , Greer ES , Fueling Facility ' Practice Fields ~% E Tmil Albemarle HS ---'-' COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~-- 218.06 Ac. Georgetown Green Parkin~ Ivy Ridge Area of Potential 4(0 Involvement ( 12.43 Acres) Noise Analysis Sites Minimization Measures · Alignment shifted to West to avoid Trail at Jack Joue~ Middle School, · Cross section reduced by reducing median width, · Cross section reduced by crossing stream on bddge instead of fill, · Lower vertical alignment to reduce noise impacts and amount of fill, · Added fence to prohibit pedestrian access. t:o Mm~m~z¢ Harm Figure 30 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101 RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Al~arle, County, Virginia SCALE (FEET) I 600 12oo As suggested by school officials earlier in project development, a fence will be constructed along the right of way to prohibit pedestrian access onto the roadway. To minimize the visual effects of the new road, cut and fill slopes will be revegetated with indigenous tree species, beginning with plantings of seedlings or nursery stock that would gradually mature into larger trees that would help to screen most of the roadway from view. The County will be fully compensated for property required for the proposed right of way. Noise barriers have been considered to reduce noise levels on the School Complex. However, it is not possible to provide cost-effective barriers under the state noise abatement policy because of the high cost relative to the benefits that would be received. Barriers providing reductions in noise levels of 3 - 15 dBA would cost between $1.02 million and $1.30 million, and noise levels from the project would still represent a substantial increase over existing levels at several locations. Installation of a more permanent surface (paving) on the trails was considered as an enhancement measure; however, County officials have said they prefer the current natural surface. Although the quality of portions of the trail network wOuld be reduced by introduction of noise and a view of the project, the intended uses of the trail network (defined by County officials as walking, jogging, environmental education, and sport teams practice) would not be precluded by the project. The major portion of the trail system would remain intact and undisturbed in its natural wooded setting. None of the other recreational or athletic facilities would be displaced and none would be subject to noise or visual impacts that would compromise continued use 'for their present purposes. K. COORDINATION 1. Coordination with local officials after identification of new 4(0 involvement After the trails on the Albemarle County School Complex were identified as a Section 4(f) resource, County officials were consulted as part of the development of the Section 4(f) Evaluation. A synopsis of their comments is provided below. Copies of the actual correspondence are included in Appendix B. Date Coordination with Albemarle County officials 6/11/98 Letter from Patsy Napier of VDOT to Albemarle County Executive Robert W. Tucker, Jr. VDOT requested responses to 13 questions regarding the trail behind Jack Jouett Middle School and any other trails or recreational facilities, existing or planned, that are or could be affected by the project. 8/14/98 Letter from Albemarle County Chief of Community Development, David Benish. Provided responses to the questions in Patsy Napier's letter, outlining the role of the trail in Albemarle County's overall recreational facilities and programs and providing information on trail users. 65 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation 11/3/98 Letter from Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation, Pat Mullaney. Expanded on Mr. Benish's responses to the questions. 11/17/98 VDOT's consultant met with Mr. Benish and Mr. Mullaney for further discussion. Reviewed project design, potential avoidance alternatives, and potential mitigation measures. A Draft Section 460 Evaluation on the trails was prepared following receipt of the above comments. The document was circulated for review and comment to the County and others who had received and commented on the original FEIS for the project. Comments on the draft document are summarized below and copies of the correspondence are provided in Appendix C. This Final Section 40') Evaluation has incorporated additional information and considerations that resulted from these comments. 4/16/99 County Attorney on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The School Complex is a District Park and therefore should be treated in its entirety as a 4(f) property. The Evaluation should discuss constructive use of other park and recreation areas on the School Complex, constructive use of park and recreation areas' on the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property (a Community Park), more detail on the project purpose and need, more information on the no-build alternative and other alternatives that would avoid use of the 4(f) property, and more information on the impacts of the proposed project on the trail. 4/16/99 Albemarle County Planning and Community Development Department. The Evaluation should include discussion of the trail system behind Greer Elementary School, impacts to other recreational facilities at the School Complex, recognition of the quality of the natural wooded setting of the trails, and other avoidance alternatives. 3/18/99 Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department. The entire School Complex should be treated as a park. The Evaluation should discuss impacts to other recreational facilities on the Complex. Recreation facilities on the complex are restricted to school use until 6:00 p.m. The natural setting of the trails and the impacts to that setting by the project should be recognized. 2. Coordination with local officials before identification of new 4(0 involvement Over the past 12 years of planning and design on this project, extensive coordination has been conducted with Albemarle County officials. During the location study, regular meetings were held with a Joint Task Force with members representing the Board of Supervisors, the County Executive, the County Planning Commission, the County Planning Department, and the County's representatives on the MPO. These meetings were open to the public and were regularly attended by interested citizens, community association representatives, Piedmont Environmental Council representatives, and local print and broadcast media. During the bypass design, regular meetings were held with a Design Advisory Committee appointed by the MPO with members representing the County Planning Department, the County Planning Commission, the County's representatives 66 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation on the MPO, and citizens from neighborhoods along the alignment. These meetings were also open to the public and local news media. In addition, a large volume of correspondence has passed between County officials and VDOT throughout project development. These meetings and pertinent correspondence are summarized below. Copies of correspondence relative to the School Complex are included in Appendix B. Date Joint Task Force Meetings 11/30/87 Joint Task Force meeting #1 to introduce study team and discuss the study process and major concerns of local officials. 1/29/88 Joint Task Force meeting #2 to review study status, discuss the methods and criteria to be used in identifying potential alignments, and review the results of the citizens information meetings held December 14 and 15, 1987. 2/26/88 Joint Task Force meeting #3 to review the study status and discuss traffic analysis methodology, the traffic surveys that had been conducted, the criteria to be used in screening conceptual alternatives, and a set of preliminary conceptual alternatives. 3/14/88 Joint Task Force technical working group meeting to discuss route selection process. 3/25/88 Joint Task Force meeting #4 to discuss study process, screening process for conceptual alternatives and the screening criteria to be used, traffic data (including sources, results of surveys, model to be used, and parameters to be determined), and definition of the no-build alternative as the base case improvements. 5/5/88 Joint Task Force meeting #5 to discuss traffic data, expressway options, and criteria for screening the conceptual alternatives. 5/27/88 Joint Task Force meeting #6 to review the 27 conceptual alternatives considered, discuss the recommended Candidate Build Alternatives (6, 7, 9, 10, 11,12) and the bases for recommending them, and the public information meeting scheduled for June 1988. 7/8/88 Joint Task Force meeting #7 to discuss public information meeting held June 15 and 16, 1988, the traffic model, the road network to be used in the model, and the recommended Candidate Build Alternatives. 9/23/88 Joint Task force meeting #8 to discuss refinements to Candidate Build Alternatives, the road network to be used in the traffic forecast model, and the study status. 4/20, 21/89 Joint Task force meeting #9 to discuss preliminary year 2010 traffic forecasts for Candidate Build Alternatives and the features of the alternatives. 67 P, ome 29 Bypass. Final Seotion 4(f) Evaluation 5/21/90 Joint Task Force meeting #10 to review the Draft EIS and the dates and format for the upcoming Location Public Hearing. An aerial mosaic showing the alternatives was displayed and the relative impacts of the alternatives were presented. Date Design Advisory Committee Meetings 3/795 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss overpass configurations, design evaluation criteria, and potential for hazardous material spills and emergency response. 10/17/95 Design Advisory Committee meeting to review study process and to discuss relationship to Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Committee criteria for screening design alternatives, and public information meeting plans. 11/14/95 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss traffic model data, study process, public involvement plan, and Committee criteria for screening design alternatives. 12/12/95 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss measures of effectiveness, other studies in the area (Route 29 Corridor Development Study, CATS Year 2015, and Meadow Creek Parkway). 2/1/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss topographic considerations and plans for the community "drop-in" sessions. 2/28/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss alternatives, grades, track noise, southern terminus design, Squirrel Ridge relocations, right-of-way acquisition, median design, effects on Montvue due to Schlesinger Farm avoidance, concerns about curves in the design, Berkmar Drive impacts, costs, and impacts on reservoir. Information was also presented on traffic data and local interchanges. 3/27/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss March 11, 1996 public information meeting, alternative designs, and presentations by committee members on sections of alignment assigned to them. 4/24/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss conceptual design alternatives and their advantages and disadvantages. 6/18/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting / community drop-in meeting to discuss North Grounds Connector, southern interchange modifications, tunnel potential at Colthurst/Stillhouse Mountain, potential modifications at Schlesinger Farm historic site, potential interchange at Hydraulic Road, noise analysis, and public information process. Drop-in informational session for the public was held at University Village. 8/29/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting to discuss study progress, suggestions for bypass name, materials for the community drop-in session in October, design issues at the Squirrel Ridge subdivision, and funding revisions from MPO. 68 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f} Evaluation 10/24/96 Design Advisory Committee meeting / community drop-in meeting to discuss study progress, stormwater management, and MPO resolution limiting construction funds. Drop-in informational session for the public was held at University Village. Date Selected Correspondence 6/15/88 1" = 600' scale drawings of new-location alternatives delivered to County Planning Department. 7/1/88 Letter from Margaret Ballard of Sverdrup Corp. to Robert Tucker of Albemarle County transmitting information on the screening of conceptual alternatives (Route 29 Corridor Study, Screening of Conceptual Alternatives, June 1988, and Feasibility of Route 29 Expressway Alternatives, May 1988). 12/8/88 Summary of meeting between Richard Brown of Sverdrup Corp. and Tim Lindstrom and Rick Bowie of the Joint Task Force to discuss issues regarding alternatives, socioeconomic data for the traffic forecasts, and the format and content of the task force meetings. 4/14/89 Meeting with Albemarle County planning staff to discuss technical details and operational structure of the transportation model to be used in traffic forecasting for alternatives. 7/5/89 Letter from Andrew Overstreet of Albemarle County to Ken Wilkinson of VDOT expressing concern over the impact of bypass alternatives on the safety and learning environment of students at Albemarle County Schools. 6/13/90 Letter from K. E. Wilkinson of VDOT to Robert Tucker of Albemarle County transmitting a complete set of technical reports for the Route 29 Corridor Study. 12/18/91 Letter from F. R. Bowie, Chairman of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, to J. C. Milliken, Chairman of the CTB, requesting refinements to Alternative 10 to avoid impacts to Agnor-Hurt Elementary School which is under construction. 12/20/91 Letter from Clifford Haury of Albemarle County Public Schools to J. S. Hodge of VDOT requesting that Alternative 10 be shifted approximately 1,000 feet to avoid lands acquired to be the site of the new Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. This land was acquired after the last round of public discussions on the project. 11/23/93 Letters from Loretta Cummings of VDOT to multiple addressees informing them of the revisions to Alternative 10 and requesting input on various planning issues: Nancy O'Brien, Thomas Jefferson PDC Robert Tucker, Albemarle County Administrator Andrew Overstreet, Albemarle County Public Schools 69 Roum 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 12/6/93 Letter from L. A. Reaser of Albemarle County Public Schools to Loretta Cummings of VDOT requesting a larger scale map to evaluate the impacts of the Route 29 Bypass modifications. 12/8/93 Letter from Loretta Cummings of VDOT to L. A. Reaser of Albemarle County Public Schools providing the requested mapping. 12/22/93 Letter from Wayne Cilimberg of Albemarle County to Loretta Cummings of VDOT responding to her November 23, 1993 request for information on planning issues related to the Alternative 10 modifications. "There is no significant additional impact to the schools from the modified alignments." 5/3/94 Letter from Loretta Cummings of VDOT to L. A. Reaser of Albemarle County Public Schools providing additional information on revisions to the northern terminus of Alternative 10 near Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. 5/31/94 Letter from L. A. Reaser of Albemarle County Public Schools to Loretta Cummings of VDOT responding to her May 3, 1994 letter and suggesting measures for inclusion in the design of the Alternative 10 modifications to minimize impacts (guardrails where appropriate to prevent vehicles from veering onto school property, 6' chain link fence along right of way to ensure that children from school site do not wander onto the road, appropriate landscaping, avoid encroachment on the property if possible). 12/7/94 Letters from J. S. Hodge of VDOT to multiple addressees informing them that the CTB has put on its agenda a discussion of the comments received at the Oct. 26, 1994 Citizens Information Meeting regarding the proposed grade-separated interchanges on existing Route 29: Chairman Walter Perkins, Board of Supervisors 2/16/95 Letters from E. C. Cochran of VDOT to multiple addressees informing them of the CTB's decision on the grade separated interchanges: Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Clerk of Court, Albemarle County 3/23/95 Letters from E. C. Cochran of VDOT to multiple addressees informing them of the CTB's approval of the location of the Alternative 10 modifications: Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 3/7/97 Letter from Kevin Castner of Albemarle County Public Schools to Donald Askew of VDOT transmitting comments from the School Board on the design of the bypass adjacent to schools and suggesting mitigation measures (additional shrubbery and trees should be planted, 6' chain link fence along the right of way, guard mils where appropriate to prevent vehicles from veering onto school properties). 70 Route 29 BYlmSS, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4/17/97 Memorandum from J. T. Mills of VDOT to the Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors informing them that the CTB had approved the major design features of the Route 29 Bypass. 12/9/97 Letter from Charles Cayton of Parsons Brinckerhoff to Wayne Cilimberg of Albemarle County transmitting a full size set of plans and cross sections for the Route 29 Bypass. 3. Public Involvement Extensive efforts have been made throughout all the studies related to the project to keep the public involved and informed. These efforts included citizen information meetings, presentations to special interest groups, newsletters, and telephone "hotlines." Approximately 1,100 names were on the mailing list for newsletters during the location study. Approximately 17,000 names were included on mailing list for newsletters during the design. The public meetings and hearings held during the course of the various studies are summarized below. Date Description 10/2786 Public Information Meeting on Route 29 widening held at Albemarle High School, approximately 65 people attended. 10/29/86 Public Information Meeting on Route 29 widening held at Albemarle High School, approximately 75 people attended. 10/30/86 Location and Design public hearing at Albemarle High School for widening project, approximately 230 people attended. 12/14&15/87 Public Information Meeting. Purpose was to famiharize residents with study process and obtain comments on initial range of alternatives. Approximately 300 people attended. 6/15&16/88 Public Information Meeting. Purpose was to present 27 conceptual alternatives and the 6 alternatives that were recommended to be carried forward for further study. Materials presented included displays of mapping with the alternatives, reports on the screening of alternatives, a quantitative comp .afison of the alternatives, and study process information. Approximately 823 people attended. 6/8&9/89 Public Information Meeting. Purpose was to present preliminary drawings (scale 1" = 200") of alternatives to be studied in Draft EIS and to present traffic data. Following this open house, the maps and data remained at the County Office Building where they were available for review by the public and local agencies. 6/26, 27, &28/90 Location Public Hearing. Purpose was to present the findings of the studies on the alternatives considered and their comparative environmental impacts and to receive comments. The Draft EIS was available for public review 7! Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(f) Evaluation along with technical reports and other supporting data. Displays included 1" = 200' aerial-photo-based mapping of the alternatives, comparative summary of impacts, explanations of resources impacts (Section 4(f), agricultural and forestal districts, cultural resources, noise, land use, farmland, the reservoir and its watershed), typical cross sections, artists' renderings superimposed on oblique aerial photos, and traffic data. A summary brochure explained the study process, the project purpose and need, the alternatives, and the environmental consequences of the alternatives. Approximately 645 people attended. 10/26/94 Public Information Meeting for Route 29 Interchange Design for Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road. 2/13/95 Location Public Hearing for termini revisions. Approximately 600 people attended. 3/11/96 Public Information Meeting for design. Purpose was to present four design alternatives. Approximately 524 people attended. 7/30/96 Public Information Meeting for design. Purpose was to present design to be carded forward into next stages of more detailed design development. Approximately 497 people attended. 2/25/97 Design Public Hearing. Approximately 1,636 people attended. L. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION A Section 4(f) involvement was identified late in the project development process, long after completion of the FEIS and after approval of the project design by the CTB. In accordance with 23 CFR 771.135(m)(2), this separate Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared to discuss the involvement, alternatives to avoid it, and measures to minimize harm. The property involved is the Albemarle County School Complex, a publicly owned 218-acre parcel containing four schools and associated recreational facilities that are open to public use during non- school hours. In addition, the County has designated the entire property as a district park. The Current Design would encroach on the northern edge of the property, resulting in the use of approximately 1,316 feet of trails (approximately 10% of the total trail system on the property) and approximately 15.17 acres of wooded land (approximately 7% of the total acreage in the property). No other facilities on the property would be used by the project. Except for the use of the trails, which were unknown at the time of the FEIS, and the designation by the County of the entire property as a park, also unknown at the time of the FEIS, the physical impacts to the property would be substantially the same as reported in the 1993 FEIS. Location and design alternatives to avoid the Section 4(f) involvement have been evaluated. They include alternatives previously considered in the FEIS (No-Build Alternative or Base Case, Base Case with Grade-Separated Interchanges, Expressway Alternative, and the six other bypass alternatives) and additional alignments and design variations. None of the eastern bypass 72 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation altematives (Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, and 7A) were found to adequately meet the needs for the project and therefore they are not feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives. In addition, all but one of the eastern bypass alternatives previously considered in the FEIS would have Section 4(f) involvements with other properties, all of which would be greater than the Section 4(f) involvement of the Current Design with the School Complex. There are no other potential location or design alternatives to the east of existing Route 29 that would meet the project needs. All of the western bypass alternatives would have Section 4(f) involvements. Alternatives 11 and 12 both would have Section 4(f) involvements greater than that of the Current Design. In addition, Alternative 12 would not adequately meet the project needs. Therefore, these are not feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives. Other potential western bypass alternatives have been considered, including two modifications of the Alternative 11 alignment that would avoid direct use of Section 4(f) properties. Both of the modified Alternative 11 alignments would involve crossings of Ivy Creek, which contains recorded populations of a federally listed endangered species, the James spinymnssel. They also would have impacts to agricultural and forestal districts that are precluded by state law. Other potential alternatives farther west, besides not adequately serving the project needs, would also involve crossings of Ivy Creek, large involvements with agricultural and forestal district lands, involvements with larger portions of the watershed of the South Fork Rivarma River Reservoir, crossings of the Reservoir, and large disruptions to communities and community cohesion. Alternative 9 (Expressway Alternative) along the existing Route 29 alignment would not adequately meet the needs for the project. Therefore, it is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. The Grade-Separated Interchanges previously proposed at Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road would not by themselves meet the needs for the project. Therefore, this is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. The No-Build Alternative (i.e., the Base Case improvements that have already been built) also would not meet the needs for the project and is therefore not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative. Design aitematives involving shifts of segments of the Current Design to the west are not feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives because of impacts to the federally listed endangered James spinymussel, agricultural and forestal district impacts, or other Section 4(f) impacts that would be more severe than those of the Current Design. Design alternatives involving shifts of segments of the Current Design to the east are not feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives because of large disruptions to communities and community cohesion. Measures to minimize harm have been considered and all possible measures will be incorporated into the proposed design. Design adjustments have been made to minimize the acreage of Section 4(f) property required for the proposed right of way and to minimize the encroachment on trails on the property, the only recreational facility affected on the property. Displaced portions of the trail will be reconstructed on areas outside the proposed right of way. Landscaping will be installed to minimize the visual impacts to the property. Fencing will be installed to minimize the potential for school children wandering onto the proposed roadway. The County will be fully compensated for the lands required for the proposed right of way. VDOT will meet with County officials to discuss these measures to minimize harm to the property. 73 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent altemative to the use of land from the Albemarle County School Complex Section 4(f) property. There are unique problems and unusual factors involved in alternatives that would avoid this property and the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts and community disruption resulting from such alternatives would reach extraordinary magnitudes. Table 4 provides a comparison of the alternatives. The proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property that may result from its use. Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the design for the project as discussed in Section J, Measures to Minimize Harm. 74 Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation Table 4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Feasible and Prudent Use of 4(0 Harm to Section 4(0 Land Alternative Land (After Mitigation) Current Design Yes Yes 15.17 acres from School complex 1,316 linear feet of trails displaced 'Minimization Alternative Yes Yes 12.43 acres from School Complex 771 linear feet of trails displaced Eastern Design Alternative No No None Western Design Alternative 1 No Yes Constructive use of approximately 13 acres of School Complex (constructive use) Western Design Alternative 2 No Yes 6.7 acres from Schlesinger Farm historic property FEIS Alternative 6 No Yes 30.6 acres from 2 parks FEIS Alternative 6B No Yes 16 acres from historic property "FEIS Alternative 7 No No None FEIS Alternative 7A No Yes 11 acres from Mclntire Park FEIS AlternatiVe 9 No No None FEIS Alternative 11 No Yes 48.3 acres from 2 historic properties FEIS Alternative 11 Modified No Yes Constructive use of approximately 6 acres of School Complex ~ (constructive use) FEIS Alternative 11 Modified No No None FEIS Alternative 12 No Yes 41.8 acres from 3 historic properties No-Build No No None Grade Separated Interchanges No No None Other location alternatives No Yes Other Section 4(f) properties west of Route 29 include Schlesinger west of existing Route 29 Farm, Whitewood Road Park, Darby's Folly, The Barracks Historic District, Shack Mountain National Historic Landmark, Ivy Creek Natural Area, Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Woodlands, Crenshaw Farm, and Chris Greene Lake Park. Many of the possible alternatives that would avoid the School Complex would require use of one or more of these propert!es. Other location alternatives No No Alternatives to the west that would avoid the above-noted Section west of existing Route 29 4(t) properties would have involvements with agricultural and forestal districts that are precluded by state law and/or would involve other unique factors or extraordinary impacts. Other locatio~ alternatives No Yes Other Section 4(f) properties east of Route 29 include the Southwest east of existing Route 29 Mountains Historic District, Ridgeway Farm, Red Hills, Proffit Historic District, Darden-Towe Park, Pen Park, Mclntire Park, Greenbrier Park, Woodbrook Elementary School, and Hollymead Elementary/Sutherland Middle School. Many of the possible eastern alternatives would require use of one or more of these properties. Other location alternatives No No Alternatives to the east that would avoid the above-noted Section east of existing Route 29 4(f) properties would not adequately meet the project needs, would have involvements with agricultural and forestal districts that are precluded by state law and/or would involve other unique factors or extraordinary impacts. 75 Route 29 Bypass. Final Section 4(0 Evaluation imm ROUTE 29 BYPASS State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130) Albemarle County, Virginia APPENDIX A RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(0 Evaluation 1998 1/15/98 Resolution for modifying CTB's April 17, 1997 action regarding the design of the North Grounds Connector. 1997 4/17/97 Resolution for CTB approval of major design features of Route 29 Bypass. 1995 3/16/95 2/16/95 Resolution for CTB approval of the location of Alternative 10 termini modifications. Resolution for CTB recission of grade-separated interchanges from the Route 29 improvements 1992 1/16/92 Resolution approving design of Base Case improvements 1991 12/19/91 Resolution directing VDOT to make all efforts to complete the projects approved in its November 15, 1990 resolution 1990 11/15/90 Resolution to select the location for the Route 29 Corridor Study Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation A- ] Moved by Mr. Neale , Seconded by Mr. ~ite that, WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation a resolution was passed on April 17, 1997 approving the Design Public Hearing held on Tuesday, February 25, 1997 for the purpose of considering the proposed major design features of the Route 29 Bypass, from !.12 km (0.7 mile) north of Route 29/250 interchange to 0.8 km (0.5 mile) north of Rivanna River in Albemarle County, State Project 6029-002-F22, PE-!01, RW-201, C-50!; and the North Grounds Connector State Project RUVA-002-10!, PE-10i; and WNEREAS, the approval of the major design features of the North Grounds Connector road was a modification to the plan as presented at the public hearing as noted: Modification to the North Grounds Connector road, which shall be no wider than 33'-0" curb to curb, and its right of way no wider than would be appropriate for a roadway of that width; WHEREAS that in accordance with concurrence from the Board of Visitors, of the University of Virginia, byletter dated December 17, 1997 the University of Virginia has requested design modifications from that as approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on April 17, 1997. NOW, TPIEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based on the re_=uest from the University of Virginia the Commonwealth Transportation Board rescinds the following from the April 17, 1997 approval: Modification to the North Grounds Connector road, which shall be no wider than 33~-0'' curb uo curb, and iss righu of way no wider than would be appropriate for a roadway of that width; NOW, T~EP~EFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the North Grounds Connector should be designed as presented at the public hearing as a four-lane, divided roadway with appropriaue consideration as to noise abatement and with heavy landscaping on its margins and median giving the appearance of a well landscaped urban street. Motion Carried; Mr. Myers disqualified himself and did not participate in the discussion or vote on this issue. 1-15-98 Mr. Roudabush Moved by , Seconded by Fir. Byrd that W~.EREAS, in accordance wi~k The statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a Design Public Hearing was held in the Sheraton inn Charlottesville located in Albemarle County, Virginia, on Tuesday, February 25, 1997 between 2:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of considering the proposed major design features of the Route 29 Bypass, from 1.!2 km (0.7 mile) north of Rou~e 29/250 interchange to 0.8 km (0.5 mile) north of Rivanna River in Albemarle County, Sta~e Projec~ 6029-002-F22, PE-!0!, RW-20!, 'C-501; and RUVA-002-10!, PE-!01; and W~EREAS, proper notice was ~iven in advance, and all those present were given a full opportunity ~o express their opin/ons and recommendations for or a~ains~ the proposed Project as presented, and their statements being duly recorded; and W/4EREAS, the economic, social, and environmental effects of the proposed project have been examined and given proper consideration, and this evidence, alon~ wi~h all other, has been carefully reviewed. NOW, T~IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ~han the major design features of this project be approved in accordance with the plan as proposed and presented at the said Design Public ~earing by the Department's Engineers wi~h: - 2 Modification in the final design phase to modify the interchange at the northern ~ermini to e!imina~e impacts to the Brook Hill property whick is likely eligible for listing in ~he National Register of ~istoric Places; Modification in The final design phase to reduce the Rydraulic Road bridge to reflect a ~o lane design; Approval of the selection of the "Central Design Alternative" (as designated on the attached map) that shifts the Sti!lhouse Mountain a!ignmen~ out of the mountain side. A shift in the alignment of Lambs Road to the eas= to lessen impac~ to ~he west side of the proposed roadway in the final design phase; An evaluazion of ramp "D" on the sou=h end of the project to see if the existing south bound Route 29 Bypass can be utilized in lieu of constructing a whole new ramp "D"; Modification to the North Grounds Connector road, which shall be no wider ~han 33'-0" curb to curb, and its righ= of way no wider ~han would be appropriate for a roadway of that width; - 3 - The northbound access ramps "E" and "F" Uo the Route 250 Bypass revised to be relocated northward as close as is physically possible to ~he new alignment of the Route 250 Byp. ass, i.e., as far distant as is possible from the new Darden School of Business and Law School; Every possible aesthetic measure taken to prese-~ve and enhance the University's considerable investment in the setting and appearance of iss new Darden School of Business and the Law School, including visual buffering using plant materials of appropriate size and scale, and density of coverage, as well as acoustic buffering using sound walls faced with materials compatible with those historically in use a~ the University. In addition, any stormwater detention ponds which may be re.~uired in the vicinity of the University as a result of ~he new Bypass or the North Grounds Connector road shall be designed in conformance wi~h the principles of the University's Water Resources Management plan. Concurrence from the Board of Visitors, of the University of Virginia, with ~he proposed design modifications on or before July 15, 1997. - 4 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT FD-RTHER REsoLVED tha~ in the interest of public safety, pedestrian, persons riding bicycles or mopeds, horsedrawn vehicles, self-propel!ed machinery or e.cuipment, and animals led, ridden or driven on the hoof be prohibited from using this highway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Rou~e 29 B~v!pass be designated as a Limited Access Highway from !.12 km (0.7 mi!e) ncrtk of Route 29/250 interchange and 0.8 km (0.5 mile) norsk of Rivanna River as designated on the mub!ic hearing plans and in accordance with the statutes of Virginia and in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board Policies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance wi~k Article 4, Chapter t, Title 33.1, Secsion 33.1-34 of the 1950 Code of Virginia and State Highway and TransportatiOn Board Policy, the herein approved 10.04 km (6.24 mile) segmen~ of Route 29 Bypass be added to the Primary System of Highways and designated Virginia Route 29 Bypass. MOTION CARRIED 4-17-97 Moved by Seconded by W~EREAS, Ccmmcnwea!~h Mr. Newcomb in accordance of Virginia and that, with ~he statutes cf the pciicies of ~he Commonweaish Transportation Board, a Location Public Hearing was held in Sheraton inn 2350 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville Va., on February 13, !995 between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. for ~he purpose of considering the proposed modifications to the location of the Northern and Southern Terminus of Alternative 10 cf the Route 29 Bypass. The Northern terminus project limits extend AlZernative I0 (500) south of the original intersection with Woodburn Road (Route 659)and terminates approximately 3000 feet north of the South Fork of ~he Rivanna River. The Southern ~erminus Grounds existing begins a~ the proposed connector approximately Route 29/Business 250 tie-in point for ~ke North (3,500) feet north of ~he (Ivy Road) interchange and !990, Route 0.31 County) in the City of Charlottesville and S~ate Project 6029-002-122, PE-!00; and ~erminates with the Approved Alternative !0 Bypass across from Co!thurst Farms, in the city of Charlottesville and Albermar!e County, State Project 6029-O02-F22,PE-!O0 and WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes o~ the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of ~h~ Commonwealth Transportation Board, a Location Public ~earing was held in the Days Inn Charlottesville ~otet on June 26 and June 27, 1990, and in the Performing Arts Center, Charlottesville, on June 28, for the purpose of considering the proposed location of 29 ~_om Route 29/250 Bypass (City of Charlottesville) mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River (Albemarle Albemarle WMEREAS,'' the Ccmmonwea!uh Transportation Board by resolution of November !5, 1990, aooroved the location of uh±s project; and W~MEREA$, the Commonwea!Uh Transportation Board by resolution dated December 19, 199i, reaffirmed the location of the Alternative l0 Bypass; and WHEREA~, proper notice was given in advance, and all those present were given a full opportunity to ex?tess their opinions and recommendations for or against the proposed project as presented, and their statements being duly recorded; and WHE~, tke economic,'social, and environmental effects of the proposed project have been examined and given proper consideration, and this evidence, along with all. other, has been carefully reviewed; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the location of the Northern and Southern Terminus of A1Eerna~ive I0 as approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on November 15, 1990 and reaffirmed on December !9,1991 be rescinded; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the modifications Go ~he ~orthern and Southern Terminus as presented at the February 13, 1995 Location Public Kearing be approved as presented; and BE IT FIIRTHERRESOLVED, that as final design proceeds ~ha~ s~aff be instructed to consider the design presented by ~he Canterbury ~ills Association 5o minimize impacts and that a complete proposed function required. MOTION CARRIED. March 16, 1995 traffic analysis be conducted to determine if the a~ grade intersection of the Northern Terminus will adequately or will a grade separated interchange be Moved ~ ~illiam S.. Roudabush, Seconded by, Mr. Byrd , that ~IER~AS, in accordance with uhe statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a Location Public Hearing was held in the Days Inn Charlottesville Hotel on June 26 and June 27, 1990, and in the Performing Arts Center, Charlottesville, on June 28, 1990, for the purpose of considering the proposed location of RouTe 29 from Route 29/250 Byp_ass (City of Charlottesville) to 0.31 mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River (Albemarle County)' in the City of Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County, Sta=e Project ~029-002-122, and ~T~_--REAS, the Commonwealth Transpor~aEion Board by resolution of Novew~er !$, !990, approved ~he location of ~his project [a~tached); and h~EKEAS, nhe Commonwealth Transportation Board by resolution da~ed Dece..-~er 19, !991. explained in more detail how ~he Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation would follow the schedule as forth in the ~ovember 15, 1990, resolution, and as more fully set out in a !etzer to = R. Bowie dated November 4, !99!, from John G. Milliken (a~tached); and ~%iE.-R~AS, phase II of these resolutions more specifically called for =he cons=ruction of =he interchanges at Rio Road. Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road and identified the traffic and economic conditions under which this would occur; and -2- WHE. RF2%S, the city of Charlottesville by resolution dated January 17, 1995, re_cuested the Virginia Department of Transportation to s~cp all design work and construction plans for~ the proposed grade separated interchange at Hydraulic Road; and W~~, a Citizen Information Meeting was held a= the Sheraton Inn Charlottesville on October 26, 1994, for the purpose of considering the design of the proposed grade-separated interchanges aU ~ydrauiic Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Rio Road, State Project 6029-002-F!9, PE-103; and W~.~REAS, 4,372 citizens provided comment at =he Citizens Information Meeting of which 3,270 citizens opposed construction of any of the interchanges and of the 3,270 citizens in opposztion 2'~297 d!rected the Virginia Department of Transportation not to construct the interchanges bu~ construct ~he Alternative i0 Bypass;'and W-~?/~EAS, ~he Commonwealth Transportation Board has reviewed the citizens' comments and those of ~he city of Charlotzesvi!le, the University of Virginia, and local ~overnment of Greene County; and WHEREAS, the State's needs exceed the ability uo fund many priority projects and the cons=.~/cUion cost of each interchange ms estimated between 12 and 15 million dollars; and W-H~REAS, ~he construction of the interchanges would result ~ ~he ~ota! reconsu~action of more ~h~n 60 percent of the base case widening; and -3- WHEREAS, the construction of each of The inzerchanges would again result in inconvenience to both the local and arterial trave!in~ public and businesses for a minimum period of two years per interchange; and WHEREAS, only minimal improvemen~ in the ultimate level of service would result from the construction of =he interchanges; and ~<K. ER~-AS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board supports continuation of the construczion of the Base Case improvements, ~he continued developmen~ of projects in the Charlottesville/ Albemarle Area Transportation'Study (-CATS) Plan, construction of the Meadow Creek Peri, way, and reaffirms its support of the Route 29 ~ypass ( Alternative i0]; now. therefore BE IT RESOLVED, uhat the desi?n and development of the interchange s~udy be terminated immedia~e!y and the Consultant agreemenu for =he development of these plans be terminated; and BE IT FURTHER .RESOLVED, those remaining funds assi?ned to The interchange study be reassigned as needed to consuruct sidewalks and landscaping and beautification options throughout the Base Case improvements in accordance with Departmen= and Commonwealth Transportation Board policies and procedures; and BE IT .-~-E_R .~SOLVED, that the remaining funds be reassigned to the develcpmen~ of ~he final design plans and acquisition of hardship right of way for the Route 29 (Alternative 10) Bypass; and, -4- BE iT FUKTEER RESOLVED, %hat the actions of the ~oard taken at ~ts meetings of November !5, !990 and December 19, ~991, az well as the actions described in a !etzer dated November 4, 1991 from Secretary Mi!liken ~o Mr. F. R. Bowie, which relate to the intmrchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Kydraulic Road be rescinded; and BE IT FURT~E._RRESOLVED, that the actions ~aken by zhe Board at said meetings and discussed in sa~d letter relating ~o the phasing of construction for the Route 29 bypass based on increases in ~raffic and economic' conditions be rescinded and that the Departmen~ continue the design of the Rou~e 29 (Alternative Bypass. Motion carried 2/16/95; Mr. Myers disclosed ~hat he has a writ%eh disclosure on file. Moved ~y ?~-s. ~±n~he]_oe ~Seconded by Dr. _~.omas ~ thor WHEREAS, in accoraance with the statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Tro~portation Boar~, a Loc~tion and Design Pubiic Hearing was heid in t~ Albemarle High School Auditorium on October 30, 198& at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering t~ propo~d Locotion and Design of Rou~e 29 from ~oute 763 (Hydraulic ~oad) to t~ South End of the Gridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna ~iver in Al~morie County. State Project ~02~02-i 1~, C-S01, C-302, Federal Project F~37-2 ( ), and WHEREAS, pro~r notice w~ given in advance and oil those pre~nt were given a full opportunity to express their opinio~ and recomme~=tio~ for or against t~ proposed profit as pre~nted, and their statements ~Jng duly recorded, and WHERE., the economic, social and environmental effects of t~ propo~d project h~e ~n exami~ a~ given pro~r co~ider~tion~ and this evidence, along with other, h~ ~n carefully revie~d, a~ WHEREAS, ~n November 15, 1990' the Commonwealth Tr~omatJon B~rd ~proved the Location of the Route ~9 C~ridor Study in ~ree phis, a~ Where., this profit, identifi~ as t~ B~ C~, (Ph~ J improvements) w~ given koca~ion Corridor ~proval by t~ B~d's action of November 15, Jg~0, now t~refore BE IT REOLVED, that t~ Design of this project ~ approved in accordance with t~ pi~n as propo~d a~ pre~nted at the said Location and Design Public ~ing by the Depa~ment's 5ngi~ers with m~ific=tio~ to provide for six lanes plus continuous right turn ta~s with signalized ~t~rade inter~ction~ 01/16/92 Moved by Mrs. Kincnetoe Seconded by Mt. Davies , that WHEREAS, in accordance with the statu:e$ of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Commonwealth Transpor=a:ion Board by resolution da=ed November 15, 1990, approved =he location of Project 6029-002-122, PE-!00 in three phases; and WHERe_AS, the three phases provided for short range, medium range, and long range recommendations for the construction of ~he project in conjunction with other projecns in the city of Charlo:tesvi!!e and Albemar!e County; and WHEI~EAS, by letter dated August I, 1991, ~he Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has requested that this Board %ake positive s=eps to commit to the priori=les which were set forth in ~he Board's resolution of November 15, 1990; and ,WHEREAS, the Board believes that the orderly development and funding of the various projects in accordance with ~he three phases as set forth in the Board's resolution of November 15, 1990, is in the public interest; and WH E P~%S, transpor=ation and WHEREAS, the Board recognizes priorities should be it is the sense of this that state and local harmonized where possible; Board that the Department of Transportation adhere to the schedule of improvements as se= forth in the November 15, 1990, resolution; and -2- WHEREAS, =he Board s%rongiy believes tha~ %he Route 29 Bypass should be constructed in concert with the remaining cons=ruc=ion projec=s of =he CATS Plan after Phase ! and Phase 2 -- recommendations of =he Board's November 15, 1990, resolution has been comp!e=ed; now therefore BE IT ~ESOLVED, =hat %he Commonwea!=h Transportation Board direct the Department make all efforts =o reso!u=ion of November of Transportation =o take all steps and complete -the projects approved in its 15, 1990, as more fully set out in -a let=er =o F. R. Bowie Milliken, which is resolution. 12/19/91 at=ached dated November 4, 1991, here:o and made from John G. a part of this Moved by Mrs. Kinaheloe , Seconded by Dr. Howle*~_ , that WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutes of ~ne Commonwealth of Virginia ahd policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a Location Public Hearing was held in the Days inn Charlottesville Hotel on June 26 and June 27, 1990 and in the Performing Arts Center on June 28, 1990, for the purpose of considering the proposed location of Route 29 from Route 29/250 Bypass (City of Charlottesville) to 0.31 mile north of the North Fork Rivanna River (Albemarle County) in the city of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, State Project 6029-002-I22, PE-100; and WHEREAS, proper notice was given in advance, and all those present were given a full opportunity to express their opinions and recommendations for or against the proposed project as presented, and their statements being duly recorded; and WHEREA~, the economic, social, and environmental effects of the proposed project have been examined and given proper consideration, and this evidence, along with all other, has been carefully reviewed; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the location of this project be approved in accordance with the plan as proposed and presented at the said Location Public Hearing by the Department's Engineers in three phases as indicated: Phase I - Sho~t Range Recommendations BE_.~ RESOLVED, that Go ~..~.~ .... __~ Route 27 Base ~ase~ improvements . from Hydra~l~¢ ~oad to the South Fork Rivanna _ River. These improvements wi!! provide six lanes plus con~ia~o~s right turn lanes with signalized at-grade intersection. These - improvemencs will help satisfy the immediate needs for additional highway capacity on existing Route 29~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that right of way necessary for the construction of interch&nges ~s they ~ay ~e ~eeded at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road should be reserved initially. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Albemarle County and the city of Charlottesville should be encouraged to restrict, to the extent possible, further development on the needed right of way in these areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should it be necessary, we recommend that the Department acquire any needed right of way under our advanced acquisition policies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend the North Grounds access facility be developed as soon as possible, along with additional mass transit, to immediately begin to improve traffic conditions along Route 29, Emmet Street between the Route 250 Bypass and the university, and free up parking around the grounds of the university. --mr _~' FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend Alternative~ i0 be .. o~ as a corridor for future development and ~Ibemar!e County assist in preserving the uecessary right of ~ay - developing local plans to minimize any future adverse impacts associated with the future development of this corridor. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that refined preliminary pl~u$ for Alternative 10 will be provided to A!hemarle County to aid local officials in the preservation of the corridor and development of compatible land use plans. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the preservation of the Alternative 10 corridor will assist the county in a no-growth position in the watershed. Access to the corridor would only be provided at the request of the coun3y. Phase II - Medium Range Recommendations BE IT RESOLVED, that as traffic continues to increase and economic conditions allow, we recommend interchanges at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive, and Hydraulic Road be constructed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recommend continuation of the preservation of right of way for recommended Alternative 10 and the advanced acquisition of right of way procedures be exercised as needed and economics permit. -4- Phase iii - Long Ranse Recommendations BE IT RESOLVED, that as such time traffic conditions along the Route 29 corridor become unacceptable and economic condisions permit, we recommend the construction of the preserved corridor - Alternative 10. Motion carried. Messrs. Wells, Warner and S~ey voting No. 11/15/90 ROUTE 29 BYPASS State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130) Albemarle County, Virginia APPENDIX B COORDINATION WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 1998 11/18/98 8/14/98 1/3/98 6/11/98 1997 File Memorandum from Stuart Tyler of consultant, De Leuw, Cather & Company, regarding meeting with Pat Mullaney, Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation and David Benish, Chief of Community Development. Letter from David Benish, Chief of Community Development, Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development, to Patsy Napier of VDOT responding to her questions regarding trails at County School Complex. Letter from Pat Mullaney, Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation, to Patsy Napier of VDOT responding to her questions regarding trails at the County school complex. Letter from Patsy Napier of VDOT to Robert Tucker, Albemarle County Executive, regarding trails at Jack Jouett Middle School. 3/7/97 1994 Letter from Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools, to Donald Askew of VDOT transmitting comments from the School Board on the design of the bypass adjacent to Albemarle County Schools. 5/31/94 1993 Letter from L.A. Reaser, Director of Building Services, Albemarle County Pubtic Schools, to Loretta Cummings of VDOT responding to her May 3, 1994 letter and suggesting measures for inclusion in the design of Alternative 10 to minimize impacts on Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. 12/22/93 12/6/93 Letter from Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, to Loretta Cummings of VDOT providing comments on questions about modifications to the alignment of the Route 29 Bypass. Letter from L.A. Reaser of Albemarle County Public Schools to Loretta Cummings of VDOT requesting additional information so he can evaluate the impacts of the Route 29 Bypass modifications. B-1 1991 12/20/91 Letter from Clifford Haury of Albemarle County Public Schools to J. S. Hodge of VDOT requesting that Alternative 10 be shifted to avoid the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property. 12/18/91 Letter from F.R. Bowie, Chairman of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to John Milliken, Chairman of the CTB, requesting refinements to Alternative 10 to avoid impacts to an elementary school under construction (Agnor-Hurt Elementary School). 1989 7/5/89 Letter from Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools to Ken Wilkinson of VDOT eXpressing concern over the impact of bypass alternatives on Albemarle County Schools. 7/5/89 Letter from Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools to Richard Brown of consultant, Sverdrup Corporation, expressing concern over the impact of bypass alternatives on Albemarle County Schools. B-2 CIE LEUW. CATHEi:I E CCIMPANY OF VIRGINIA 11320 Random Hills Road, Suite 100 · Fairfax. Virginia 22030 · (703) 352-1163 · Fax (703) 385-1147 MEMORANDUM Date: 11/18/98 To: File 660817 From: Smart Tyler ~~ Subject: Route 29 Bypass Project: 6029-002-F22, PE- 101 Albemarle County Meet w/County Officials re Section 4(f)frrail behind Jack Jouett Middle School On November 17, 1998, met with Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, and Mr. David Benish, Chief of Commumty Development (the two who wrote letters responding to Patsy Napier's 6/11/98 letter about the trail). I showed them a map with the project alignment and the school property, and with a line sketched in where I thought the trail was. Mr Mullaney noted that the sketched position of the trail looked about right (he has been on the trail) and he said there are no maps official or otherwise that depict the trail. I explained what Section 4(f) is and what its requirements are regarding examining avoidance alternatives and measures to minimize harm. I explained how, since the school property is a multi-use property, the 4(f) provisions apply only to those portions that are actually used for recreation (i.e., the trail, the soccer fields, the tennis courts, etc.) and not the entire property. I explained what avoidance alternatives we would probably evaluate, including a shift to the west, a shift to the east, a shift with bridges, and a bridge over the trail (aerial crossings are not 4(f) involvements unless piers or other appurtenances are placed on the site or the bridge harms the purposes for which the lands were established, according to FHWA's policy paper). I pointed out the other constraints nearby, namely, the ag/forestal district on the Locher property, the Haffner Farm historic property (which would also be 4(f)), the tributary, of Ivy Creek and the associated potential concerns relative to the James spinymussel (a federally listed endangered species), residential areas, and other recreational facilities at the schools (which would also be 4(f) resources). I asked what mitigation measures they might deem appropriate. They suggested minimizing the width of the right of way swath to reduce the amount of forest that would be removed. I asked about landscaping and they a~eed that it would be desirable, provided that it didn't create a sharp contrast between the landscape plantings and the natural vegetation. I suggested thar~ if avoidance of the trail is determined not to be. prudent and feasible, that the .displaced portion &the trail could probably be relocated. I asked whether resurfacing of the trail to provide a more permanent surface would be desirable and they said no. it would be preferable to.leave it natural as it currently is. They asked about noise barriers and I said that I 'thought that previous analyses had concluded that constructing noise barriers at this location would not be cost effective based on the estimated cost and amount of attenuation that would be provided. I asked if they xvould like to meet again after we have more detailed information on the alternatives and their consequences and they said yes. TRANSPORTATION GROUP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Patay Napier, Project Manager David Benish, Chief of Community Development August 14, 1998 Response to questions regarding existing trails at County School Complex The following are responses to your questions regarding the above noted trails: I. What is the major purpose of the trails? The trails are used for school athletic team training, academic programs and general public use. The trails are used for training by Albemarle High School's cross-country and track teams, as well as other sports teams (soccer, lacrosse) for training purposes. The trails are also used by earth science classes at the three schools. As provided by County policy, all school facilities function as public park/recreation facilities to serve the general public. The trails are open after school hours for public use and are actively used for by the public for walking and jogging. ', 2. Are the trails a recreational resource for public use? Yes (see above). 3. If so, do they constitute a significant recreational resource in the County? The County, as a general practice, does not designate recreational facilities as "significant." Recreational facilities are provided to address identified or perceived school or public needs. The trails provide a soft track facility in a natural setting for walking and jogging near the most populated and densely developed part of the County. This trail system serves to help meet the demands from this pat of the County and compliment other existing facilities in the area to provide a variety of trail types and settings for walking and running opportunities. The trails are also seen as a major resource to the high school's cross-country, track and other sport teams. There is a need for safe convenient soft surface trails for training hms. Ac_cording to School Board policy, Albemarle school athletes are prohibited from practicing on most public ~tls. In particular, the cross- country team has been forced to travel to other locations around the County to train (participation on the Albemarle cross-country team recently has approached 60 students). 1 4. If so, what is the basis for that significant determination in the light of the fact that the trails are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a public recreational resource at the school? All public schools are identified aa public recreational facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. This has been the case since the adoption of the Community Facilities P..l.an (May, 1991) and was reaff'umed in the updated Land Use Plan component of the Comprebensiv~.~lan, adopted June 1995 (excerpts fi'om both documents are attached). Neither document inventories all facilities at County parks, so this trail system is not specifically mentioned in either document. However, standards for the development of each category of park, including the number and type of facilities to be provided, are established in the Community Facilities Plan. The standards for District Parks (which are to be provided at middle and high schools) call for the development of an "open space area with walking or jogging trail...ifthe opportunity and demand exists for this type of facility (p. 38, Community Facilities Plan)." The purpose and need for this facility is documented in the responses to other questions. 5. Y/hen were the trails constructed? There were crude trails in existence in 1983-84. The cross-country team has held several trail-building activities at different points in time. Between 1984 and 1990, the trails were opened up and improved significantly. The lower trail behind Jouett Middle School was upgraded in 1990 when the cross-country team and athletic deparlment pooled funds ($5,000) to pay a contractor to level and expand the existing trail. The primary group behind the initial trail development has been the Albemarle cross-country team and boosters. Their interest was generated by the limited training opportunities/facilities available in the County at the time. Over time, the participants in trail development have included the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACS), the Boy Scouts, and various service fi-aternities and volunteer groups. Since they have been in existence, there has also been steady and consistent use for school academic exercises and general public use for walking and running. 6. Y/ho were they constructed for and what purposes do they use them? See the responses to questions 1, 3, and 5. 7. ti/ho uses the trails now and for what purposes do they use them? X, iVD 8. How many people use the trails and how frequently do they use them? The trails are still used for athletic team training and academic programs. The trails are also regularly used by residents of neighborhoods along (and within) the Rio/Hydraulic Road "loop" and Georgetown and Barracks Roads. According to the cross-counlry coach, actual numbers vary with the season. Summer use is more moderate due to warmer temperatures. During cooler periods he estimates 20 to 30 users (mostly runners) per day. During the cross-country season, the team makes use of the track 3 to 5 times a week, with anywhere fi'om 40 to 50 team members at once. 9. ,-ire there organized events for which the trails are used? No. To date, there have been no organized events scheduled at this facility (Wail area). It is considered a back-up facility for Albemarle cross-country meets. 10. Is there any program to disseminate information to the public regarding the trails as a recreational resource? Information is distributed through the local track/trail clubs. The trails have been highlighted in the Charlottesville Track Club newsletter on several occasions. 11. ~Vhat are the future plans for the trails? There are no del'mite plans for the future other than maintenance to the existing traih and use. The future of the Wail system after construction of the bypass will be considered at that rime. 12. To what extent would this project's effects on the trails affect county recreational programs? The bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions oft. he existing trail system, and will reduce the attractiveness and utility of the remaining trails to the general public. This will result in increased use of Whitewood Park and Ivy Creek Natural, both already receiving a high level of use (jogging is not permitted the in the Ivy Creek Natural Area). 13. Are there any other trails or other recreational facilities, either existing or plarmea~ that are or could be affected by this project? Yes. The County's Land Use Plan and Open Space Plan call for the development of a linear greenway park along the South Fork Rivanna River and reservoir. It is my understanding that the greenway pro .l~esal has been discussed with the Bypass Design Committee. If you need any further information or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cc: Wayne Cilimbe~g A! Reasor PatMullaney COUNTY OF 'ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Department- County Office Buitding 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5844 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 1996 DELEUW, CATHER & COMPANY FAIRFAX, VA. TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Patsy Napier, Project Manager Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation 'f'd~/l November 3, 1998 Response to questions regarding existing trails at County School Complex Albemarle County school grounds serve a dual function as Albemarle County parks. This arrangement is defined in the Parks and Recreation section of the Albemarle County Code and is recognized by policy in the Community Facilities Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. As Director of Parks and Recreation it is my responsibility to oversee the provision, supervision, use, maintenance, and protection of all park and recreation facilities in the County. Therefore I would like to take this opporUmity to expand and elaborate on some of the responses of August 21, 1998 by David Benish, Chief of Community Development to your questions regarding the trails at the County school complex. 1. What is the major purpose of the trails? The provision of trails for public recreation is a major function of the Parks and Recreation Depm-mztent. The trails are used very heavily by the community because of their location in the most densely developed area of the County. The trails also serve a major function for the school system for athletic team training and for academic use. 3. If so, do they constitute a significant recreational resource in the County? Yes, this trail system and the wooded area in general, particularly in this very high developed area of the County, constitute a significant recreational resource. As stated in the Community Facilities Plan, the provision of parks and recreation facilities can serve to achieve a variety of community objectives. Two of the most common purposes are, (1) the provision of activity related recreation opportunities; and, (2) the preservation of environmental or historically significant resources. Due to the extensive development of the surrounding land, this wooded area and trails are definitely a significant recreation and environmental resource. The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area. 4. If so, what is the basis for that significant determination in the light of the fact that the trails are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a public recreational resource at the school? As state earlier, the Albemarle County. School grounds also serve as Albemarle County parks, as recognized in the Community Facilities Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan, and as defined in the Albemarle County Code. In the Comprehensive Plan, page 132, trails are mentioned. "District parks provide additional facilities and recreational opporUmities beyond what is provided in smaller community parks. There should be a reasonable variety of recreational facilities and opportunities; tot tots, tennis courts, lighted playing fields, and jogging/walking trails or tracks are a few examples. These parks are provided at secondary schools in Albemarle County." The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes $ouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, is designated a District Park on page 49 of the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990 - 2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important rote in meeting the objectives as established in the Community Facilities Plan and they constitute a major resource. The portion of this site that includes the trails and woods is particularly significant in this highly developed area of the County. The importance to the County of protecting undeveloped land in this area was underscored in 1990 when the decision was made to not build a new elementary school on the nearby County owned Whitewood Road site in order to preserve the wooded area and trails on that site. Instead the County spent in excess of $1,000,000 to purchase the current Agnor Hurt school site. Since that the time the County has placed a conservation easement on the Whitewood site. In my opinion, it would make little sense to. allow impact to a nearby site of similar character when such efforts have been made to protect the Whitewood site. I think this clearly shows the significance this land has as a recreational resource to the County. 8. How many people use the Wails and how frequently do they use them? The trails are in the most densely populated area of the County and receive steady and consistent use by the public as well as regular use by the Albemarle athletic teams and Albemarle, Jouett, and Greet academic programs. Sign up sheets at the trails indicate that public use is approximately 30 to 35 persons/day. School athletic teams who use the trails 3 to 5 times a week in season may have as many as 50 team members on the trails at once. The athletic fields, trails and other outdoor recreational facilities in this most densely populated area of the County are extremely important in meeting our recreational objective and goals. All the facilities at this complex are used extensively. 11. What are the future plans for the trails? The trails will continue to be maintained for public and school use. Discussions between parks and recreation and school staff are ongoing as to how to improve these trails and other facilities to enhance school and public use. 12. To what extent would this project's effects on the trails affect county recreational programs? As David stated the bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing wails system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what rem/fins. Any loss of Wails in this area will further burden existing facilities that are already overused. The Ivy Creek Natural Area is used to the point now that the additional public use could result in consideration of new policies to restrict use to protect the natural area. Loss of the trails at this County School Complex would negate much of what the County gained with its investment and effort to preserve a similar area at Whitewood Road. Thank you for this opportunity to comment~ If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Cc: Wayne Cilimberg A1 Reaser David Benish WEALTH of VtRQINIA DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 140'[ EAST 8ROAO STRE-_-T RICHMONO. 23219 J.T. MILLS 01VISION AOMINISTRATOR June 11, 1998 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Albemarle County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RECEIVED 'dUL 1 ,5 1998 SUBJECT: Route 29 Bypass State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE101 Albemarle County DELEUW, CATHER & COMPANY- FAIRFAX, VA. Dear Mr. Tucker: In the suit filed by the Sierra Club and the Piedmont Environmental Council against th/s project, one of the issues pertains to the trails behind the Jack Jouett Middle School. The attached map shows the approximate location of the trails. In the numerous formal and informal dealings with county school, administrative, and. planning staff dyer the years this project has been under development, no one has previously expressed concerns about the trails or even mentioned them. Likewise, in all the extensive coordination with the public through citizens information meetings, public hearfings, and citizen advisory committees, no one has previously mentioned the trails as a concern. The trails are not identified in the county's Comprehensive Plan as recreational resources although other facilities on the school grounds are identified. There are no indications anywhere that the trails are promoted for public recreation or that they are even open to the public. In order to address this issue now, we request that you coordinate with appropriate county departments and Provide us the following information. 1. What is the major purpose of the trails? 2. Are the trails a recreational resource for public use? 3. If so, do they constitute a significant recreational resource for Albemarle County? WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING If so, what is the basis for that significance determination in light of the fact that the trails are not identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a public recreational resource at this school? 5. When were the .trails constructed? 6. Who were they constructed for and for what purpose were they constructed? 7. Who uses the trails now and for what purposes do they use them? 8. How many people use the trails and how frequently do they use them? 9. Are there any public organized events for the which the trails are used? 10. Is there any program to disseminate information to the public regarding the trails as recreational resources? I 1. What are the couaty's future plans for the trails? 12. To what extent would this project's effects on the trails affect county recreational programs? 13. Are there any other trails or other recreational facilities, either existing or planned, that are or could be affected by this project? Thanks for your help in this matter. Please call me if you have any questions about this. request. ~ Sincerely, Patsy Napier Project Manager Approximate Location of:Trail ' ROSLYN, HEIGHTS ~,G4 ! 2 RE~$~ #ILLS O~ CT HS M~N'~v'UE TURTtE HEM · ,," _ ; .... ..,?.~s"' .'.,.." ~, · '. Agqur-Hun SQUIRREL ROI 3ERXMAR )D Fashion Squat Mall iEFFERSOP~ · T CHAPEL'''~ TERREL] CANTERBURY HILL Univ ~A .: Bnaa 8 ~em F~n~. ' ~ ~ 2138. II I March 7, 1997 1LE: R~ute 29, 602.9-002-vZ2, p l 01 Atth¢ direclion of the Albemarle C. otmty School Boazd, I am .respon~ g 'm the informa~on ~ at the publi¢ hearing on F~mary 25, 1997 regarding the Rouxe.2.9 Bypass. In mnriewing thc im!~ac~ ofth¢ Bypass on the ~ree Albemarle Couazy Schools, we agpr~__'-,,'~ the opponumv7 m provide ~ thronghout the gn~jec~ and the obvious effor~ made by VDOT to skir~ school property. ~z discussing the !:rtojecr.,'l:t~ School Bom~ voiced.s~ conceras ~m6 requesr~ ~ue £oQowing contme~:s bef~ By VDOTs calc,,i=~ion, gaere will be a significa~noise ~ on the otu~ide play ar~ Hm'~, Gre~ ~m~ Joue~ Schools. Ad~q~onal shr~bery and a-ecs should be !~laced m minimize ~ of noise, light, dirt and e~,-,,~' emissions on the school progenies. As no~t in our May 3 I, 1994 lemur m ~ C-,wmi,,gs, a copy -r~hed. we reqa. es~ a 6' chain] tL Tucker A. Tucker We .aggzemam Itae ogpozmn~ m particigar, e in thc design ~-ocess. You may camaro: Al Reaser, Diremx:,r of Buiiding Services, a~ (g0a) 973-3677, should you have any queaxions or require addifi~ infcmaa~on. C!JL?ff?.:_:.', ' "lZr e E..?eaz Su, cr. ass" Dr. Kevin C. Casmer Division Superintendent ,-,,..CT We ~.-~ ~ gum'd ~ be ~ where ~ m preven~ vehicles ~ veering school trroperties. link fence m be in.smiled atong the right of way m mn:he sa~'y of school children on the play areas. Al~ough ~ fence is not shown on the can'em pmtimizm'y drawings, a~e public heaxiag the gentlemen al:lite Rigixt of'Way labte indicated l:ha~'rh¢ fence would be in.~lled. d C ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Building Services Department 2751 Hydraulic Koad Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 May 31, 1994 Loretta B. Cummings Environmental Specialist Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 671 OulI~er, VA 22701 I~E: Route 23, 6029-002-v22, P10! Dear Ms. Cu~ings: Thank you for your May 3, 1994 letter, which provided us with the current design plans for the Route 29 - Alt. 10 modifications. I appreciate your efforts to minimize the project impact on Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. It is a great relief to discover that the ball fields will not be disturbed, as the northern most corner of the proper~y, near the cemetery, is not used for recreation. Therefore, to minimize the total impact on the property, the following concerns should be incorporated into the design: 1. Guard rails along the road for the entire length of our property should be installed to prevent any vehicles from ac¢idently veering onto school property. 2. A 6' chain link fence should be installed along the right of way, to insure that children on the school site do not enter the .road right of way. 3. Appropriate landscaping should be completed to minimize the impact of noise, light, dirt and exhaust emissions on the school. 4. In the design phase, we would request that you continue to pursue shifting the road to the north to avoidour property. Please review this information and forward your comments. Again, I do =p-~e-~at~ your flexibility in this matter.' Please do not hesitate to contact me on 973-3677, should you have any questions regarding this matter. cc: Dr. Paskel, Superintendent Dr. Hastings, Ass't Superintendent Dr. Behrens, Principal, Agnor-Hurt Sincerely, "An F4uo20ppommiey Telephone: (804) 973-3677 Telefax: (804) 973-9545 L L December 22, 1993 Lorretta B. Environmental Specialist Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box-671 Culpeper, VA 22701 RE: Route 29 B~pass Proposed Mo~ifioations (6029-002-V22,P101) Dear Ms. The following are comments to questions concerning the modifications to the alignment for the Route 29 Bypass: 1. Do.you anticipate citizen opposition to this project? It is difficult to anticipate whether there will be opposition to these proposed modifications. The modifications reduce or eliminate the ~pact to some properties while increasing the impact to others. There has been opposition in general to the Route 29 Bypass project as well as opposition to the proposed Alternative 10 alignment. The Route 29 North Business Council has indicated their support of the proposed modification to the northern terminus. 2. Will it ~/sr~pt a co~m,,-~ty or its planned development? The southern modification will run along the eastern side of St. Anne's - Belfield School property. However, the original alignment ran along the western boundary and also impacted use of the site. The proposed modification is closer to the Canterbury Hills subdivision although it will not directly impact properties within the development. This modification does minimize the potential impact to the Bellair subdivision by no longer connecting the proposed bypass into the interchange of the existing Route 29/250 Bypass and Route 250 West. Lorretta B. ~,~ings Page 2 December 22, 1993 The northern alignment modification traverses an area which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for medium and high density residential development. Most of the proposed modification is located on undeveloped property. The proposed modification overlaps a significant portion of the extension of Berkmar Drive, which is scheduled for construction in Spring 1994. The proposed modificatio~ appears to avoid significant impact to the existing SPCA facilities. However, it runs through a portion of their property which is currently under design for facility expansion. This modification is also located adjacent to the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's South Fork Rivanna Water Treatment Plant. The alignment runs very close tb an existing water tower located along Woodburn Road. The existing access to the water plant will be eliminated by this modification. The modification also crosses major trunk lines for water service near the tower location. Is consistent with co~unit~ goals, such as land use? What is the zoning for the area? The land use located along the proposed modifications is designated primarily for residential use (See response to question #2). Other existing land uses include schools (St. Annes-Belfield and Agnor-Hurt Elementary). However, there is no significant additional impact to the schools from the modified alignment~. A limited access bypass would not be considered entirely consistent with proposed land uses. Location of t_he no1~chernmodification in its proposed alignment will require County reconsideration of the residential land use designations. The northern alignment's location consumes most of the developable area between Berkmar Drive Extended.and Woodburn Road. The properties along the southern modification are zoned R-4, Residential, R-I, Residential, and PUD, Planned Unit Development. Along the northern modification the properties are zoned R-6, Residential, HC, Highway Commercial, CO, Commercial Office, R-15, High Density Residential, and RA, Rural Areas. Lorretta B. Cummings Page 3 December 22, 1993 Is ~h£s p~ojec~ endorsed b~ the Board of Supervisors ~nd in the Co~nt~ 'Com~rehe~sive Plant The Route 29 Bypass is not identified in the County's Comprehensive Plan nor in the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS). The County Board of '~ Supervisors, Charlottesville City Council and the University of Virginia previously have entered into an agreement supporting a sequence of improvements to the Route 29 Corridor which includes the construction of the Route 29 Bypass (Alternative 10) if deemed necessary after all other CATS projects have been completed. Se Are there an~ agricultural/forestal districts in the proj If you should have any questions or co~ents regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Development c/j cc: Robert W. ~toker, Jr. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Building Services Department 2751 Hydraulic Road Chariottesvflle, Virginia 22901 December 6, 1993 DEC 0 8 lgg Loretta B. Cummings Environmental Specialist Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 671 C~ipeper, VA 22701 ENVIRONMENTAL SECTtQN Route 23, 6029-002-v22, P101 Dear Ms. ~m ~ ngs: In response to your November 23, 1993 letter to the Division Superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools, currently Dr. Robert W. Paskel, I would like to request that you forward to me, at the above address, a larger scale map of the area so that I may further evaluate the impact of the Route 29 By~ass modifications. An overlay of the enclosed map would also be acceptable. Please note that there is a cemetery located in the northwest corridor of the Agnor-Hurt site. I may be reached on 973-3677, should you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Director LAR/sj C Attachment cc: Dr. Paskel, Superintendent C. Hastings, Assistant Superintendent W. Smith, Director of Transportation "An Equal Opportunity Employer" Telephone: (8043 Q7q-q677 "r~:~c_.. ,on,~ ~ c~-~: nv.~.- r r r ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office ot the School Board 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 December 20, 1991 Mr. Jack S. Hodge Chief Engineer Department of Transportation Commonwealth of Virginia 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23210 Dear Mr. Hodge: In examining the proposed right of way and road path for the Route 29 Bypass the Albemarle County School Board has discovered that the road cuts across the northwest portion of a new school site (attachment 1). The land for this school, Agnor-Hurt Elementary, was acquired by the County after the last round of public discussion on the proposed Route ~9 Byp~-- .... We hereby request that the Virginia Department of Transportation alter its proposal by shifting the Bypass center line north approximately 1,000 feet to avoid the school property line. The Albemarle County School Board has authorized this correspondence. If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely, Clifford W. Haury Chairman CWH/cs Enclosure cc: Dan Roosevelt Robert W. Paskel School Board Members COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of 5uper:.:sor: 40i Mcin,nre Road Charie::esville. ',.'irg,.ma Z2a'.~ ! December 18, 1991 John C. Milliken, Chairman Commonwealth Transportation 607 9th Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Secretary Milliken: After further review of the alignment plans for the Route 29 North Western By-Pass, Alternative 10, it appears to have a significant negative impact on A!bema~le County's newest elementary school which is currently under construction. The attached aerial photograph is overiayed with both the proposed road a!ignm~nt and the' school site plan. The result of ~he proposed alignment severely reduces this site in addition to impacting a cemetery adjacent to the school property. As you continue-to refine the alignment of this By-Pass, the Board of Supervisors and School Board request the alignment not impact these sites. Thank you for your consideration of this mat~er. Sincerely, F RB / dbm 91.12 Attachment F. R. Bowie Chairman AL~~E COUNTY PUBIC SCHOOLS O~ce of the Sul~ntendem 401 M~e R~d C~Io~ V~ ~01~596 July 5, 1989 Mr. Ken Wilkinson Virginia Department Of Transportation Environmental Division 1401 E._Broad Street Richmond~ VA 23219 Dear Mr. Wilkinson: · The Albemarle County School Board discussed some of the alternate routes proposed as bypasses for Route 29 North at recent meetings. The Board adopted the following resolution at its meeting on June 27, 1989:. "Noting that one or more of the proposed alternatives f~ a "by-pass" route in Charlottesville comes close to some Albemarle County schools, the School Board wishes to express concern that the safety and learning environment of our students will be compromised. We specifically request that the consultants and the State Department of Transportation provide detailed information on. possible noise and safety problems to the School Board as soon as possible, but certainly prior to any Public Hearing-so that the Board can reach an informed position relative to such construction. Please keep us informed of any changes in the various alternatives which might have impact on our schools." Please forward any information to my office so that I can make it available to the School Board. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, N. Andrew Overstreet Division Superintendent CC: Sverdrup Corporation Albemarle County Planning Department "We Expect 'Success" t E~Vli~IONMEN]AL D~v-I ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR]ce of ~ Superintendent 401 McInr. ire Road Charlort~srille, Virginia 22901--45% July 5, 1989 Mr. Richard Brown Sverdrup Corporation 7799 LeesburG Pike Suite 700 South Tower Fails Church, VA 22043 Dear Mr. Brown: The Albemarle County School Board discussed some of the alternate routes under consideration as a bypass for Route 29 North at recent meetings. The Board adopted the following resolution at its meeting on June 27, 1989: "Noting that one or more of the proposed alternatives for a "by-pass" route in Charlottesville comes close to some Albemarle County schools, the School Board wishes to express concern that the safety and learning environment of our students will be compromised. We specifically request that the consultants and the State Department of Transportation provide detailed information on possible noise and safety problems to the School Board as soon as possible, but certainly prior to any Public Hearing so that the Board can reach an informed position relative to such construction. Please keep us informed of any changes in the various alternatives which might have impact on our schools." Please forward any information to my office so that I can make it available to the School Board. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /,~ / ~ Division Superintendent cc: Virginia Department of Transportation Albemarle County Planning Department "l/Ve Expect Success" ROUTE 29 BYPASS State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130) Albemarle County, Virginia APPENDIX C COMMENTS ON DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Albemarle County 4/16/99 4/16/99 3/18/99 Metropolitan Larry W. Davis, County Attorney (On behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors) David Benish, Chief Albemarle County Planning and Community Development Department (Attachment A to Albemarle County Attorney's comments) Pat Mullaney, Director Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department (Attachment B to Albemarle County Attorney's comments: Comments contained in memo to Wayne Cilimberg, Albemarle County Director of Planning and Community Development) Planning Organization 4/21/99 Sally Thomas, Chair Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization State/Federal Agencies 2/26/99 3/5/99 3/5/99 3/10/99 3/11/99 3/16/99 John R. Tate, Endangered Species Coordinator Office of Plant and Pest Services Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Consumer Protection Dawn McG-rain, Environmental Impact Review Coordinator Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Jay M. Woodward, Environmental Engineer Virginia Marine Resources Commission Derral Jones, Acting Planning Bureau Manager Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage Division of Soil and Water Conservation Division of Planning and Recreational Resources Lesa Beflinghoff, Project Review Coordinator Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Tracey Harmon, Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Permit Support Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation C- 1 2/24/99 4/12/99 4/19/99 Asif K. Malik, Chief of Technical Services Virginia Department of Health, Division of Wastewater Engineering Thomas R. Ballou, Technical Services Administrator Office of Air Data Analysis Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Willie R. Taylor, Director Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Office of the Secretary U. S. Department of the Interior Citizens and Other Interested Parties ~5~9 4/20/99 Deborah Murray, Senior Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center (On behalf of Piedmont Environmental Council and Sierra Club) George R. Larie, President Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition, Inc. Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(I3 Evaluation C-2 LARRY W. DAVIS COUNTYA~'rORNEY PHONE {804) 972-4067 FAX (804) 972-4068 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 MARK A. TRANK DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY GREG KAMPTNER KIMBERLY E, WOLOD ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEYS April 16, 1999 Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Virginia Division P.O. Box 10249 400 North 8th Street, Room 750 Richmond, VA 23240-0249 J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 Re: Comments on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Trai~ at Jack Jouett Middle School; Route 29 Bypass; Albemarle County.. Virginia Dear Mr. Fonseca-Martinez and Mr. Wittkofski: The County of Albemarle has reviewed the draft Section 4(f) evaluation (hereinafter, the "Evaluation") of the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The comments of David Benish, the County's Chief of Community Development, and Pat Mullaney, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation, are attached hereto as Attachments A and B and are incorporated herein. The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R..~ 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of other si.maificant park and recreation areas on the Albemarle High School Comr~lex. The Albemarle High School Complex is a significant publicly owned park and recreation area. The Albemarle High School Complex (hereinafter, the "School Complex"), which includes Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, and Greer Elementary School, is identified as a district park in the County's Comprehensive Plan. (Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000, hereinafter, the "Facilities Plan", 49) District parks provide diverse recreational opportunities for all age groups and are intended to be capable of withstanding intensive use, while maintaining open space. (Facilities Plan, 37) A district park such as the School Complex has multiple playgrounds, basketball courts, multi-purpose fields equipped with soccer goals, softball/baseball fields, additional major sports complexes, and an open space area with walking or jogging trails. (Facilities Plan, 37) (See Attachments C and D photographs) District parks, in conjunction with neighborhood and community parks, are intended to provide the majority of close-to-home recreational opportunities in the County. (Facilities Plan, 3 7) In his November 3, 1998, letter to Patsy Napier, the VDOT Project Manager, Pat Mullaney, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation, stated: The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, is designated a district park on page 49 of the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important role in meeting the objectives as established in the Community Facilities Plan and they constitute a major resource. (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 4,) Mr. Mullaney also clearly identified the significance of all of the recreational facilities at the School Complex: The athletic fields, trails, and other outdoor recreational facilities in this most densely populated area of the county are extremely important in meeting our recreational objective and goals. All the facilities at this complex are used extensively. (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 8). The Evaluation recognizes that the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School is "a component of a larger assemblage of recreational facilities" at the School Complex. (Evaluation, 8) Mr. Mullaney identified ali of the recreational facilities described above as being significant. Yet, without any explanation, the Evaluation ignores the other recreational facilities identified above located at Greer Elementary School and Jack Jouett Middle School that would be constructively used by Alternative 10. All of the recreational facilities on the School Complex constitute a significant publicly owned park and recreation area. Significance determinations are made by the officials having jurisdiction over the land. (Section 4(f) Policy Paper, revised June 7, 1989, 10) The Evaluation's failure to consider these other facilities is error. The Board's response to the Evaluation's criticism that the County failed to timely inform the FHWA and VDOT of the existence of Section 4(f) property is addressed in Section 7. The park and recreation areas of the School Complex not otherwise permanently incorporated into Alternative 10 will be constru6tivelv used bv Alternative 10. In consultation during the preparation of the Evaluation, the County stated that all of the recreational facilities at the School Complex, including the trails at Greer Elementary School and the playing fields, were significant park or recreation facilities. (Evaluation, 8) Nevertheless, the Evaluation erroneously concludes that the "only recreational facility encroached on by the project is the trail" and that "only the trail itself, and not the encompassing school property, constitutes the Section 4(I) resource." (Evaluation, 4) These conclusions are in error both in fact and as a matter of law. Alternative 10 will take additional trails than the one studied in the Evaluation. (See Attachment E) The proximity of Alternative 10 to the park and recreation areas at the School Complex will substantially impair those portions not actually taken by Alternative 10. For example, the batting cage on the ball field at Greer Elementary School will be only 65 feet from the Alternative 10 right-of-way, and only 155 feet from the Alternative 10 northbound lanes. (See Attachment C photographs) As another example, the soccer field at Jack Jouett Middle School will be only several feet from the Alternative 10 right-of-way and only 130 feet fi.om the Alternative 10 northbound lanes. (See Attachment C photographs) The Final Environmental Impact. Statement for the Route 29 Corridor Study approved January 20, 1993 (hereinafter, the "FEIS"), failed to identify the impairments to these recreational facilities because it erroneously failed to identify the School Complex as a district park or as having recreational facilities. The FEIS says little more than the following about the impact of Alternative 10 on the School Complex: Alternative 10 passes alongside the County schools complex that includes Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett Middle School, and Greer Elementary School. Shifts have been made to minimize any impacts to these schools. This alternative would require a small piece of this property (a wooded area on the edge of the property) but would not directly impact any of these schools. It would pass about 600 feet from Greer School and within 1,200 feet of Jouett School. (FEIS, IV-15; see also, FEIS S-7) Because the FEIS failed to identify any part of the School Complex as Section 4(1) property, neither the FEIS nor its Section 4(f)/106 Evaluation analyzed the School Complex as Section 4(1) property. The FEIS contains no valid analysis regarding the noise, air quality, nor aesthetic impairments to the recreational facilities identified above as Section 4(I') property. Therefore, the FEIS is not an informational document upon which the Evaluation could rely on the issues of whether the proposed project would constructively use the recreational facilities, or the extent of the impairments to those facilities as a result of the proposed project. 3 The noise analysis conducted for the FEIS included a site location on the playground at Greer Elementary School, 250 feet east of Station 653. (FEIS, Table IV- I 0) At that distance from the bypass, the ambient noise level was 49 dBA, and the 2010 design year noise level (at an estimated traffic level of 17,900 vehicle trips per day) was estimated to be 61 dBA (all dBA references are as "Leq(h)"). (FEIS, Table IV-I 1) The Final Design Noise Report, dated February 1997, included a site from the "school playgrounds" and concluded that the ambient noise level was 48 dBA, and the 2022 design year noise level (at an estimated traffic level of 24,000 vehicle trips per daY) was estimated to be 64 dBA. (Final Design Noise Report, Table 4A) The noise levels may be substantially greater because the traffic levels may be much greater. A technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton) concluded that, given a series of facility upgrades such as limited access bypasses, the number of vehicles on Route 29 in the Charlottesville area could grow by as much as 19,000 vehicle trips per day. As the FEIS states more than once, an increase of 10 dBA or more is considered a substantial increase in noise. (FEIS, IV-22) The FEIS concluded: With the selected alternative, exterior noise levels will increase substantially over existing noise levels., at the Greer Elementary School playground. (FEIS, IV-24, IV-25) The receptor on the Greer Elementary School playground also was identified as equaling or exceeding the FHWA's noise abatement criteria. (FEIS, Table IV-12) The Final Design Noise Report similarly concluded that the "outer edges of the playing fields of the Jack Jouett Middle School and the Mary Greer Elementary School (represented by site 65) w/Il experience a substantial increase (10 dBA or more) in traffic noise with the project." (Final Design Noise Report, 19) The mitigation measure proposed in the FEIS (FEIS, IV-29) - that the cut slope will serve as an effective sound barrier- is deficient because it is based on a noise level obtained 250 feet from the centerline of the closest lane, much farther than many park and recreation areas located on the School Complex. Section 5 contains a more complete criticism of the noise, visual and air quality impact analyses contained in the Evaluation, and is incorporated herein by reference. Finally, neither VDOT nor the FHWA has consulted with County officials to determine the degree of impairment to the School Complex because of the proposed project. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(6)(iii); Section 4(f) Policy Paper, 8) For the foregoing reasons, the Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of other significant park and recreation areas at the School Complex. o The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R..~ 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of significant park and recreation areas on the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School prope.rt~.. 4 Agnor-Hurt Elementary School opened during the 1992-1993 school year, and is identified as a community park in the County's Facilities Plan 1990-2000. (Facilities Plan, 49) The western portion of Agnor-Hurt Elementary School consists of a soccer field, basketball courts, a playground and a baseball/softball field. The FEIS states that Alternative 10 takes a portion of the property of the proposed Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. (FEIS, IV-15) The current Alternative 10 alignment will not require the actual use of the school property. However, there is substantial evidence that there will be a constructive use of the school's park and recreation areas. The Final Design Noise Report determined that the ambient noise level at the receptor site has an ambient noise level of 49 dBA, and estimated the 2022 design year noise level to be 62 dBA, based upon the estimated 24,000 vehicle trips per day. (Final Design Noise Report, Table 4A) The Final Design Noise Report concluded that "[t]he play facilities at the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School on Woodbum Road (site 102, east of the Bypass) also will experience a substantial increase in noise level with the project." (Final Design Noise Report, 19) If traffic levels reach the 43,000 vehicle trips per day estimated in the technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton), the noise levels will be substantially greater. For all of the reasons identified in Section 1, above, the Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to consider the constructive use of the significant park and recreation areas at Agnor-Hurt .Elementary School. The Evaluation does not sufficiently explain the project need and. therefore, its analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135. An evaluation must address the purpose and need for the project. (Section 4(f) Policy Paper, 4) The need for the project must be sufficiently explained to show that the no-build alternative and any alternative that does not serve that need result in unique problems. (Section 4(f) Policy Paper, 4) At best, the Evaluation's explanation of the project need is confusing: The need for the proposed project is based on the inability of existing Route 29 to adequately accommodate projected traffic volumes, particularly through traffic volumes. Although the recently completed Base Case improvements (widening to six lanes plus continuous right turn lanes) have improved travel conditions in the corridor, existing Route 29 still passes through a heavily developed commercial area and the fl ow of through traffic is impeded by congestion and a number of traffic signals. (Evaluation, 3) The Evaluation then notes'that the proposed bypass will be an important link in the State Arterial System. The Evaluation concludes its description of the project need by stating: The proposed project addresses local and regional transportation needs and continues to be consistent with local and regional planning. The project remains a component of the Albemarle County Land Use Plan and the MPO's regional transportation plan (Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Plan, or CATS Plan). (Evaluation, 3) The Evaluation's statements describe the proposed project considered by the FEIS - a multi-phased project that would address both local and regional transportation needs by adding grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 and providing a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area. (FEIS, I-1 through I- 8). A bypass would be constructed later only if the grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 were not sufficient to accomplish these purposes. (FEIS, I-1 through I-8). The Evaluation describes a project that no longer exists, The Commonwealth Transportation Board significantly redefined the scope and purpose of the proposed project on February 16, 1995, and it now consists only ora bypass that will be located in Alternative 10. (See Section 4.B. for a more detailed discussion of the change in the scope and purpose of the proposed project.) The current proposed project is described as a "limited access bypass" to which access will be gained only "via interchanges at both ends, with no immediate access points to crossroads or adjacent properties" (Evaluation, 1), and will provide no improvement to the existing and projected level of service (hereinafter "LOS") on Route 29. (FEIS, Table IV-3) The current proposed project certainly does not address local transportation needs. Section 6 responds to the statement in the Evaluation that the proposed project is consistent with local and regional planning and a component of local and County and regional plans. Because of the Evaluation's outdated, confusing and vague statement of the proposed project's purpose and need, it fails to demonstrate that the no-build alternative and the alternatives that do not serve the project need result in unique problems. The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 because it fails to properly consider feasible and prudent alternatives. The Evaluation notes that the FEIS concluded that Alternative 10 was the only feasible and prudent bypass alternative that avoided using any Section 4(f) property. (Evaluation, 3) This fundamental error of fact laid the foundation for the unlawful choice of Alternative 10 as the selected alternative. This error also caused the FEIS and the Evaluation to fail to consider any alternatives that satisfied the identified transportation needs without affecting Section 4(f) property. As a result, the Evaluation's analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives is nothing more than apost-hoc rationalization to justify an unlawful decision that has already been made. A. There were no feasible and prudent alternatives under study when the Evaluation was'conducted. 6 In keeping with Section 4(f)'s purpose to avoid public park and recreation areas, the use of Section 4(0 property must be evaluated early in the development of the action when alternatives to the proposed action are under study. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135 (b)) Although the regulations acknowledge that late discovered Section 4(f) property may be evaluated separately from the environmental review process, there is at least an expectation that when a Section 4(0 evaluation is conducted, alternatives will still be under study so that it is possible to consider feasible and prudent alternatives and, if none are found, to determine whether additional alternatives should be considered. In addition, the approach taken in a Section 4(f) evaluation must demonstrate a reasoned methodology for narrowing the field of alternatives to a number sufficient to support a sound judgment that the study of additional variations is not worthwhile. (Policy Paper, 4) The Evaluation fails on all accounts. The Evaluation first considers the alternatives considered in the Route 29 Corridor Study (Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and concludes that none of the previously considered alternatives to Alternative 10 are feasible and prudent: [T]he No-Build Alternative and Altematives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 were deemed not feasible and prudent because they would not adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs. Alternative 11,~ the only other alternative considered feasible and prudent, would have Section 4(f) impacts to other resources (two historic properties) and, therefore, cannot be considered a total Section 4(f) avoidance alternative. Therefore, none on the previously considered alternatives to the Selected Alternative represent feasible and prudent Section 4(f) avoidance alternatives. (Evaluation 11) The Evaluation's analysis regarding these alternatives is unlawful. The Evaluation may not rely on the FEIS's analysis of the build alternatives because the field of alternatives considered to satisfy the identified transportation needs, and the selection of Alternative 10 as the selected alternative, were based on the factual error that Altnernative 10 did not affect Section 4(f) property. Neither VDOT nor the FHWA considered a build alternative that would both satisfy the identified transportation needs and not affect Section 4(f) property. Given the erroneous parameters under which the Evaluation is based, it was inevitable that it would conclude that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to Alternative 10. The backwards approach employed in the Evaluation is directly contrary to the intent of Section 4(f) and precludes the FHWA from making an informed decision under 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(I)(i). Once it became known that there were no alternatives that satisfied the identified transportation needs without affecting Section 4(f) property, it was incumbent upon VDOT and the FHWA to consider other, new, alternatives. The Evaluation falls to explain a reasoned methodology for narrowing the field of alternatives to those identified and rejected in the FEIS. The Evaluation also falls to consider other alternatives in light of the revelation that the FEIS was based upon fundamental errors of fact (i. e., that Alternative 10 was the only alternative that satisfied the identified transportation needs that did not affect Section 4(f) property). (Policy Paper, 4) The basis upon which the Evaluation dismisses Alternatives 6. 6B. 7.7A. 9. and 12 as not beina feasible and prudent is erroneous and. therefore, the conclusion that no feasible and prudent alternative exists is invalid. The Evaluation also errs in relying on the conclusions of the FEIS as to whether other alternatives would adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs. The FEIS described the project need in various ways, but the proposed project's scope and purpose was two-fold: (I) to reduce congestion on a three-mile section of Route 29 between the Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County north of Charlottesville; and (2) to provide a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area. (FEIS, I-1 through I-8) In considering the alternatives, the FEIS stated: [T]he principal objective of each Candidate Build Alternative is to ease traffic congestion along Route 29 north, a comparison between the Base Case and each Candidate Build Alternative was undertaken. (FEIS, IV-2) Providing a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System was identified as the secondary purpose for the project. (FEIS, I-1) The FEIS then concluded that Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 failed to adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs because those alternatives failed to reduce sufficient traffic on Route 29. (FEIS, IV-2, IV- 3) The principal objective of the proposed project was dramatically and fundamentally changed on February 16, 1995, when the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board unilaterally rescinded the mid-range improvements to Route 29 (grade-separated interchanges) and the phasing of the construction of a bypass only if needed. (FEIS, II-10) Without grade-separated interchanges on Route 29, the level of service on that rome will remain LOS F even with the construction of Alternative 10. (FEIS, Table IV-3) The deletion of the grade separated interchanges also prevents any improvement to the east-west LOS at each of the interchange locations. The Commonwealth Transportation Board's February 16, 1995 decision fundamentally changed the scope and purpose of the proposed project to one that merely provides a highway that is part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area. The alternatives analysis in the FEIS no longer is valid. The basis upon which the Evaluation dismissed Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 is fundamentally flawed and unlawful. The issue of whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives to Alternative 10 must be reexamined. Co The Evaluation tails to address why Alternatives 6.6B. 7, 7A. 9, and 12, or other alternatives that should have been considered to avoid the Section 4(f) property, are not feasible and prudent. An evaluation must address the reasons why the alternatives to avoid a Section 4(0 property are not feasible and prudent. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(j)) Because the project is now a high-speed highway that is part of the State Arterial System tlu'ough the Charlottesville area, the Evaluation's erroneous summary dismissal of Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 (Evaluation, 11), and failure to consider any other alternatives, does not satisfy the requirements of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(j). Do The Evaluation fails to demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of Alternatives 6. 6B. 7.7A. 9. and 12. or any other alternatives that should have been considered to avoid the Section 4(f) property, or that the cost. social, economic, and environmental impacts or community disruption resultine from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes. Supporting information in an evaluation must demonstrate that there are unique problems or unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(2)) Again, the Evaluation's erroneous summary dismissal of Alternatives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, and 12 (Evaluation, 11) and failure to consider any other alternatives, fails to satisfy the requirements of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(2). E. The Evaluation fails to consider the no-build alternative. In comments to the draft ElS, the Environmental Protection Agency recommended a non-bypass altemative (Alternative 9 - an expressway along the existing Route 29 Corridor), stating that Alternative 9 "will satisfy the purpose and need for the project while minimizing the potential impacts to farmlands, Agu'icultural and Forestal preserve areas, water quality and communities." (FEIS, VII-5). The Department of Interior, in its comments, also recommended that, "of the build alternatives, alternative 9 [should] be selected as the preferred alternative since it would have the least impact to public park, historic, and fish and wildlife resources." (FEIS, VII-5) The Evaluation must also examine the altemative consisting of a combination of the Base Case (the widening of Route 29, which has now occurred) with grade separated interchanges on Route 29. This alternative is prudent and feasible, and would serve the primary purpose of the project identified in the FEIS - to alleviate local traffic congestion. VDOT's own study shows that the interchanges are critical to achieving that purpose. Equally important, this alternative would pose the least environmental harm and would avoid using Section 4(f) property. Without grade separated interchanges on Route 29, the level of Service on Route 29 in the study.area remains LOS F, even after the construction of Alternative 10 or any other bypass. (FEIS, Table IV-3) With the grade 9 separated interchanges on Route 29, the level of service on Route 29 would improve to LOS A. (FEIS, Table IV-3) F. Alternatives A. B,. C. D...and E are. not alternatives. The decision to select Alternative 10 was based, in part, on two fundamental and erroneous premises: (1) that the two-fold purpose of the project was to reduce congestion on a three-mile section of Route 29 and to provide a high-speed highway as part of the State Arterial System through the Charlottesville area; and (2) that Alternative 10 did not affect any Section 4(f) property. Given that these two premises are erroneous, and that neither the FEIS nor the Evaluation attempted to consider any other alternatives outside of Alternative 10, Alternatives A, B, C, D and E are not true alternatives within the meaning of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(1)(ii), but merely a series of equally destructive and unpalatable options within Alternative 10. Alternatives A and B would, among other things, encroach on other Section 4(f) property. (Evaluation, 11-16) Alternatives C and D would, among other things, either . use or constructively use the trail and its surrounding environment by placing a bridge over the lower portions of the trail. (Evaluation, 16-19) Alternative E, which would also place a bridge over the lower portions of the trail, would shift the alignment 2,000 feet to the east so that it displaces a public school currently under construction, and would split the School Complex (a County district park). (Evaluation, 19) All five of these "alternatives" would affect Section 4(0 property. It is not surprising that the Evaluation failed to find any of these "alternatives'" within Alternative 10 to be feasible and prudent. Because Alternative 10 uses Section 4(f) property, it should never have been selected in the first instance. With knowledge that the selection of Alternative 10 was based on fundamental errors of fact (i.e., that Alternative 10 was the only alternative that satisfied the identified transportation needs that did not affect Section 4(f) property), the Evaluation should have explained a reasoned methodology as to why other alternatives were not considered. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Evaluation's analysis of Alternatives A, B, C, D and E is unlawful. The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. { 771.135 because it fails to properly analyze the impacts of the proposed project on the trail, thereby precluding the provision of all possible plan_nine to minimize the harm to the trail resulting from the use. The proposed project would severely impact the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. The Evaluation concludes that "[t]here are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." (Evaluation, 8) This conclusion is plainly wrong. The trail is part of a large area covered with dense woods, mainly hardwoods, that have not been recently harvested. The trails on the School'Complex, including the trail studied in the Evaluation, wind through these woods up and down hilly terrain. In several valleys, very 10 active streams and trails wind through massive rock outcroppings. The valleys are particularly quiet and serene. These characteristics of natural and quiet simplicity are unusual not only because they are in close proximity to what is described by the County's Director of Parks and Recreation as the "most densely developed area of the County" (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question I), but also because they are irreplaceable. (See Attachment D photographs) The Director noted the importance of siting the recreational facilities in a tranquil and wooded setting as follows: "The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area." (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 3). He further stated: "Due to the extensive development of the surrounding land, this wooded area and trails are definitely a significant recreation and environmental resource." (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 3) The attributes of the trail .and its surrounding environment will be destroyed by the proposed project. As the County's Director of Parks and Recreation stated in his November 3, 1998 letter: [T]he bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails' system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains. (November 3, 1998 Letter, Response to Question 12) For example, the trail area beside tributary "K" of Ivy Creek will be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet. (See Attachment D photographs) This area, which is situated in a narrow valley, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County with its babbling brook, surrounding forest, and dramatic rock outcroppings. In addition to physically taking some of the trail, the proposed project will substantially impair those parts of the trail not physically taken, as hereafter discussed. A. Noise impacts. (1) The Evaluation fails to adequately identify, the noise impacts. The Evaluation's noise analysis concludes that the existing noise level on the remaining part of the trail is 48 dBA, and estimates that that the people using the trail in 2022 after the construction of the proposed project would experience noise levels of up to 68 dBA. (Evaluation, 10) A noise level of 68 dBA is nearly equivalent to the sound ora constantly running vacuum cleaner at a distance of 10 feet. (Route 29 Corridor Study Noise Analysis, dated April 1990, Figure 3) The Evaluation concedes that these noise levels exceed the FHWA's noise abatement criteria. (Evaluation, 10) In addition to this constant level of increased noise, which is an hourly average, the analysis of the noise generated by a single truck conducted by VDOT for the Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee showed that there would be bursts of noise from 11 each passing truck at an additional 13 to 14 dBA. The noise on the remaining part of the trail would quite frequently approach 82 dBA, a level of noise that is between the sound of a moving freight train at a distance of 100 feet and the sound of a moving subway train at a distance of 20 feet. (Route 29 Corridor Study Noise Analysis, Figure 3) This level of noise would substantially impair the trail's value as one of the rare quiet places in which area residents can walk, jog, and enjoy the woods, and could make it difficult for children to hear coaches, referees, and physical education teachers during practices and games on the nearby playing fields. If traffic levels reach the 43,000 vehicle trips per day estimated in the technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton), the noise levels will be substantially greater. The noise analysis in the Evaluation must analyze and identify the noise impacts resulting from the current proposed project, and consider the strong possibility that the greater traffic levels identified in the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville- Warrenton) will exist on Alternative 10. (2) The Evaluation erroneously fails to conclude that the noise impacts would result in a constructive use of the remainine parts of the trail. Because the trail and its surrounding environment is an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes, it is a noise-sensitive facility. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(i)) The trail and its surrounding environment also match the qualities of lands that qualify as Activity Category A in the FHWA's Noise Abatement Criteria (23 C.F.R. part 772): Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Remarkably, the Evaluation nevertheless concludes that: Noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there. The recreational uses of walking and jogging and the school's use of the trail for cross country training are not dependent on Iow noise conditions (as, for example, an amphitheater or a campground would be). (Evaluation, 19) The noise levels from the proposed project will substantially impair the noise- sensitive attributes of the remaining part of the trail and will exceed the FHWA's noise abatement criteria. Therefore, a constructive use is established. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)) 12 (3) Because the Evaluation fails to properly conclude that the noise impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail, the Evaluation erroneously precludes all possible planning to mitio~ate the impacts to the remainin.~ parts of the trail. In order to use Section 4(f) property, the action must include "all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use." (23 C.F.R. § 771.135((a)(1)(ii)) The Evaluation must specifically address all measures that will be taken to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. (23 C.F.R. § 771.1350)) The Evaluation does not indicate that all possible planning has been considered to minimize the harm to the trail and does not address all measures that will be taken. In its analysis of the noise levels, the Evaluation states: An evaluation of noise abatement measures concluded that construction of a noise barrier in this area would not be cost-effective, as noted in the Final Design Noise Report prepared for the current design. (Evaluation. 10) The Final Design Noise Report was completed in 1997, before the School Complex was identified as having Section 4(f) property. In its analysis of mitigation measures for the noise impacts, the Evaluation,.~imn!~ states' "Providing noise abatement · . ~. ~ .~, ,, ' . . at this location does not appear to be ,~az:~.e~ ..... c. (Evaluation, 2 I) There ~s no explanation as to how this conclusion was reached, or whether it was reached with the Section 4(f) property in mind. The Final Design Noise Report identified the receptor site as "school playgrounds" and simply states, without any discussion or explanation that noise abatement measures are "not cost effective." (See, Final Design Noise Report, Table 6, Receptor No. 65). The Evaluation's conclusion appears to be a carryover of the conclusion reached in the FEIS before the School Complex was identified as Section 4(f) property. (See, FEIS, IV-25 through IV-29, where the only noise abatement considered for the School Complex is "normal excavation to achieve proper grades.)." Thus, it is clear that no planning has been performed to minimize the harm to the trail. The manner in which the Evaluation addresses the mitigation measures for the noise impacts also is contrary to the FHWA's own guidance. The planning to minimize harm is supposed to be determined through consultation with the officials of the agency who own or administer the land. (Policy Paper, 5) County officials were not so consulted. B. Visual impacts. (1) The Evaluation fails to adequately identify the visual impacts. The Evaluation's analysis of the visual impacts of the proposed project concludes that users of the trail would see embankments of 10 to 58 feet high where natural woods 13 and streams now exist. (Evaluation, 10-1 I) The visual impacts of the proposed project will destroy the very essence of the trail - its natural and serene setting. (2) The Evaluation erroneously fails to conclude that the visual impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail. As stated previously, the trail is part of a large area covered with dense woods, streams, hills and rock outcroppings. The trail winds through the woods up and down hilly terrain, and runs along streams. (See Attachment D photographs) A proposed project constructively uses Section 4(f) property when its'proximity to that property substantially impairs its aesthetic features or attributes. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(ii)) A substantial impairment to the visual or aesthetic qualities of a park exists when a proposed project is located in such proximity that it substantially detracts from the setting of the park. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(ii)) The introduction of a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently located (Evaluation, 10) will substantially detract from the setting of the trail and its surrounding environment. The present views of a stream valley forested with hardwoods will be replaced by views of embankments 10 to 58 feet in height. (Evaluation, I 1) Nevertheless, the Evaluation concluded that these improvements "would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or man-made features." (Evaluation, 19) The proposed project will substantially detract from the setting of the trail. Therefore, a constructive use is established. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)) The trail and its surrounding environment fit precisely the example in 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(p)(4)(ii). The Evaluation's analysis of the proposed project's visual impacts to the trail might be appropriate for a sidewalk in an urban environment; however, it is inappropriate in this case. (3) Because the Evaluation fails to properly conclude that the visual impacts would result in a constructive use of the remaining parts of the trail, the Evaluation erroneously precludes all possible planning to mitigate the impacts to the remaining parts of the trail. As stated previously, in order to use Section 4(f) property, the action must include "all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use." (23 C.F.R. § 771.135((a)(I)(ii)) The Evaluation must specifically address all measures that will be taken to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. (23 C.F.R. § 771.1350)) The Evaluation does not indicate that all possible planning has been considered to minimize the harm to the trail and does not address all the measures that will be taken. In its analysis of the visual impacts, the Evaluation states: 14 To lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated into the design. The intent of the plan would be to reestablish a successional forest on the road embankment, beginning with plantings of seedlings or nursery stock that would gradually mature into larger trees that would screen the roadway from view. (Evaluation. 1 I) In its analysis of mitigation measures for the visual impacts, the Evaluation says nothing more than that "[a]nother measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the roadway from the trail." (Evaluation. 19) Although landscaping may screen the roadway, it will do nothing to mitigate the impact of introducing a man-made embankment reaching 58 feet in height into a natural environment. The idea of replacing woods and streams with a four-lane freeway on top of that embankment presents an unacceptable visual impact. It is doubtful that any amount of landscaping could replicate the trail's natural beauty and usefulness. It is also significant that the Evaluation refers to the landscaping plan as a measure that will "lessen" the visual impacts. Once again, the Evaluation reveals that no planning has been performed to minimize the visual harm to the trail, as required by 23 C.F.R. § 771.135 (a)(1)(ii). The landscaping plan to gradually fill in a steep wall of fill dirt might be appropriate for sections of a bypass in an urbanized area, but not in this area. Trail users would be walking right alongside an embankment or looking up at the underside of a bridge. The stream would be buried in a culvert under the wall of dirt. No amount of landscaping can turn this into a substitute for the current experience of walking in a quiet wood along a stream. Again, the manner in which the Evaluation addresses the mitigation measures for the visual impacts also is contrary to the FHWA's own guidance. The planning to minimize harm is supposed to be determined through consultation with the officials of the agency who own or administer the land. (Policy Paper, 5) County officials were not so consulted. C. Air quality, impacts must be re-evaluated Based upon an analysis conducted for the FEIS, the Evaluation concludes that the proposed project would have a negligible effect on air quality along the trail. (Evaluation, 10) Since the air quality analysis was concluded in April 1990, the scope and purpose of the proposed project has changed. At that time, traffic levels were estimated to be 17,900 vehicle trips per day in the 2010 design year. More recent estimates project traffic levels of up to 43,000 vehicle trips per day in the 2022 design year. (Koute 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton)) If traffic levels reach 43,000 vehicle trips per day, the air quality impacts will be substantially greater than the estimate contained in the Evaluation. The prevailing westerly winds will mean that fumes from bypass vehicles will continualIy affect the entire School Complex, including not only the trails but also the playing fields. 15 The air quality analysis in the Evaluation must analyze and identify the air quality impacts resulting from the current proposed project, and consider the strong possibility that the greater traffic levels identified in the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville- Warrenton) will exist on Alternative 10. o The proposed project does not address local and re_~ional transportation needs and is not consistent with local and regional planning. The Evaluation states that the "proposed project addresses local and regional transportation needs and continues to be consistent with local and regional planning." (Evaluation, 3) This statement misrepresents the County's and the Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization's (hereinafter, "MPO") support for the current proposed project (i. e., Alternative 10 alone). The FEIS and the Record of Decision, dated April 8, 1993, identified as the selected alternative a "combination of improvements" to be implemented in phases over time. The first phase (or Base Case) consisted of the widening of Route 29; the second phase included the construction of grade-separated interchanges at the three most heavily used intersections on Route 29 in the Charlottesville area; and the third phase consisted of the bypass, but if and only if, traffic and economic conditions so warranted after evaluation of the other phases as implemented. (FHWA, Region 3, Record of Decision, Route 29, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F, April 8, 1993; FEIS, S-5) This combination of improvements was based on an extensive traffic analysis performed by VDOT's own consultant, which showed that most of the traffic congestion on Route 29 is local and that the three grade-separated interchanges are the key to relieving such congestion. The study showed also that a bypass would do nothing to alleviate local traffic congestion, and, by itself, would leave traffic congestion at the worst possible rating (LOS F) in the projected time frame. (See also, FEIS, Table IV-3) The FHWA approved the sequencing or phased approach as the selected alternative in its Record of Decision. The local jurisdictions involved - Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia - agreed to the sequencing approach. The Commonwealth Transportation Board thereafter unilaterally eliminated the construction of grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 from the proposed project. This decision was made without prior notice to the public or the affected localities, and without benefit of any technical analysis or study. Both the County and the MPO have taken strong stands against the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision to scrap, in effect, the sequencing agreement and proceed instead with the bypass alone. While it is true that the bypass appears on the MPO's Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study plan, it appears with caveats regarding the sequencing described above. For several years, the IV[PO has included a resolution in its TranspOrtation Improvement Plan that withholds approval of federal funds for construction (or accrual of construction funds) of the bypass until several important issues are resolved. 16 The current proposed project is not consistent with either the County's or the MPO's plan and priorities, which continue to reflect the sequencing recommended in the FEIS. o The Evaluation's reference to the County's prior failure to identify the trail as Section 4(f) property is inappropriate. The Evaluation's repeated statements that the County previously failed to identify the trail as Section 4(f) property is disingenuous. VDOT has known that County schools are Section 4(f) property since at least 1993. In a July 7, 1993 internal memorandum to Earl T. Robb, VDOT's Environmental Administrator, Loretta B. Cummings, a VDOT Environmental Specialist. described her field observations to assist in evaluating revisions to the Alternative I 0 alignment. Regarding Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Ms. Cummings stated in part: The school is 1-2 years old and includes extensive recreation space. Included are soccer fields, a baseball diamond, basketball courts, and many pieces of playground equipment. The area is posted for public use after 6 p.m. It appears that the revised corridor will cross the recreational area and will require 4(f) coordination. (Memorandum to Earl T. Robb, July 7, 1993, 1) Ms. Cummings' memorandum did not refer to the trails and other recreation facilities at the School Complex, presumably because the portion of Alternative I 0 on and near the School Complex was not part of the realignment. Nevertheless, the memorandum reveals that VDOT knew that County school properties are used as park and recreation areas. Therefore, VDOT was obliged to conduct a further inquiry as to whether the School Complex contained Section 4(f) property. In fact, it was obliged to conduct such an inquiry much earlier in the process while alternatives to the proposed action (Alternative 10) were still under study. (23 C.F.R. § 771.135(b)) In a November 16, 1994 internal memorandum to Patsy Napier, the VDOT Project Manager, regarding the environmental assessment for the modified alignment of Alternative 10, Ms. Cummings cautioned: Please make it clear to the consultant designers that we can not use any recreational land or we will be in a 4(f) situation which could jeopardize the FHWA approval of the project. (Memorandum to P.G. Napier, November 16, 1994, 1) Moreover, prior to the preparation of the Evaluation, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation submitted a complete explanation of the School Complex's status as a district park and the variety of recreational activities that take place on the property. This explanation is mentioned in the Evaluation. (Evaluation, 7) Nevertheless, with blinders on, the Evaluation's analysis is limited only to the trail at Jack Jouett Middle School. 17 For all of the foregoing reasons, VDOT's criticism of the County's prior failure to identify the trail as Section 4(f) property is inappropriate and irrelevant. A properly conducted environmental assessment that included field observations of the County school property would have easily identified the School Complex and Agnor-Hurt Elementary School as potential Section 4(f) property. If that had been the case, the FEIS would have been valuable as an informational document to guide appropriate decision making, and the Section 4(f) evaluation would have been meaningful to the decision making process. 8. Conclusion The Evaluation violates Section 4(f) and 23 C.F.R. § 77 I. 135. The Evaluation desc.ribes the project as it existed in the outdated and flawed FEIS - a project that has since been fundamentally changed in scope and purpose. The Evaluation relies on an FEIS that recommended Alternative 10 as the selected alternative because it satisfied the identified transportation needs and did not affect Section 4(f) property. Neither of those factual premises are now correct. In addition, the technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study (Charlottesville-Warrenton) now is the source of relevant information pertaining to estimated traffic levels, which will be much greater than previously projected. It is unquestionable that a large percentage of the increased traffic will be tractor-trailer truck traffic diverting from Interstate 81 and Interstate 95. Therefore, the noise and air quality impacts need to be re-evaluated. Because of the change in the scope and Purpose of the proposed project, a new environmental review is required. Without any analysis or explanation, the Evaluation fails to consider the other park or recreational areas on the School Complex, even though the only eVidence in the record is that there are large portions of the School Complex that are significant publicly owned park and recreation areas that will be used or constructively used by the proposed project. The Evaluation compounds the erroneous conclusion in the FEIS that Alternative 10 did not affect any Section 4(f) property by limiting its analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives to those considered and rejected in the FEIS. Given this error, the Evaluation does not explain why other alternatives outside of Alternative 10 were not considered. Alternatives A, B, C, D and E are not true altematives within the meaning of 23 C.F.R. § 771.135(a)(1)(ii), but merely a series of equally destructive and unpalatable options within Alternative 10. As a result, the Evaluation's analysis of feasible and prudent alternatives is nothing more than apost-hoc rationalization to justify a decision already made. The Evaluation does not enable the FHWA to make an informed decision as to whether there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to using the School Complex's Section 4(f) property. Finally, the EValuation's analysis bfthe noise, visual and air quality impacts of the remaining portions of the trail is invalid. The studies for the Evaluation did not 18 analyze any of the recreational facilities as Section 4(0 property. As a result, the mitigation measures briefly discussed in the Evaluation do not enable the FHWA to make an informed decision as to whether all possible planning has been done to minimize harm to the remaining trail. Unless a new environmental review is performed and the Evaluation is completely revised based upon current, relevant information that addresses all of the issues identified herein, the Evaluation is inadequate as an informational document, and violates 23 C.F.R. {} 771.135(a)(1). The Board of Supervisors requests your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, County Attorney Cc' Cynthia Wilkerson, National Park Service Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization 19 ATTACHMENT A Comments of the Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development to the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School, Route 29 Bypass Albemarle County, Virginia April 16, 1999 The Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the Draft 4(f) Evaluation and provides the following comments: As noted in the comments of Pat Mullaney, the County's Director of Parks and Recreation, the Draft 4(f') Evaluation did not address impacts to the trail system behind Greer Elementary School. The County's previous comments have addressed potential impacts to the "school complex" (Albemarle High, Jouett Middle, and Greer Elementary Schools) trails, not just the trails behind Jouett Middle School. The portion of the trail system located bekind Greer is also an important component of the overall trail system and should be considered as part of this evaluation of the 'impact of the Bypass project on the ex. isting trail system. Staff also questions whether other recreational facilities at the school complex should be subject to a 4(f) Evaluation since they Mil.likely be impacted by the Bypass project (noise, air quality, and visual impacts). All school facilities are considered County Park facilities and are used by the general public after school hours. Page 8, "Unusual Characteristics" fails to adequately recognize the quality of the natural setting/environment of the open space area that is the location of the trails. It is this environment that significantly contributes to making this trail system such a valuable part oft. he County's open space and park trail system. Regarding the section under the heading "Impacts to Trail" (lO.8-10), our opinion is that the evaluation does not accurately emphasize the significant noise, visual and air quality impacts the Bypass project will have on the trails and the open space system within which it is it is located. The Evaluation fails to recognize that not only is the trail facility being impacted, but also, more importantly, the setting for the trails is being impacted. This area provides a series of recreational trails supporting a variety of uses (nature walks, jogging, and school educational and athletic uses) in a natural setting within easy access of the most densely populated area of the County. The significant noise and visual impacts, and likely potential air quality impacts, would significantly change the character and quality of the environment. The County will essentially lose the only multi-use trail system within an undisturbed natural setting near this densely populated area. The ICNA does not permit jogging or athletic events. · Page 11, "Avoidance Alternatives:" None of the alternatives provided in this evaluation adequately address or will significantly change the impacts to the trails and open space area. The construction of the Bypass is an intrusion into a quiet, mostly undeveloped area, and will drastically change its character and the quality of the remaining natural environment. The visual, noise and likely air pollution impacts (odors/exhaust fumes) will be significant from any of the modifications to the proposed alignment (avoidance alternatives A-D). Alternatives A and B require shifts onto the adjacent properties within historic and/or an agricultural and forestal districts, which are other "significant" areas to be avoided. Would another 4(f) Evaluation be required for further impacts to those areas? The proposed alternative alignment (Alternative E) is not a viable or feasible option and should be deleted. This alternative aligurnent is shown through the existing school bus maintenance facility and a new school currently under construction. It would also likely impact other school/park recreation facilities, including other sections of the trail, possibly creating the need for another 4(f) Evaluation. This section dismisses all previous alternatives as being not feasible as they would not adequately satisfy the identified transportation needs, or in the case of Alternative 11 would have 4(f) impacts. In the case of Alternative 11, those potential 4(f) impacts may be more easily mitigated than this impact to the trail system, since mitigation requires further negative impacts to an adjacent agricultural and forestal district, which is another area in which impacts should be avoided. It would seem appropriate at this time for the 4(f) Evaluation process to reassess all alternatives in light of what is now known about the impacts of Alternative 10. These include impacts to: 1) the trails; 2) watersupply watershed and impoundment; 3) the watershed of an endangered species habitat; 4) an ag-ricultural and forestal district; and 5) four (4) major school sites (three public and one private) due to the proximity of the Bypass alignment. Specifically, Alternative 9 (expressway) has no environmental impacts. A more comprehensive and thoughtful evaluation of the previous alternatives, which balances transportation goals and efficiencies with environmental impacts and local concerns, is needed. Regarding comments provided under "Constructive Use" (,p. 19), we disagree strongly with the statement that "the noise levels will not substantially interfere with use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute for the activities that occur there." As noted previously here, and in Mr. Mullaney's memo, the trail is used not only for athletic practice/events but also for passive recreational use. The existing quality of the environment and natural setting, along with its convenient location near population concentrations, combine to make it an important facility within our overall trail system. The quiet, undisturbed natural setting IS an important attribute of this facility. Comments provided under "Coordination" (p. 23) indicate that the trails were never raised as an issue. In general, the impact of the Bypass to ali the schools (and school facilities) in the corridor has been an issue with the County. These trails are located on school property and there is a reliance on the part of the County that project designers will take into account facilities found on properties during field work related to project design. These trails have been constructed (and modified and up~aded) mostly with volunteer work, over a long period of time as the need and opportunity has arisen. Trail development post-dated any site plan development for the schools, so there is very little information in the form of surveyed plans or plats that accurately depict the trail location. The impact to trails was not clear to the County until those very familiar with the trail location began to realize that Bypass location and trial locations were in significant conflict. Identification of the trails earlier on the Bypass desigxx drawings would have brought this issue to the surface sooner. " ATTACHMEN 1 1~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Parks and Recreation Department County Office Building 401 Mc[ntire Road Charlottesville, Virflinia 22902-4596 Telephone (804) 296-5844 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community. Development Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation//~[ March 18, 1999 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation - Comments I have reviewed the draft 4(f) evaluation made by FHWA and VDOT on the impact on the district park facilities at the Albemarle, Jack Jouett, and Greer school complex. In generai I find the evaluation to be extremely biased towards continuing on with building the road as planned. The evaluation does not fairly consider 4(f') protection and the impact on the other recreational facilities at the complex, and severely minimizes the importance and the impact on the trail system. The evaluation appears to have tOtally missed the trails behind Greer school which are directly impacted and seems to blame the County for not informing VDOT as to the existence of the trails. As Parks and Recreation Director I don't make it a habit to keep myself informed on proposed plans for the State Arterial System. The s~ongest evidence that this is not a fair evaluation is on page 19 under Constructive use which says "Noise levels would not. substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there". Later in that section it goes on to say "Likewise, these alternatives would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or man.made features". These trails are in the one of the few remaining patches of woods in the most densely developed area of the County. The section of the trail by the stream is as pretty as any site in our entire park system. That section including the stream will be covered by fill. I would consider the stream to be a significant natural feature and I definitely think a major highway through this section, in anyone's estimation, would substantially detract fi.om the aesthetics of the trail. To cite specific examples which make me question the fairness of this Evaluation I offer the following: On page 4, first para~aph, the rationale for stating that because only the trail is encroached on by the bypass, then only the trait itself, and not the encompassing school property, which is by County policy a district park, constitutes the Section 4(f) resource, may possibly be faulty. According to "Section 4(f) -- Policy Paper" dated September 24, 1987 and revised June 7, 1989, the segment titled "Section 4(f) - Applicability" states the following: "No. 10. School Playgrounds. (p. 15-16) Question: Are publicly owned playgrounds subject to the requirements of Section 4(f)? Answer: While the primary purpose of school playgrounds is for structured physical education classes and recreation for students, such lands may also serve public recreational purposes and as such, may be subject to Section 4(f) requirements. When the play~ound serves only school activities and functions, the playground is not considered subject to 4(f). However, when the playground is open to the public and serves either organized or recreation purposes (walk on activity), it is subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) if the playground is determined to be significant for recreational purposes. In determining the significance of the playground facilities, there may be more than one official having jurisdiction over the facility. A school official is considered to be the official having jurisdiction of the land during school activities. However, the school board may have authorized the city's parks and recreation department or a public organization to control the facilities after school hours. The actual function of the play~ound is the determining factor under these circumstances. Therefore, documentation should be obtained from the official(s) having jurisdiction over the facility stating whether or not the playground is of local sigrfificance for recreational purposes. "No.. 2. Public Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges. (p. 9-10) "Question B: How should the significance of public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges be determined? Answer B: "Si~m:rificance" determinations (on publicly owned land considered to be park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge pursuant to Answer A above) are made by Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the land. For the most part, the "officials having jurisdiction" are officials of the agency owning or administering the land. For certain types of Section 4 (f) lands, more than one agency may have jurisdiction over the Site. The significance determination must consider the significance of the entire property~ and not just the portion of the property being used for the project. The meaning of the term "significance" for purposes of Section 4(f) should be explained to the officials having jurisdiction. Significance means that in comparing the availability and function of the recreation, park, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge area with the recreational, park, and refuge objectives for that community, the land in question plays an important role in meeting those objectives. If a determination from the official with jurisdiction cannot be obtained, the Section 4(f) land will be presumed to be significant. All determinations (whether stated or presumed) are subject to review by FHWA for reasonableness." Now that the FHWA has designated the trails, in October 1998, as Section 4(f), does nor this last answer mean that the entire recreation facilities of the schools are qualified or are also now designated 4(f')? If this is true, would there not be a "constructive use" taking argument with regard to the playing fields immediately adjacent to the bypass? In regards to the above information which is taken directly from the Section 4(f) Policy Paper, the recreation facilities at the school complex are extremely significant as they are the only such facilities in the most densely populated area of the County. The two most heavily used recreational facilkies on the site are going to be seriously impacted by the proximity of the Bypass. Those facilities are the soccer field at Jouett which is 130' from the NB lane and the Greer baseball field where the batting cage is 155' from the NB lane. The Albemarle Count' Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the scheduling and the oversight of these facilities after school hours. These facilities are used every day of the week for recreational progams, I 0 months out of the year. They are used from 6pm until dark on weekdays and from Barn until dark on Saturday and Sundays. They are used for youth soccer, youth football, youth lacrosse, little leag'ue baseball and girls softball. On a typical Saturday approxirnately 1,000 people will be at these fields as a participant or spectator for these recreation programs. The location of a major roadway witbSn 40 yards (or the width of the smallest youth soccer field) raises serious concerns about the noise, air quality, and visual impacts. On page 4, the report seems to imply negative connotations because there are no signs advertising the trails. There were signs for the trails and they were stolen by vandals. There are si~m~.s indicating the recreation facilities at the school are restricted to school use until 6 pm. These signs cover all the facilities including the trails. On page 7, the first paragraph questions the public use of the trails, citing VDOT investigations. It is obvious by the comment "observation indicated use by students", that the investigation occurred during the school day when public use is restricted. Public use would then most certainly be incidental during school hours. The responses that Mr. Benish and I made, which are included as an attachment in the report, thoroughly explain the school and public use. Sign up sheets along the trail indicate public use of 30 to 35 persons per day which is not considered to be incidental. On page 7, the first paragraph also questions the identification of the trails by signs and the trails not being mentioned in the County's Land Use Plan. I think my Answer #4 in the attachment satisfactorily addresses this. On page 7, the last paragraph seems to be critical of the lack of nearby parking facilities, citing distances away for several locations. However, the parking lot behind Jouett, only a hundred feet or so from one of the trail heads, was omitted from the VDOT analysis. This is a ridiculous issue anyway. The parking areas at the school serve all of the recreational facilities. Recreation space is at a premium in this area of the County and to take up additional space for special parking for this type of trail would be foolish. It is anticipated that anyone who could walk or run the trail could easily walk the relatively short easy distance from any of the parking lots at the facility to do SO. On page 8, the second paragraph states,... "Information provided by the County indicates that there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project." Anv information provided by the County assumed that the trails behind Greet were also considered. It seems VDOT did not include these trails in the evaluation. The attached map show's both the Jouett and Greer trails impacted by the proposed bypass. On page 8, under "#9. Unusual Characteristics," the one sentence paragraph states that, .. "There are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." Unusual characteristics are in the eye of the beholder. The trail area beside tributary "K," which is to be covered with fill to a height of 60 feet, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County. With the babbling brook, extreme quietness and tranquillity, and enclosed by a forest of large and small trees and huge outcroppings of magnificent rocks in a narrow valley, this provides a serene and peaceful set'ting for the public to enjoy, providing a calmness of the soul. Yet this wonderful area, with pleasing aesthetics, is located a short distance from the most densely populated area in the County. The whole trail system is extremely well maintained and a joy to walk/jog, but the jewel of the system is the se~m'nenr by the creek to be located underneath a fill, 60 feet high. On pages 8 and 10, under "#10. Impacts on TraiI," there are three sections labeled; Noise Levels, Air Quality, and Visual. The Evaluation stresses the minimal or negligible impacts. Noise levels all along the trail would be drastically increased above the estimated noise leveI of 48 dBA. Today, one of the most attractive features of the trail is its serenity and tranquility. With the proposed bypass in place, no one would walk the trails just to get away from the hectic and noisy "hubbub" of everyday life. Concerning air quality, it is stated that, ... "the project would have a negligible effect ...along the trail." The proposed bypass would be located in a generally western direction from the trails. With the prevailing winds coming from the southwest and west directions, the exhaust fumes from traffic would consistently be blowing towards the walkers and joggers on the trails and also blowing towards the playing fields and towards both Jouett and Greer schools. Under visual, the Evaluation blandly states that, .,. "the project would change the character of the view from the trail by introducing a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently present." Also, ... "To lessen the visual effects of the new road, a landscaping plan would be incorporated....". There is no way any landscaping plan can begin to mitigate the intrusion into this beautiful area. On Page 19, under "# 12. Measures to Minimize Harm," the Evaluation suggests that, ... "The severed portions would be reconnected by building a new section of trail along or near the toe of the fill embankment." This area is very steep and not conducive to placement of a trail. ... "Another measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the roadway from the trail." How can anything screen a 60 feet high, 360 feet wide and 1000 feet long fill, that contains a volume equivalent of 7.3 Monticello Hotels, and is carrying possibty 43,000 vehicles per day (many of which would be hea,,.'y trucks)? I think the above information clearly shows that this Evaluation was an effort to minimize the si~m-iificance and the impact on this area so the Bypass could proceed as planned. The impact on the area is clear. This beautiful area will be totally destroyed in ways that cannot be mitigated. As for significance, the importance to the County of protecting undeveloped land in this area was underscored in 1990 when the decision was made not to build a new elementary school on the nearby County owned Whitewood Road site in order to preserve the wooded area and trials there. Instead the County spent in excess ors 1,000,000 to purchase the current Agnor Hurt site. Since that time the County has placed a conservation easement on the Whitewood site. In my opinion, it would make little sense to allow impact to a nearby site of similar character, when such efforts have been made to protect the Whitewood site. I think this clearly shows the significance this land has as a recreational resource to the County. If you have any questions about any of this please feel free to call me. ~: O01 ATTACHMENT C SCHOOL PLAY BYP..-%S8 .'%.'V,/ LiNE *65 FEET FROM BA.,-Th'NG CAGE BYP.4.SS N.B. LANE -I55 FEET FROM BATTING CAGE JACK JOUETT PLAYING FiE. LDS WESTERN. MOST PART OF JOUETT PLAYING FIELD BYPASS R:W LINE AT EDGE OF WOODS 'qE.kR BENCH AR£A BYPASS N.B. LANE ~130 FEET FROM BENCI'{ .--%REA [9' ATTAcH.x!£NT I) JOGGiN~ T,RA!L NEAR JOUETT PLAY]N( EVE.~Y'FHI.N'G VISIBLE IN P!CTI.'RE WOULD B,.= ',. .-N [.,.:R'"'r- FILL .MA J< ?.LL HE:C.~,.'T = :~i FEET FiLL 'vOLUME ~ >7 "M~NTiCELLO :{(hTr: S" :'.fO.':,T OF VISIBLE ..\R.E JOGGJN( TRA!L NEAR JOUETT PLAY,N( FIELD JOGGiNd TRAIL NEAR JOUETT PLAY]NC FIELD TRAIL N JOUETT FIELD TRA]~ JOU ET-"' M~DOLE JOG3~N:3 .--AP S C ;'-':CO._ TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Charl°ttesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902; (804) 979-7310; fax: (804) 979-1597 Virginia Relay Center for hearing impaired: (800) 828-1140 (voice); (800) 828-t120 (TDD) emaih t~pd@state.va.us; website: ht~p://avenue.or~/tip Mr. Earl T. Robb, Environmental Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Sally Thomas, Chair, Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan plarmin~"oi'g~izatioh ...... April 21, 1999 Comments on Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Route 29 Bypass Impacts Upon the Trail Jack Jouett Middle School Federal No. NH-037 (130) State No. 6029-002-F22, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and for granting us permission to submit the comments after April 19 so that we could discuss them at our April 20 meeting. Enclosed is the full text of the MPO's comments. The most important findings are as follows: The evaluation should be re-assessed to include the entire school recreational complex, which is del'reed as a County District Park and thus qualifies in its entirety as a Section 4(0 property. This complex includes the Jouett Trail, a trail behind Greer Elementary School, and the playing fields and other recreational facilities shared by the three schools, ali of which are used extensively by the public on evenings and weekends. The report states that the school recreational fields were not included in the assessment because they were not "encroached upon" by the bypass. The statement lacks any foundation since the report only considers the Jouett Trail as Section 4(f) property. The regulations make it quite clear the entire park is the protected site. Based on the existing evaluation, the trail and surrounding County District Park clearly qualify as directly and constructively used by the bypass. VDOT and FTIWA should conduct a complete evaluation of all possible alternatives for prudence and feasibility. None oft he design modifications or measures to minimize harm adequately protects the natural, quiet environment which is the most valuable feature of this facility. An evaluation of the entire Section 4(0 property would, we are confident, result in a finding of direct and constructive use for the entire property. Once it has completed the evaluation of the entire 4(f) property in order to establish a complete analysis of mitigation alternatives and costs, VDOT will be required to examine all possible alternatives for prudence and feasibility. This analysis should include the additional impacts and costs which have come to light concerning the Alternative ! 0 alignment since it was selected, including mitigation strategies to avoid two other historic sites, the findings of the noise study, and what is known to date about costs and strategies to mitigate effects upon the regional water supply. Attached is a summary of the action items recommended in our report. Enclosed is the full report. Please feel free to contact our staff if you have questions. CC: M?O Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee Summary of Recommended Actions Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Comments on Route 29 Bypass Jouett Trail 4(f) Evaluation, April 21, 1999 A. Description and Need for the Project A-l) The statement of purpose should be corrected to quote the original purpose and recommendation of sequenced projects from the FEIS. A-2) The statements regarding consistency with local and regional plans should add information about the significant changes to the clustering and sequencing of projects included in the Record of Decision for Alternative 10 and the important MPO caveats placed upon that approval. B. Overview of Section 4(0 Involvement B-l) Given the growing awareness of the fiscal, environmental, and community impacts of Alternative 10, VDOT and FHWA should analyze all possible alternatives for prudence and feasibility. B-2) The report should include an explanation for the conclusion that other alternatives were not prudent and feasible. B-3) The property defined as protected by Section 4(f) should include the entire County District Park in this area, which includes the Jouett Trail, the Greer Trail, and the recreational fields at the school complex. The evaluation should be revised to encompass this entire property. C. Section 4(0 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett Middle School Section C3: Ownership C3-1) The investment of money and labor in this trail system by community and school groups should be included in the description of ownership. Section C4: Function C4-1) The observations in the first paragraph should be corrected such that they accurately describe the role and importance of this facility as a public park. C4-2) The statement that the trail is not included in the County Comprehensive Plan should be corrected to note that the trail is contained within a County District Park, which is referenced generally in the Comprehensive Plan and in more detail on page 49 of the 1990-2000 Community Facilities Plan. Section C6: Access: C6-1) The parking lot behind Jack Jouett Middle School should be added to the inventory of parking facilities and assessed for impacts from the proposed roadway. C6-2) The unique opportunity the trails present for frequent and spontaneous class trips to study nature should be noted as a factor in their overall value to the community. Summary of Recommended Actions Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Comments on Route 29 Bypass Jouett Trail 469 Evaluation, April 21. 1999, Page 2 Section C7: Relationship to Similarly Used Lands C7-1) The report should document the scarcity of quiet, natural trails in this area, including the fact that the Ivy Creek Natural Area is not open to joggers and is already overused. C7-2) The report should document the considerable sacrifices the County has made to protect the natural areas in this part of the community, including spending a million additional dollars to locate Agnor-Hurt school away fi.om Whitewood Park and dropping long-established plans for Greenbrier Drive Extension in order to avoid impacting the park. Section C9, Unusual Characteristics: C9-1) The report should be revised to note that the very simplicity and quiet natural setting of this trail is quite an unusual characteristic in this heavily developed area. See also C6-2. Section CI0: Impacts on Trail, Noise Levels and Air Quality: C10-1) The report should include the noise impacts of fi.equently passing tracks, which create a burst of sound 13 to 14 decibels higher than the ambient level. C10-2) The report should include an analysis of the apparently strong possibility that this road will attract a much higher number of tracks than forecasted in the FEIS, based on its opening remarks about the importance of this highway in the state and national system and the projections of potential increased traffic in the US 29 Charlottesville-Warrenton Corridor Study. C10-3) Because the noise and air impacts would ruin the quiet, natural setting of the area under study, regardless of any modifications to the highway design, FHWA should consider this alternative constructively, as well as directly, uses this property and should initiate a review of the prudence and feasibility of all possible alternatives. CI0 (continued) Visual Impacts: C 10-4) Because of the visual impacts, which cannot be mitigated by landscaping, this alternative is not compliant with Section 4(f) regulations; VDOT and FI-IWA should conduct a rigorous review of the prudence and feasibility of other alternatives. C11. Avoidance Alternatives C11-1) The report should document the reasons other alternatives were not deemed feasible or prudent. C11-2) Given the number of critical changes to the known environmental and Section 4(f) impacts and the sequencing included with the Alternative 10 proposal, the FEIS alternatives analysis should no longer be considered valid. Summary of Recommended Actions Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Comments on Route 29 Bypass Jouett Trail 409 Evaluation. April 21. 1999. Page 3 C11 (continued) Modifications to Current Design: C11-3) None of the proposed alternatives modifying the existing alignment, including the measures to avoid harm, meet the Section 4(0 regulation to protect this resource. All would result in such significant physical disruption and noise, visual, and air quality impacts that the trail and its surrounding environment will be sharply and permanently rendered unusable for their current purposes as quiet natural areas for recreation and learning. VDOT and FHWA should investigate the prudence and feasibility of all possible alternatives. Cll (continued) Constructive Use: C 11-4) A finding of direct and constructive use is warranted. FHWA and VDOT should proceed with examining all possible alternatives for prudence and feasibility. Section C 12: Measures to Minimize Harm C12-1) The proposed landscaping plan is a poor substitute for the existing woods and stream. This is not an adequate measure to mitigate the visual and physical intrusions onto the natural environment. C12-2) The report should clarify that the bridge alternatives are really a variation of Alternative D, and are not measures which could be employed in conjunction with any of the alternatives. D. Coordination D -1) VDOT should re-assess its inventory and make every effort to ensure it has examined all the possible Section 4(0 impacts associated with all alternatives which address the purpose and need for this project. Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, Charlottesville, VA 22902; (804) 979-7310; fax:/804) 979-1597 Virginia Relay Center for hearing impaired: (800)828-1140 (voice); (800)828-1120 ITDD) ema~l: tipd@state.va.us; website: http://avenue.org/tjpdc Comments on Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of the Route 29 Bypass Impacts to the Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School, April 21, 1999 Federal No. NH-037 (130) State No. 6029-002-F22, PE 101 Albemarle County, Virginia A. DESCRIPTION AND NEED FOR TI-IE PROJECT: The description of purpose and need on page 3 is significantly different from the 'statement of purpose and need from the Route 29 Corridor Study (the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this project). It puts emphasis on the need to accommodate through traffic on Route 29. The actual statement gave primary weight to flow on existing Route 29, with the accommodation of through traffic as a secondary goal. It read as follows: The purpose of the Route 29 Corridor Study is to find a solution to existing and future traffic congestion on a three-mile section of US Route 29 between US Route 250 Bypass and the South Fork Rivanna River in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County north of Charlottesville. A secondary purpose of the study is to complete a gap in ongoing improvements to US Route 29 through central Virginia. This description indicates VDOT's perception of the primary purpose of the package of solutions recommended in the FEIS, of which the bypass was last in a series, has shifted such that the bypass has become the project of principal importance. This is not consistent with local and MPO plans and priorities, which continue to reflect the sequencing recommended in the FEIS and agreed to in the early 1990%. The FEIS found that the great majority of traffic on US 29 was local, not through, traffic and that the bypass by itself would not improve conditions on US 29. The only solution recommended in the FEIS which significantly improved traffic flow on US 29 was widening the existing route and constructing three grade-separated interchanges at Hydraulic, Greenbrier, and Rio Roads, after which the need for a bypass would be reconsidered. This phasing was recommended in the FEIS in section S-5 and in the FHWA Record of Decision on this project (FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F). The City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and VDOT all formally agreed upon this sequencing, including the construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway fi'om Route 29 to the Route 250 bypass prior to the re-evaluation of the need for the bypass. The MPO adopted this sequencing as an amendment to the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Year 2000. In 1995, the Commonwealth Transportation Board deleted plans for the grade-separated interchanges in response to a resolution from the City asking that plans for the Hydraulic Road interchange be discontinued because of concerns over its size and scale and possible impacts to local businesses. This decision was made without a public hearing or comments from the MPO or the County. Funding for Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 400 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School April 21, 1999 Page 2 the interchanges was shifted towards landscaping and sidewalks on the newly widened Route 29 and towards bypass design and construction. Meanwhile, funding for the second phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway is completely inadequate with no sign from the Commonwealth Transportation Board that it will ever be funded despite continuous requests and attempts by the County to fund the project. At this point, only the widening of Route 29 and the bypass are fully funded and in active stages of development. This is not consistent with local plans and priorities, nor with the recommendation of the FEIS and Record of Decision for the Alternative 10 location. The draft 4(f) report also notes that the proposed project is consistent with local and regional plans. While it is tree that the bypass appears in the MPO CATS Year 2015 plan, it should be noted that it appears with caveats regarding the sequencing'described above (see Attachment A: Section of CATS plan). In addition, the MPO has, for three years now, included a resolution in its TIP which withholds approval of federal funds for construction (or accrual toward construction) of the bypass until several important issues are resolved (see Attachment B: TIP Resolution). Actions: A-I) The statement of purpose should be corrected to quote the original purpose and recommendation of sequenced projects from the FEIS. A-2) The statements regarding consistency with local and regional plans should add information about the significant changes to the clustering and sequencing of projects included in the Record of Decision for Alternative 10 and the important MPO caveats placed upon that approval. B. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4(F) INVOLVEMENT: The penultimate paragraph on page 3 notes: "The Selected Alternative was the only prudent and feasible bypass alternative that avoided use of any Section 4(f) properties." Section 4(f) regulations require that the evaluation include an explanation of why other alternatives were not prudent and feasible. Since this Alternative was selected, it has come to light that it did not, in fact, avoid any Section 4(f) properties. The alignment has had to be adjusted twice to avoid historic properties: the corrected boundaries of the Westover property near Stillhouse Mountain and the Brookhill property at the northern interchange. The latter required quite an extensive revision to the original plan. This is the third time a Section 4(0 impact has been found which caused additional expenditures in design and will make the project more expensive to construct. One of the engineering options for mitigating the trail impacts, for example, would add nearly $20 million to the project cost. The environmental, community and dollar costs of the selected Alternative are also growing due to the increased needs for mitigating effects on not only 1) this park, but also 2) watershed supply and impoundment; 3) the habitat of an endangered species; 4) an agricultural and forestral district; and 5) six school sites in the proximity of this alignment. Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 409 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 3 Given these growing costs we request that VDOT and FHWA conduct an analysis of all altematives for prudence and feasibility. A new analysis may show that another alternative is more prudent and feasible. For example, the FEIS Base Case with grade-separated interchanges and Alternative 9 (the expressway) both addressed the traffic needs and had no impacts related to the above five issues. The Department of the Interior and the US Environmental Protection Agency both recommended Alternative 9 because of its lesser environmental impacts (FEIS VIII-5). This section also asserts that only the trail, and not the other public recreational facilities such as the playing fields, is considered in the Section 4(f) evaluation, because the other facilities are not "encroached upon" by the project. This is not supportable for two reasons; 1) the definition of the 4(f) property does not depend upon whether or not the project developers believe it will impact an area; the regulations make it clear in this case that the entire District Park should be considered the 4(f) property; 2) since the entire District Park was not, in fact, evaluated for 4(f) impacts, the project developers have no basis for stating that the project does not encroach upon them. B-l) Given the growing awareness of the fiscal, environmental, and community impacts of Alternative 10, VDOT and FHV~A should analyze all possible alternatives for prudence and feasibility. B-2) The report shouM include an explanation for the conclusion that other alternatives were not prudent and feasible. B-3) The property defined as protected by Section 409 should include the entire County District Park in this area, which includes the Jouett Trail, the Greet Trail, and the recreational fields at the school complex. The evaluation should be revised to encompass this entire property. C. SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION OF TRAIL AT JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL Sections C1-2: Relationship to Proposed Project, and Size/Location: As noted above, the evaluation should include the entire school recreational area, including the playing fields and the Greet School trail, in order to be compliant with federal regulations. Thc County has made this need clear throughout its comments during the information-gathering stage of this report. Action: See Action B-3. Section C3: Ownership: The report states that the trail is owned by the Albemarle County School Board, which is correct. However, it should also note that significant amounts of fund-raising and work to improve and maintain the trail have been done by a variety of school and community groups, as noted in the letter from the Community Development Chief cited in the draft evaluation. The public has made a considerable investment of money, time and energy in this trail which should be noted in this section. Action: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 469 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 4 C3-1) The investment of money and labor in this trail system by community and school groups should be included in the description of ownership. Section C4: Function The first paragraph indicates that the trail is not a major source for public recreation. Notes to this effect include observations that the trail did not appear to be heavily used by the public during an initial observation, did not have signage for the public, and was not specified in the County Land Use Plan. The letters from Albemarle County Chief of Community Development and the Parks and Recreation Director belie these findings however, and show conclusively that the trail is in fact an important resource for a large number of people in this heavily developed area. Data supplied in these letters notes that there are sign-up sheets for public use of the trail, and they indicate an average of 30-35 public users every day, in addition to the variety of athletic teams and science classes from the three schools in the complex. Signage is also posted on the school property which identifies that public use is allowed during non-school hours. The letters also note that there are only two other facilities for this urban population which allow for walking in a natural environment, both of which are akeady heavily used. Regarding the apparent absence of this trail in the County's Comprehensive Plan, they explain that no trails at schools are specified in the County Comprehensive Plan, but are included in the entire set of public recreational facilities at schools which are classified as District Parks; these are planned in more detail in the County's Community Facilities Plan. This trail, according to the Parks and Recreation Director, is included as part of the Albemarle High School Complex on page 49 of the 1990-2000 plan. Actions: C4-1) The observations in the first paragraph should be corrected such that they accurately describe the role and importance of this facility as a public park. C4-2) The statement that the trail is not included in the County Comprehensive Plan should be corrected to note that the trail is contained within a County District Park, which is referenced generally in the Comprehensive Plan and in more detail on page 49 of the 1990-2000 Community Facilities Plan. Section C5: Facilities: No comment. Section C6: Access: The trail is most easily accessed by a parking lot behind Jack Jouett Middle School which is not mentioned here. This lot can easily accommodate the estimated number of public users each day. It should be added to the inventory of parking facilities. It should also be noted that the Jouett and Greer trails are the only facilities within Walking distance of the schools. This is very important to the school science classes which use the trails quite often to study the changing seasons or to take a spontaneous trip outside. If the classes had only Whitewood or Ivy Creek parks available, the class trips would all have to be arranged weeks in advance using buses. This Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 400 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, J999 Page 5 would surely cut down considerably on the amount of time students spend outside studying nature. While use of parks by school children during the day is not a criterion for evaluation under Section 4(f), this should be noted as a very important value these trails offer to our local community. Actions C6-1.) The parking lot behind Jack Jouett Middle School Should be added to the inventory of parking facilities and assessed for impacts from the proposed roadway. C6-2) The unique opportunity the trails present for frequent and spontaneous class trips to study nature should be noted as a factor in their overall value to the community. Section C7: Relationship to Similarly Used Lands The report notes that the County's Land Use and Open Space Plan includes a trail along the South Fork Rivanna River (the Rivanna River Greenbelt), but it has not been specifically located nor has land been purchased for it, so it is not subject to a Section 4(f) review. In fact, the County has included sections of the Greenbelt in a recent TEA-21 Enhancement Grant application, excluding areas affected by the bypass. The report also discusses the Whitewood Park, and the fact that the County changed its plans for a new elementary school in order to protect this park. It should be noted that the County spent an additional $1 million to relocate the planned school (as noted in the letter from the Parks and Recreation Director), and placed a conservation easement on Whitewood Park. The County made an additional sacrifice to protect this park by dropping long-held plans for an extension to Greenbrier Drive which would have created a local connecting street to alleviate congestion on Hydraulic Road, but which would have taken the park. The County transferred the unspent funds from the Greenbrier Drive project to financially support the environmental assessment for the northern half of the Meadow Creek Parkway, the importance of which-is discussed in the opening section of these comments. All of these actions indicate the importance the County places on the limited trail and park space in this heavily developed area. The report notes that Ivy Creek Natural Area is an area available for walking, but not for jogging, which is accurate. The Parks Director pointed out that this park is becoming so heavily used that the County may need to consider limiting its usage further. This places even greater importance on the school trail system as a unique community resource. This section should note the scarcity of quiet, natural trails, especially for jogging, and the important sacrifices the County has made to protect these resources. As the Parks Director stated in his closing remarks: "The bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails system and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains .... Loss of the trails at the County School Complex would negate much of What the County gained with its investment and effort to preserve a similar area at Whitewood Park." Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 4(i0 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 6 Actions C7-O The report should document the scarcity of quiet, natural trails in this area, including the fact that the Ivy Creek Natural Area is not open to joggers and is already overused. C7-2) The report should document the considerable sacrifices the County has made to protect the natural areas in this part of the community, including spending a million additional dollars to locate Agnor-Hurt school away from Whitewood Park and dropping long-established plans for Greenbrier Drive Extension in order to avoid impacting the park. Sections C8, Applicable Clauses: No Comments Section C9, Unusual Characteristics: This section states the trail has no unusual characteristics, apparently drawing upon previous descriptions of the trail as a wooded natural area. However, it is important to realize that the presence of a simple, wooded natural area is in fact unusual within this highly developed urban center. It is this very quality of quiet simplicity which makes this trail system such an important, irreplacable part of the County's open space and park resources. We note again the importance of these trails to school science classes as the only facility which allows for frequent and spontaneous trips outside to study nature (see section C6). Actions: C9-0 The report should be revised to note that the very simplicity and quiet natural setting of this trail is quite an unusual characteristic in this heavily developed area. See also C6-2. Section CI0: Impacts on Trail Displacement: No Comment. Noise Levels and Air Quality: The MPO has twice taken exception to the accuracy of the noise study conducted for this project and requested a revised analysis, which VDOT has refused to conduct. Concerns included issues such as the limited number and placement of receptors; the possible undercounting offorecastednumbers of vehicles; broad generalizations instead of more specific factors used in the formulas to calculate impacts; and the use of average hourly noise rates without accounting for the frequent spikes of much higher noise levels caused by single tracks, especially when braking and accelerating. According to the data based on the existing analysis, which the MPO thinks may be underestimating the impacts, the people using this trail'would experience noise levels of up to 68 decibels. This is nearly Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 4(1) Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 7 equivalent to the sound of a constantly nmning vacuum cleaner, compared to an existing noise level of 48 decibels, which is equivalent to the sound of a quiet conversation at home or in a library. In addition to this constant level of increased noise, which is an hourly average, the analysis conducted by VDOT for the Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee of the noise generated by a single truck showed that there would be bursts of noise from each passing truck at an additional 13 to 14 decibel levels. Given the anticipated attractiveness of the bypass to trucks, this means the noise would quite frequently approach 82 dBa. This compares to the sound of a freight train moving at 15 miles per hour, and possibly can cause hearing damage. (See Attachment C: Noise Levels in Decibels). This amount of noise would render the trail useless for science classes, since students would not be able to hear each other or the teacher. It would also eliminate the area's value as one of the rare quiet places in which area residents can walk, jog, and enjoy the woods, and could make it difficult for children to hear coaches, referees, and physical education teachers during practices and games on the nearby playing fields. The opening of the report points out (page 2) the critical importance of this project as a link in the state's and nation's arterial system, stating that every other metropolitan area along US 29 has, or soon will have, a bypass for moving people and goods throughout the corridor. This raises the question of whether the amount of trucks forecasted to be using this road is accurate. A technical report from the Route 29 Corridor Study Charlottesville-Warrenton showed that, given a series of facility upgrades such as limited access bypasses, the number of vehicles on US 29 in the Charlottesville area diverted fi'om I-81 and 1-95 could add as many as 19,000 more vehicles per day to the bypass, many of which would be tracks. This scenario, by the way, was not favored by local officials who called for managing congestion through access management rather than more bypasses and expanded road capacity. This study was done after the FEIS for the bypass was complete. Therefore, these increased vehicle estimates have never been considered in the noise or air quality analyses for this road. Yet, if plans continue as they appear to be moving for this corridor, it is quite likely this area will see such an increase. The report should analyze and identify the impacts of the apparently strong possibility of greater numbers of tracks, as identified in the Route 29 Charlottesville- Warrenton Corridor Study, on noise and air quality. · In any case, the prevailing westerly winds will mean that fumes from bypass vehicles will continually affect the entire school area, including not only the trails but also the playing fields. The report should investigate more clearly the actual air quality impacts that will be felt by children and adults running, walking, and playing on the fields and trails. · Overall, the evaluation of air and noise impacts fails to recognize that not only is this trail being impacted, its setting is being fundamentally changed. This area provides a series of recreational trails supporting a variety of uses (nature walks, jogging, and school education and athletic uses) in a natural setting within easy access of the most densely populated areas of the County. The significant noise and visual impacts, and likely potential air quality impacts, would greatly change the character and quality Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 409 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 8 of the environment. The County will essentially lose the only multi-use trail system within an undisturbed natural setting near this densely populated area. The report clearly states that these noise increases exceed federal noise abatement criterion, but quickly adds that no noise mitigation measures will be cost effective; therefore, none will be included. Given the importance of quiet for the character and use of this trail and the surrounding district park, the FHWA should consider that this alternative constructively uses this trail and should initiate a review of the prudence and feasibility of all possible alternatives. Actions: CI O-1) The report should include the noise impacts of frequently passing trucks, which create a burst of sound 13 to 14 decibels higher than the ambient level. C10-2) The report should include an analysis of the apparently strong possibility that this road will attract a much higher number of trucks than forecasted in the FEIS, based on its opening remarks about the importance of this highway in the state and national system and the projections of potential increased truck traffic in the US 29 Charlottesville-Warrenton Corridor Study. C10-3) Because the nOise and air impacts would ruin the quiet, natural setting of the area under study, regardless of any modifications to the highway design, FHF/A should consider this alternative constructively, as well as directly, uses this property and should initiate a review of the prudence and feasibility of all possible alternatives. CIO (continued) Visual Impacts: The report states "The project would change the character of the view from the trail by introducing a four-lane freeway where woods and streams are currently present." It suggests a landscaping plan which, over the course of years, would screen the road from view, at least to an extent. But given the points made above about the rare resource offered by this trail as an undeveloped wooded area in the middle of an urban center, the concept of replacing woods and streams with a freeway presents an unacceptable visual impact. No amount of landscaping could replicate the trail's natural beauty and its usefulness as a resource for school science classes. Actions: C10-4) Because of the visual impacts, which cannot be mitigated by landscaping, this alternative is not compliant with Section 409 regulations; I/DOT and FHWA should conduct a rigorous review of the prudence and feasibility of other alternatives. Cll. Avoidance Alternatives Previous Alternatives: The report notes that only Alternative 10 adequately satisfied the identified transportation needs. This is not accurate. Several of the other alternatives also met the transportation Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of Trail at douett School, April 21, 1999 Page 9 needs. The selection of Alternative 10, to the best of our understanding, was based on cost, traffic, and impacts to the watershed. At the time, it was believed that it had the least impact of the western alternatives on the watershed, although this was before the northern terminus was moved further north causing the road to cross the river and pass much closer to the reservoir. No EIS (only an Environmental Assessment) was completed for this change, so a complete comparison of watershed impacts has never been conducted. Similarly, no comparison of alternatives based on Section 4(f) impacts was ever conducted, although this is the third such impact found since the FEIS for which the Alternative 10 location is now being redesigned. In the original FEIS, the near-eastern alternatives were as attractive to traffic as Alternative 10, but were more expensive because of the mountainous terrain, and/or had 4(f) impacts. Alternative 9 (the Expressway) also carried traffic adequately, and was less expensive than Alternative 10 since it incorporated the Base Case as part of its construction. The US Department of the Interior and Environmental Protection Agency favored Alternative 9. The Albemarle County Attorney asserts in his comments upon this Section 4(0 Evaluation that Alternative 10 was not lawfully selected in compliance with Section 4(f) regulations (see Attachment E, Albemarle County Comments and Attachment F, Letter from Deborah Murray, Southern Environmental Law Center). The Base Case with grade-separated interchanges was actually the best solution for improving traffic on US 29, and was recommended to be constructed first, after which an evaluation would be conducted to see if Alternative 10 was still needed. The Commitment by the City, County, MPO, and VDOT to follow this sequencing, which also included development of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 to Route 29 before final consideration of the need for the Route 29 bypass, was a maj.or factor in the County's and MPO's acceptance of the Alternative 10 location, and the subsequent sequencing change is a major issue in the MPO's resolution withholding approval of federal funds for bypass construction. In sum, the number of environmental and Section 4(f) impacts of the Altemative 10 location, the estimated costs to mitigate them, and the recommended project sequencing have changed to such a degree that the FEIS alternatives analysis should no longer be considered valid. Actions: C11-1) The report should document the reasons other alternatives were not deemed feasible orprudent. C11-2) Given the number of critical changes to the known environmental and Section 4(0 impacts and the sequencing included with the Alternative 10 proposal, the FEIS alternatives analysis should no longer be considered valid. Cll (continued) Modifications to CUrrent Design: None of the alternatives provided in this evaluation adequately addresses the impacts to the trail and open space area. The construction of the bypass in a violent intrusion into a quiet, mostly undeveloped area, and will drastically change the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 4(.0 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 10 character and the quality of the remaining natural environment. The visual, noise, and air pollution impacts will be significant regardless of which alternative is selected. VDOT and FHWA should re- examine the prudence and feasibility of all possible alternatives. Of the five options shown, Alternatives A and B are not likely to succeed because they move onto the Schlesinger (Hafner) property which is eligible for the national historic register. The MPO worked very hard several years ago to try to have the alignment shifted into a ravine on the corner of this property which would make the road far less intrusive to both the historic parcel and the adjacent community of Montvue. Even given this proposal's lesser overall impacts on the historic property, the request to revise the historic area boundaries or allow use of the corner of the parcel was rejected by the Department of Historic Resources. It is very unlikely that an effort to do so in order to avoid the school trail system would be any more successful. If VDOT does choose to pursue either of these options, the MPO would request that the design include the proposal made several years ago for the alignment to be lowered into the ravine between the designated historic area and Montvue. Alternative E is not feasible because it would take a school, which is not acceptable to the County. Alternatives C (moving the highway away fi:om the trail and bridging it where necessary) and D (simply bridging over the trail) appear to be more feasible fi:om an engineering standpoint. However, their costs are rather astonishing, ranging from nearly $9 million for Alternative D to almost $20 million for Alternative A. They do not include the additional costs of building a new section of trail (to avoid severing it into two dead-ended halves) and landscaping. However, although these solutions address the problem from an engineering standpoint, they do not protect the natural environment of the trail system from irreparable damage, so they cannot be considered feasible in terms of the Section 4(f) regulation. The measures to avoid harm suggested in the section after "Constructive Use" comprise essentially another alternative, and should be listed in this section. They cannot be used in conjunction with any of the above alternatives. See the comments below on these measures. Actions: i C11-3) None of the proposed alternatives modifying the existing alignment, including the measures to avoid harm, meet the Section 409 regulation to protect this resource. All would result in such significant physical disruption and noise, visual, and air quality impacts that the trail and its surrounding environment will be sharply and permanently rendered unusable for their currentpurposes as quiet natural areas for recreation and learning. VDOT and FHWA should investigate the prudence and feasibility of all possible alternatives. Cll (continued) Constructive Use: The MPO strongly disagrees with the following statements in the report: Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 400 Evaluation of Trail at douett School, April 2l_, !999 Page 1! Noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail because serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there. The recreational uses of walking and jogging and the school's use of the trail for cross country training [no mention is made of its use for school science classes] are not dependent on low noise conditions (as, for example, an amphitheater or a campground would be). Likewise, these alternatives would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particularly spectacular views or unusual natural or man-made features. In fact, it is clear that the noise, air quality, and aesthetic impacts will irreparably damage the trail and its natural setting, and that a finding of constructive use is warranted. As noted in several other sections of these comments, this trail is one of only two natural areas open to the public for running in this heavily developed urban area. Its very simplicity and natural state, which are pointed out as features which make it appear rather unremarkable in the above comments, are in fact the features which make a rare resource that will be directly and constructively used by the proposed bypass. The statement which makes the trail appear to be less noise sensitive than an amphitheater or a campground is simply erroneous. The section 4(f) regulation specifically gives examples of noise- sensitive facilities including amphitheaters, campgrounds, and "enjoyment of an urban parks where serenity and quiet are significant attributes." (23 C.F.R. section 771.135(p) (4) (I)). The County District Park in which this trail system is located clearly fits within that definition. The regulations regarding constructive use also state that it may occur when the proximity of a proposed road substantially impairs aesthetic features "where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value of the resource." Examples of substantial impairment to visual or esthetic qualities would be the location of a proposed transportation facility in such proximity that it obstructs or eliminates the primary views of an architecturally significant historical building, or substantially detracts from the setting ora park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part due to its setting." The principal element of the value of this park complex, particularly the trail system, is its quietness and natural beauty, which would be irreparably damaged by the proposed bypass. The federal regulation also notes that a finding of constructive use is related to whether or not the project exceeds federal noise impact criteria. The draft evaluation acknowledges that the project does, indeed, exceed those criteria (see comments C10, 1-3, Noise Impacts). It simply goes on to state that mitigation is not cost effective. This acknowledgment and the lack of a plan for mitigation make it clear that a finding of constructive use is warranted. Actions: C11-4) A finding of direct and constructive use is warranted. FHgrA and VDOT should proceed with examining all possible alternatives f or prUdence and feasibility. Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 409 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, 1999 Page 12 Section C12: Measures to Minimize Harm: The first strategy proposed is a relocation of the severed portion of the trail along the stream, which would be necessary given Alternative C or D, or the bridge option proposed as the second strategy below. The report should note that this would not be necessary if Alternatives A, B, or E were used. The relocated portion of the trail would be on a very steep slope. This would make it difficult and possibly too dangerous to be considered as an adequate physical substitute for the existing section. The landscaping plan calls for gradually filling in the steep wall of fill dirt under which the stream would be buffed in a culvert. Trail users would be walking right alongside this embankment, looking up at the underside ora bridge. No amount of landscaping can mm this into a substitute for the current experience of walking in quiet woods along a stream. The bridges proposed as a third measure to avoid harm are really a variation of Alternative D, substituting open space under a bridge for some of the large embankment and covered stream. However, it would not be possible, as the report notes, for the open bridges to completely span the trail. The trail would still be cut into two dead ends which ran into a large wail of fill dirt. It does not seem to offer significantly more benefits than Alternative D. The report should include descriptions of these measures in the appropriate section on Alternatives, and include the bridges as a variation of Alternative D. This would make the comparison and evaluation of their effects clearer. Actions: C12-O The proposed landscaping plan is a poor substitute for the existing woods and stream. This is not an adequate measure to mitigate the visual and physical intrusions onto the natural environment. C12-2) The report should clarify that the bridge alternatives are really a variation of Alternative D, and are not measures which could be employed in conjunction with any of the alternatives. D. COORDINATION We are very concerned about the fact that the trail's presence was discovered only because ora lawsuit. The County staff notes the following in their comments: The impact of the bypass to all the schools (and school facilities) in the corridor has been an issue with the County. These Wails are located on school property and there is a reliance on the part of the County that the project designers will take into account facilities found on properties during field work related to project design. These trails have been constructed (and modified and upgraded) mostly with volunteer work over a long period of time as the need and oppommity arose. Trail development post-dated any plan development of the schools, so there is very little information in the form of surveyed plans or plats that accurately depict the trail location. The impact to trails was not clear to the County until those very familiar with the trail location began to realize that bypass location and trail locations were in significant conflict. Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Comments on Draft Section 409 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett School, April 21, !999 Page 13 Identification of the trails earlier on the bypass design drawings would have brought this issue to the surface sooner. It would be easy for a professional trained to look for environmental facilities to see this trail when walking along the proposed bypass's course. In addition, the County has always been clear that school recreation areas also serve as public parks (and thus would qualify for Section 4(f) evaluation). Furthermore, the Albemarle County Attorney points out in his comments (Attachment E) that VDOT Environmental staff did, in fact, raise questions about the need to evaluate possible Section 4(0 impacts on the playing fields at Agnor-Hurt School during the 1993 environmental assessment of proposed modifications to Alternative 10, but they were not acted upon by VDOT. Had a Section 4(f) analysis been conducted at that time, as it should have been, the analysis of prudence and feasibility now being called for could have been conducted before significant expenditures of time and money were made on design and purchase of right of way. Given the stated importance, expense, and community impacts of this project, VDOT should be more intimately familiar with such features, and should proceed with greater attention to the laws protecting them. Actions: D -1) VDOT should re-assess its inventory and make every effort to ensure it has examined all the possible Section 4(20 impacts associated with all alternatives which address the purpose and need for this project. Attachments Ao B. C. D. Section of CATS Plan IV[PO TIP Resolution Noise Levels in Decibels Comments from MPO Route 29 Bypass Design Advisory Committee Members Ann Rooker, Milton Moore, Joe Cragwall, and Robert Garland. Statement from Larry Davis, Albemarle County Attorney Statement from Deborah Murray, Southern Environmental Law Center Statement from George Lade, Charlottesville Albemarle Transportation Coalition J. Carlto~ Courter, I11 Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of-VIRGINIA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Consumer Protection Office of Plant & Pest Services PO Box 1163, Richmond. Virginia 23218 Phone: 804/786-3515 · Fax: 804/371-7793 · Heating Impaireek 800/828-1120 http://www.state.va.usl~vdaea/vdaes.htm February 26, 1999 Mr. Earl Robb Environmental Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 RE: Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School Dear Mr. Robb: We have reviewed the Section 4(f) Evaluation for a trail at Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County, Virginia. Based on information in our database, we do not anticipate the project will have any adverse impacts as it relates to VDACS' responsibilities for the preservation of agricultural lands and the protection of listed endangered or threatened plant and insect species. Thank you for the oppommity to commem on the Section 4(f) Evaluation and if you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (804)786-3515. Sincerely, .... Endangered Species Coordinator NVIRONMENTAL DIV. James S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretaxy of Natural Resources 'OMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mailing address: P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, Virginia 23240 Fax (804) 698-4500 TDD (804) 698-4021 http://www.deq.state.va, us Dennis H. Treaty Director (804) 6984000 1-800-592-5482 March 5, 1999 Mr. J. Mark Witkofski Environmental Planner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Route 29 Bypass - Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation on the Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School, Albemarle County. Dear Mr. Witkofski: The Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Environmental Impact Review, does not have any comments regarding the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation on the Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County. A copy of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation will be sent to Albemarle County, Office of Engineering and Public Works, who has not yet received a copy. Thank you for the opportunity to review this evaluation. Sincerely, Gra~n'~c~ EIR Coordinator cc with copy of evaluation David Hirschman,.Albemarle Couhty An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat Jam~s S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodl6y, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Marine Resources Commission 2600 Washington Avenue P.O. Box 756 Newport News, VTrginia 23607-0756 William A. Pruilm Commissioner March 5, 1999 Mr. Earl T. Robb Environmental Administrator Virginia Departmem of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-193 9 RE: Section 4(0 Evaluation Route 29 Bypass Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School Dear Mr. Robb: In response to your request for our review of the above-referenced Section 4(f) Evaluation, and on behalf of Robert W. Grabb, I would like to offer the following comments. The Marine Resources Commission's jurisdiction over this project is limited to road crossings and associated impacts to State-owned submerged lands along the proposed alignment. While it appears that the roadway will cross Ivy Creek, the Commission will not require a permit for this impact unless the creek drains an area greater than 5 square miles upstream or possesses a mean annual flow rate greater than 5 cubic feet per second. We will, however, need to issue a permit for the proposed crossing of the South Fork Rivanna River associated with the project. Accordingly, we have no formal comments relative of the impacts to the trail itself. Thank you for the opportunity to review the evaluation. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (757) 247-8032. oodward ~" Environmental Engineer An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat Telephone (757) 247-2200 (757) 247-2292 V/TDD Information and Emergency Hotline 1-800-541-4646 V/TDD Secretary of Natural Resources COMMON EALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 203 Governor Street, Suite 326 TDD (804) 786-2121 Richmond, Virginia 23219-2010 (804) 786-2556 FAX (804) 371-7899 .MEMORANDUM David G. Bricldey Director DATE: March 10, 1999 TO: l~r~. Ear! R, obb, Xfirginia Department of Transportation FROM: J~cting Planning Bureau Manager REFERENCE: Route 29 Bvoass, Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School, Section 4(f) Evaluation, Xlbemarle County PROJECT: State No.: 6029-002-F22, PE101, Federal No.: NH-037 (130) Comments are provided herein on the above referenced project. DMSION OF NATURAL FIERITAGE The Department of_Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has. s. earched its Biologigal an,d Co.n. se~ation. Dat.a ~yste.m (BCD_) for qqcurrences of natural lae.riLage .reso.urcpsBom ~e area outlined on the submttted m.ap. Natural. heritage, resom', ecs are dean_eft as the h .apitat otr~e., threaten.ed,_ or endgn, g.ere~d plant and ammal species, umque or exemplary natural commumues, and significant geologlc tOrmaUons. BCD documents, the presen, ce of the Lames spinym, ussel (Plqu. robe, ma.colli.~,, ~G1/S I~.E/LE) in Ivy Creek near the p~:oject loc.ation~_ The James sp'.mym~usset is epaequ, c..to t. ne Jam.es rover, watershed and occurs m a v.anety o.f su0st~ ~ata ranggn, g ~rg_m' .s~ma~ar~a sm ~ ~mjxf~.~ to gr~v~e.~ ana sand mixed with rabble and m a van.cry ot-llow regtmes LC.larlce ~: N,eve, s,~! ~sq; ~o~xe. ? ~eves., 199.4). It is now restrietea to small headwater streams or'this watersnco [rqeves, lyui). ~nreats to ..t~is species include competition with the.exotic .c..13m (Cor. bicula, flurnihea), erosion an, . sedifn.. ~tion from l_oggin~, road construcaon, and hvestoclc gra~ng, sewage ~luent, aaa water quality degradation 0q-~veg, 1991). Please note that the James soinvmussel is currently classified as en ,d~n.4gered bX th? U,nit~.ed, States Fish and ~fldlife Service Ct4.SF~..S) and the Vk~ihia Departme.m 9I.' ~.C~9m_e.~a .u2u~ anq z. jsn,en,es, s,iF (VDGIF). Any changes ih tl3e alighment should'be coo~dihatexJ .wi~ me u.,~/~w ,~,ana. m~e ysotx . In_addi.tion~ any meamres se. le.~ecl t9 .minimize.or avoin impa.~, s to me ~ s, nou~ta no, t m~..ner attect the James spihymussel througla ihcreasecl erosion or ~exlimentafion to xvy creetc or its tributaries. .Any absence of .data may ' .n~i.'c~.e that the project _area has not ~..~rv..eyed,.rather tha¢.. ~t~ll~~ the area lacks other natural rteritage resources. New. and UlXl.at. ea.inf6' .mm~on is. con. qnuan, y .~a~a to BCD. Please contact DCR for ..ap. update on this natural heritage mtormatton Lt a amount of time passes before it is ufilizecl. DMSION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION The V.irgi~i.'a Department of Transoortation is required to adhere to the state erosion ap.d sediment control gad stormwater manageme~ requirements as contained in their_.anpu, al spe~ci~j~uons, approved.by the Depa, iment of Conservation and Recreation, Division ot ~oil ana water Conservatton. . An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat DMSION OF PLANNING AND RECREATION RESOURCES The proposed l~rgject is n.o.t, anticipated to have any adverse impacts on exist.lng or planne, d _recreational facilities ~o.r will it imp.aq any streams on the National Park Service Nat~onwiae tnventory, Final List of Rivers, potenUa~ :Sterne Rivers or existing or potential State Scenic Byways. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. /saw William Hester, USFWS Rav Femald, VDGIF Rebecca Wadja, VDG[F Literature Cited Clarke, A.H. and R.J. Neves. 1984. Stares survey of the James River spmvmussel, Cant. hyr~a collina, in the James River, Virginia. Unpublished.report on file with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massacl~usetts. Hove, M.C. and R_J. Neves. ,,1.994,~,Life history of the endan~:ered James sff_m .yga. ussel Pleurobema cotlina [t~onrad, 1837). AmericanMalacologicaI Bulletin 11:29-40. Neves, R.J. 1991. James sp. mvmussel. In Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Sypa, gosiun)~. K.'Tenvilliger ed. The McDon~d and Woodward Publis~mg Company, Blacr, sourg, virginia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Definitioh of Abbreviations Used in Natural Heritage Resource Lists Natural Heritage Ranks The follow/rig ranks are.used by the Virginia Depamnent of Con.smwmion and Recreation to set protection priorities for natural heritage resources. Natural Heritage Resources, or '2q'I-IR's," are rare plant and animal species, rare and exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic features. The pr/mary criterion for ranking Ni-~'s is the number of populations or oocm'rences, i.e. the number of known dis~ct localities. ALso of great importance is the number of individuals in exist~ce at each locality or, ifa highly mobile organism (e.g., sea V.n-ttes, many birds, and butter/lies), the total number of individuals. Other considerations may include the quality of the occu~u-eaces, the number of protected occurrences, and threats; however, the emphasis remains on the number ofl:opulations or occmmuces so that ranks will be an index of known biolog/cal rarity. SI Exlremety rare and critic~lly imperiled, w/th 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals in Virgifnia; or because of some factor(s) making it estx~ialIy vulnerable to extirpation in Virginia. S2 Very rare and hnpeffied, w/th 6 to 20 occm~euces or few remairfing individuals in Vir$1,~a; or because of some factor(s) making it vuinerable to extirpation in Virg/nia. S3 Rare :o uncommon in Virg/ma with between 20 and I00 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences if found to be common or abundant at some of these locations; may be somewhat vuln~le to extirpation in V/r~nia. S4 Common and apparently secure, w/th more than I00 occurrence; may have fewer ~ccurrences w/th numerous large populations. Very common and demonstrably secure in V~a. Historically known from Virgirfia, but not verified for an extended per/cd, u.~ally > 15 years. Status uncertain, often became of low search effort or cryptic nature of the element Apparently extirpated from Virg/nia. Breeding stat'tis of an animal within V/l'gini~ Non-breeding status within the state. Usually applied to winter resident species. $$ SH SU SX Global rankz are similar, but re/er to a species' rarity throughout its total range. Global rankn are demoted with a followed by a character. Note that G_~ and. ~lg are no~ meal and (~X means appmentl¥ ~tinct. A "Q" in a rink indicates that a tmxonom/c quem/on conca~g that M~-~zies ex/~s, l~an~-~ for subspedes ar~ denoted with a ~r". The global and state r~k-~ combined (e.g. G2/$ I) give an instant grasp ora species' known mr/ry. These ran/c.~ should not be interfered as Federal Leeal Status The Division of NamraI Heritage ~ the standard abbreviations for Federal enda-germent developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of E~rlangered Species and I-labitat C~on. Sm~e Legal Stares The Div/sion ofbra:__~-al Heritage uses ~ abbrev/ations for State endangea'ment LE - Listed Endangered LT - Listed Thr~__t _~ed SC - Special Conc~iI - m,~imals that merlt special concern according to VD(}]]: (not a r~.tIamry car~gor~) For information on the laws pert~inlng to threatened or endangered species, contact:. U.S. Fish and V~/ldlife Service for all FEDERALLY 1/sted speciez V' ~zr~nia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Serv/ces Phnt l~rotectlon Bx~reau for STATE 1/sted pianos and Virg~.ia Depar~ent of Crame and Inland F/sheries for ali other STATE 1/sted a.iromls James S. Gilmore, H Governor John Paul Woodley, Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 217 Governor Street, 3rd Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 786-7951 http://www.state.va.us/~dcr/vaher.html TDD (804) 786-2121 Earl T. Robb Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 Re: Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School, 6029-002-F22,PE101 FAX (804) 371-2674 David G. Brickley Director March 11, 1999 ~ '~: Received '... SeCtio~nt~t Dear Mr. Robb; The Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has searched its Biological and Conservation Data System (BCD) for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. B CD documents the presence of the James spinymussel (PIeurobema collina, G 1/S 1/LE/LE) in Ivy Creek near the project location. The James spinymussel is endemic to the James River watershed and occurs in a variety of substrata ranging from sand and silt mixtures to gravel and sand mixed with rabble and in a variety of flow regimes (Clarke & Neves, 1984; Hove & Neves, 1994). It is now restricted to small headwater streams of this watershed (Neves, 1991). Threats to this species include competition with the exotic elam (Corbiculafluminea), erosion and sedimentation from logging, road construction, and livestock grazing, sewage effluent, and water quality degradation (Neves, 1991). Please note that the James spinymussel is currently classified as endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Any changes in the alignment should be coordinated with the USFWS and the VDGIF. In addition, any measures selected to minimize or avoid impacts to the trail should not further affect the James spinymussel through increased erosion or sedimentation to Ivy Creek or its tributaries. Any absence of data may indicate that the project area has not been surveyed, rather than confn'm that the area lacks other natural heritage resources. New and updated information is continually added to BCD. Please contact DCR for an update on this natural heritage information ifa significant amount of time passes before it is utilized. An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Lesa Berlinghoff Project Review Coordinator CC: William Hester, USFWS Ray Femald, VDGIF Rebecca Wadja, VDGIF Literature Cited Clarke, A.H. and R.J. Neves. 1984. Status survey of the James River spinymussel, Canthyria collina, in the James River, Virginia. Unpublished report on file with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts. Hove, M.C. and R.J. Neves. 1994. Life history of the endangered James spinymussel Pleurobema collina (Conrad, 1837). American Malacological Bulletin 11:29-40. Neves, R.J. 1991. James spinymussel. In Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. K. Terwilliger ed. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. ENVIRO[. MEN AL DIV. James S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VJSR( INIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mailing address: P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, Virginia 23240 Fax (804) 6984500 TDD (804) 6984021 http://www, deq.state.va, us March 16, 1999 Dennis H. Trcacy Director (8O4) 6984O00 1-800-592-$482 Mr. J. Mark Wittkofski Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 RE: Rt. 29 Bypass Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School Dear Mr.'Wittkofski: We have reviewed your request for comments concerning the Section 4(f) Evaluation for the trail located at Jack Jouett Middle School in Albemarle County, Virginia. We have no comment on the Section 4(f) impacts. We do continue to encourage the avoidance, minimization and mitigation of water quality impacts associated with the Rt. 29 Bypass project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (804) 698-4105. Sincerely, Tracey E. Harmon Environmental Engineer Office of Permit Support cc: File An Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat ENVIRONI {ENiAL DIV. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EASTBROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219-1939 February 18 1999 Route 29 Bypass Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School Section 4(0 Evaluation Federal No. NH-037(130) State No. 6029-002-F22,PE101 Albemarle County, Virginia ~!i!~j' OFFICE OF'rilE STATE HEALTH CO~,,~ EARL T. ROBB ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR Dr. Robert B Strobe State Health Comm'ssioner Virginia Department of Health 1500 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Dr. Strobe: Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the Section 4(f) Evaluation for a trail located at Jack Jouett Middle Scholl in Albemarle County. The Route 29 Bypass under the current design would use a portion of this trail. The presence of this trail was only recently brought to the attention of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) after years of coordination and environmental and design work. When the location of the trail was brought to our attention, the FHWA reviewed the applicability of Section 4(f) to the trail and asked VDOT to coordinate with the Albemarle County to determine its significance as a recreational resource. Based on the results of this coordination, FHWA concluded that the trail represented a Section 4(0 resource. Your timely and expeditious review of this Section 4(f) Evaluation is respectively requested. Please provide us with any comments that you might have within the 45-day review pedod, which will expire, on or about Apdl 19, 1999. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. J. Mark Wittkofski at (804) 371-6867. By: Sincerely, Ead T. Robb Environmental Administrator O. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING James S. Gilmore, III Governor John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH of VIR( INIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mailing address: P.O. Box 10009, Richmond, Virginia 23240 Fax (804) 698-4500 TDD (804) 698-4021 http://www.deq.stat¢.va, us ODA- 105-99. Dennis H. Treaty Director (8O4) 698-4000 1-800-592-5482 April 12, 1999 Mr. Earl T. Robb Environmental Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 Ronte 29 Bypass, Trail at Jack Middle School, Section 4(f) Evaluation, State No. 6029- 002-F22,PE 101 Dear Mr. Robb: This is in response to your February 18, 1999 letter to Ms. Dona Huang requesting comments on the Route 29 Bypass, Trail at Jack Middle School, Section 4(f) Evaluation, State No. 6029-002-F22, PE101. The Office of Air Data Analysis has reviewed the draft Section 4(f) evaluation and finds that the comments previously submitted for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and those submitted through the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) continue to apply. The project site is located in an attainment area. The state air pollution regulations applicable to the construction of this project, or to any of its alternatives, are: fugitive dust and emission control (9 VAC 5-50-60 through 120) and open burning restrictions (9 VAC 540-5600 through 5645). Sincerely, Thomas R. Ballou Technical Services Administrator Office of Air Data Analysis ,~n Agency of the Natural Resources Secretariat -APR,-28'99(WED} 13:27 VDOT ENVIRONMENTAL TEL:804 786 7401 ~"~1HIdY RDMIN$ Fax:804-281-510! Apr 28 '99 11:~ Mm P, 003 United States Department'of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRL~Y Washtugron, D.C. ~ F~%.991147 1999 m m Dear Mr. Fonseca-Merdnez; This is in response to die request for the Depa.,tment of the Interior's coh~ents on the Draft Section &(f) l~valuation for ',he Trail az Jack Jouett Middle School, Roue 29 Bypass, Albemarle Coimty, virginia: Section 4(0 Evaluation Comments We cannot at this time concur that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives m .the .proposed alignment which would impact the Trail behind the Jack Jouett Middle School. This trail appears to have very heavy public recreation dsc from bodi the school-a~ed popuhfion as well as dis public in general. It has been id~fified by tile Coumy u a major recreation resoun:e which of-f~r~ passive recreation in a natural sctl/ng to matdgnts of a rapidly urbaniz/n§ pan of Albermarl~ County. Th~ November 3, 1998, letter from dm Parks and Recreation Department o.f the County of Albemarle . indicaies thai the proposed lFoje..ct w..o..uld eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the .cxislin& '. ~ ry~em, and will greatly reduce ~, atWa~ven~s of what remains, Therefore, we ti~lieve ~ furdi~ analysis, in cooperation and coordin~on wi~ the Parks and Recreation Deparun~nt, should be ma~e in ~earch of avotdanc~ alternatives which would employ grade sepmted inter~hanges and/or ali?merit shifts to the We,s~ of th~ ctlrt~t aligtlmellt Although there may be some danger of impaciug other 4(t') properties if a western alignment were used, wc bclicve that the impacts on these ocher properties can be more easily and appropriately rnitigateg through us~ of retaining walls for cuts or fills, for example, than can thc cuxrc~ impacts on the Trail a~ Jack Iouett Middle School. We s=ongly recommend thai the Final Section 4(0 Evaluation present a broader range of alcernati¥ .es and mitigation measures than is available in this draft. Endangered Species Act Comments The U,S. Nisb and WildUfe Service (Ir~'S) completed formal consultation on Rout~ 29 ',~ith submission of a biological opinion to the Federal Hi£hwal~ Administration (FI-IWA) date~l ~un,, 5, I~99. Tt~ hiolm54oai opinion regarded potential impacts of the project orr the J~m~ River spinymusscl (Plourobema colllna). APR,-28' 99(WED) 13:28 VDOT ENVIRONMENTAL FEB HWY aDM!N$ Fax:804-281-5101 TEL:804 786 7401 gpr 28 '99 11:~'5 P.O$ P, 004 Chan~es to the ali~m'~nc of Rour~ 29, V~a D~p~n~ of T~spo~fien proje~ number 6029~2- ~2-PE101, ~ ~e vic~i~ of I~ C~k ~d its ~bu~es ~y ~ m-~fiafion ~ fo~ cons~on wi~ ~e ~S ~ ~ pwj~t as r~ by S~don 7~) of the En~ge~ ~peci~ Act. The biolo~ic~j opinion dated June 5. 1998, authorized incidenlil t~e of the Sam~s River spinymussel ~ssociamd with the construction of Route 29 in Albermarle Count~, Viriiaia, As izquit'ed by 50 CFR 402,16, re-{nRiaflon of formal consultation by th~ FHWA with the I=W$ is required if: (1) the amount o~ extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information revsals effects of r. he action that may impact limed specie~ or critical habira~ in a manner or m an ~x~emt not considered in the opiuion; (3) ~he action is subsequ~mtly modif'md in a manner tha~ causes an efff¢ct ~o the listed spcciei or critical habita~ tha~ was not considered in ~ opillioa; or (4) a new species is littet or critical habim~ designated r. hai may be affected by the action. Dependin§ on which alternative is selected by th~ FItWA, th~ modified consu'uc~io~ of Route :19 may affect the ~anzs River spinymussel, Once ~. Prcfet'~d Aliern~ivo is sclecmd, the FttWA should notify the la~$ in wri~i~ ~md snbmk an updated biologicel assessmen~ on this project. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Ac~ Commen~s Based on a review of the subject docur~ut, the FWS suppo~ selec~io~ of Almmaflve E a~ ~ho Pr~fen'ecl Alternative for this modified project. Alternative E may resuk in f~w~ potential impacts tn r.h¢ Samos River spinyrnussel than the curr~nt all.merit, Please contact Mr, Willia~ I-Icst~r of the I~,VS at (804) 693-6694, ex~nsio~ 134, if yen have questions or would like additional information. Summar~ Comments The Department of the In~crior docs not concur ~at th~ are no prudent and feasible alternatives to thc proposed Route 29 Bypass project or that ill possible planning has been done to mitigae harm to Section We will provide you with further cormmen~ on the 4(0 aspects oftMs prelect when the Ninal Section 4(0 Evaluation is circuh~ed for public review and comment, ~,"o' appre~taze the oppo~"to l~r~vid~ fl~s~ comments. Sincerely, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, cc: Ms, Pat Mullaney, Dizector, Parks sad Recreagon Department Coun~ of ~~le ~lo~esville. V~ia 22902~596 Southern Environmental Law Center 5 April 1999 J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 201 West Main St., Suite 14 Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065 804-977-4090 Fax 804-977-1483 selcva@selcva.org Re: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION OF THE TRAIL AT JACK JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL Dear Mr. Wittkofski: These comments are submitted for the record by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of The Piedmont Environmental Council and the Sierra Club. We filed a law suit in federal district court on behalf of these groups on 8 January 1998 on the grounds that proceeding with the proposed Bypass would violate both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. One of the section 4(f) violations set forth in-the. complaint concerns FHWA's and VDOT's failure to undertake a 4(f) evaluation of the recreational facilities in the Albemarle County High School complex. The complex consists of three schools: the high school, Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School. The recreational facilities associated with these schools are an important component of the Albemarle County park system and are widely used by the general p,~blic. In response to the complaint that we filed, the FHWA and the Virginia Secretary of Transportation initially denied that the school recreational facilities constituted section 4(f) property. Subsequently, the FHWA reversed its position with respect to the Jack Jouett cross-country trail, conceding that the trail does constitute section 4(f) property and directing VDOT to conduct a section 4(f) analysis. The draft section 4(f) evaluation at issue is completely inadequate and illegal. First, the draft evaluation is legally insufficient because it narrowly considers only the Jack Jouett trail and ignores the other recreational facilities in the ~roHnas Office: 137 East Franklin St., Sui~ 404 · Chapel Hilt, NC 2~14-3628 · 919-967-1450 Deep ~u& Office: The Candler Building · 127 ~achtree Sr., Sui~ 605 * Atlanta, GA 30303-1800 · 404-521-9900 I00% recycled paper school complex that also fall within section 4(f) protection. Second, the proposed bypass will severely impair the use of the trail, contrary to the conclusion in the draft evaluation. Third, the assumption that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed bypass is completely flawed given that the evaluation relies on information that is no longer valid. Finally, the suggested mitigation measures would be completely ineffective in minimizing harm to the Jack Jouett trail. Rather, use of the trail as well as use of the other school recreational facilities will be irreparably and substantially impaired if the proposed Route 29 Bypass is constructed. These points are elaborated below. THE DRAFT EVALUATION IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT IMPROPERLY CONSIDERS ONLY THE JACK JOUETT TRAIL AND COMPLETELY IGNORES ALL OF THE OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOL COMPLEX THAT ALSO FALL WITHIN SECTION 4(f) PROTECTION. The draft 4(f) evaluation looks only at the Jack Jouett trail and ignores the other recreational facilities in the school complex that serve the public as well. These include the jogging and walking trails at Greer Elementary School as well as the athletic playing fields at Greet and Jack Jouett Middle School. Thus, the statement on page 8 of the draft evaluation that information provided by the County indicates that there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project is erroneous. Rather, the County has made clear that all of the recreational facilities in the school complex, including the trails at Greer Elementary School and the school playing fields, constitute a significant community resource. As the Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation stated in a 3 November 1998 letter to the VDOT Project Manager: "The Albemarle High School Complex, which includes Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, is designated a district park on page 49 of the Albemarle County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000. The school playgrounds, fields, and trails at this facility play an important role in meeting the objectives as established in the Community Facilities Plan and they constitute a major resource." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 4. Later in this letter, the Director clearly underscored the significance of all the recreational facilities in the school complex: "The athletic fields, trails, and other outdoor recreational facilities in this most densely populated area of the county are extremely important in meeting our recreational objective and goals. All the facilities at this complex are used extensively." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 8. Thus all of the recreational facilities in the school complex are protected under section (4), and would be substantially impaired as a result of the bypass. The bypass would come within very close proximity to the athletic fields at Jack Jouett Middle School and Greer Elementary School, and thus would adversely affect those facilities in addition to the impacts on the Jack Jouett trail. THE PROPOSED BYPASS WOULD SEVERELY IMPACT THE JACK JOUETT TRAIL AND THE OTHER SECTION 4(f) RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE SCHOOL COMPLEX. As a preliminary matter, I would also note that the draft evaluation implicitly attempts to minimize the importance of the trail by asserting several times in the document that the trail was never mentioned as an issue until recently. Such attempt is completely inappropriate and irrelevant, given FHWA's admission that the trail constitutes section 4(f) property, and thus, by definition, is significant for public recreational use. Moreover, such assertions are disingenuous. The County's documents establish their unequivocal policy that county school recreational facilities are and have been an important component of the County's park and recreational facilities for the public. Moreover, it is important to note that VDOT has yet to finalize the design for the bypass, and the information provided thus far has not been sufficiently clear for the community to determine the exact path of ~he bypass. Finally, the assertion in the draft evaluation that, once the 4(f) issue was brought to their attention through the lawsuit, an investigation was undertaken is self-serving. In fact, after we filed the Complaint in January 1998, FFIWA and VDOT initially denied the allegations in the complaint that the school recreational facilities constitute section 4(f) property. 3 It was only some several months later that the FHWA reversed its position and conceded that the Jack Jouett trail constitutes section 4(f) property. Turning to the assessment of impacts on the trail set forth in the draft evaluation, the drafters erroneously conclude that the impacts of the bypass would be negligible or could be minimized. The draft evaluation concedes, however, that noise levels on the Jack Jouett trail would be substantially increased and would exceed FHWA's noise abatement criterion. Draft at 10. Notwithstanding, the drafters conclude that noise levels would not substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of the trail on the grounds that "serenity is not a significant attribute of the trail for the activities that occur there." Draft at 19. Likewise, the drafters assert that the recreational uses of walking and jogging "are not dependent on low noise conditions (as, for example, an amphitheater or a campground would be)." The drafters alsO conclude that the bypass would not substantially detract from the aesthetics of the trail, asserting that the trail "has no particularly spectacular views of unusual natural or manmade features." Id. Such assertions are completely unfounded. The bypass, with its corresponding increased noise and pollution levels, in fact will severely impact the use and enjoyment of the trail and the other school recreational facilities in the complex. Noise levels all along the trail would be drastically increased above the estimated existing noise level of 48dBA. In addition, the proposed bypass would be located in a generally western direction from the trails. With the prevailing winds coming from the southwest and west directions, the exhaust fumes from traffic would consistently be blowing toward the trails and school playing fields. Moreover, one of the most attractive features of the trails and recreational facilities is the serenity, beauty, and tranquility of the setting, which will be destroyed by the bypass. For example, the trail area beside tributary "K" of the Rivanna River will be covered with fill to a h~ight of 60 feet. This area, which is situated in a narrow valley, is one of the most beautiful spots in Albemarle County with its babbling brook, surrounding forest, and dramatic rock outcroppings. The bypass would thus destroy those attributes of the school recreational facilities that make them attractive to the general public. As the Director of the County Parks and Recreation stated in the November 1998 letter to the VDOT Project Manager: "[T]he bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails' system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness of what remains." 3 November 1998 Letter, Response to Question 12. Further, the Director noted the importance of siting the recreational facilities in a tranquil and wooded setting as follows: "The school complex and a nearby 20 acre parcel known as Whitewood Park are the only park facilities serving this densely populated area." Id., Response to Question 3. He further stated: "Due to the extensive development of the surrounding land, this wooded area and trails are definitely a significant recreation and environmental resource." Id., Response to Question 3. Finally, the assertions in the draft evaluation that the aesthetic impacts are insignificant and that the use of the trails does not depend on low noise conditions are contrary to the FHWA's own section 4(f) regulations. These regulations provide that a constructive use occurs when the projected increase in noise levels attributable to the project interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility of a resource protected by section 4(f). The regulation gives as an example the "enjoyment of an urban park where serenity and quiet are significant attributes." 23 C.F.R. section 771.135(p) (4) (i). Further, the regulation provides that the proximity of the proposed project substantially impairs aesthetic features or attributes of a resource protected by section 4(f), ~where such features or attributes are considered important contributing elements to the value of the resource." Id. § 771.135(p) (4) (ii). The regulation states that substantial visual impairment occurs where the proximity of the project "substantially detracts from the setting of a park or historic site which derives its value in substantial part due to its setting." Id. ~ 771.135(p) (4) (ii). The recreational facilities in the school complex fit precisely within the examples set forth in the regulations. THE ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO PRUDENT AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED BYPASS IS INCORRECT AND UNFOUNDED. Based on the analysis in the 1990 draft EIS and 1993 Final EIS, the draft 4(f) evaluation concludes that the bypass (identified as Alternative 10 in the EIS documents) poses the least harm to section 4(f) properties. This finding in the EIS documents was certainly questionable at the time it was made, as -- 5 both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Interior, among others, noted in their comments on the draft EIS. EPA recommended a non-bypass alternative instead (Alternative 9, an expressway along the existing Route 29 corridor), stating that such alternative "will satisfy the purpose and need for the project while minimizing the potential impacts to farmlands, Agricultural and Forestal preserve areas, water quality and communities." 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Agency Comments and Responses VII-5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Phoebe Robb, Team Leader (17 July 1990). The Department of Interior, in its comments, also recommended that, "of the build alternatives, alternative 9 [should] be selected as the preferred alternative since it would have the least impact to public park, historic, and fish and wildlife resources." 1993 FEIS, Agency Comments and Responses VII-5, U.S. Department of Interior, Director of Office of Environmental Affairs (31 July 1990) . Moreover, without question, the alternatives analysis in the EIS no longer is valid, given that the impacts on the school recreational facilities were not even considered in these documents. Thus the issue of whether there are prudent or feasible alternatives to the bypass must be reexamined. Equally important, the selected alternative identified in the EIS and approved in the Record of Decision has fundamentally changed. The EIS and the ROD identified as the selected alternative a "combination of improvements" to be implemented in phases over time. The first phase (or Base Case) consisted of the widening of Route 29; the second phase included the construction of grade-separated interchanges at the three most heavily used intersections on Route 29; and the third phase consisted of the bypass, but if and only if, after evaluation of the other phases as implemented, traffic and economic conditions so warranted. FHWA, Region 3, Record of Decision, Route 29, FHWA-VA-EIS-90-02-F (8 April 1993); 1993 Final EIS, at S-5. This combination of improvements was based on an extensive traffic analysis performed by VDOT's own consultant, which showed that most of the traffic congestion on Route 29 is local and that the three grade-separated interchanges are the key to relieving such congestion. Likewise the study showed that the bypass would do nothing to alleviate local traffic congestion, and, by itself, would leave traffic congestion at the worst possible rating in the projected time frame. The FHWA approved the sequencing or phased approach as the selected alternative in its Record of Decision dated 8 April 1993. The local jurisdictions involved, Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Virginia, agreed to the sequencing approach. Subsequently, however, in 1995, the Commonwealth Transportation Board unilaterally eliminated the second phase of constructing the interchanges, and determined instead to proceed with the bypass. Such decision was made without prior notice to the public or the affected localities, and without benefit of any technical analysis or study. Both Albemarle County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization have taken strong stands against the CTB's decision to scrap, in effect, the sequencing agreement and proceed instead with the bypass. As a result of the CTB's action, the fundamental nature of the project, as well as the premises and assumptions in the EIS, have entirely changed. Before the bypass may go forward, a new EIS must be prepared analyzing the project as it now is identified, which in turn must entail a reexamination of the range of alternatives. One alternative that must be examined is the combination of the Base Case (the widening of Route 29, which has now occurred) with grade separated interchanges on Route 29. This alternative is prudent and feasible, and would serve the primary purpose of the project, as stated in the EIS, to alleviate local traffic congestion. As stated above, VDOT's own study shows that the interchanges are critical to achieving that purpose. Equally important, such alternative would pose the least environmental harm and would avoid the section 4(f) impacts. TEE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM ARE COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. The bypass will destroy the tranquil and beautiful setting that is at the core of the recreational facilities' attraction to the general public. Moreover, the proposed mitigation measures would be completely ineffective in alleviating the harm to these facilities. The primary mitigation measure relied upon in the draft evaluation is landscaping to screen the roadway from the trail. No amount of landscaping, however, will be able to screen the enormous size of the fill that will be required to construct the bypass in this area - the fill will be some 60 feet high, 360 feet wide, and 1000 feet long. Likewise other measures that are suggested would be ineffective. Although the evaluation concedes 7 that the bypass would sever the trail, it provides that "the Severed portions [of the trail] would be reconnected by building a new section of trail along or near the toe of the fill embankment." Even a cursory examination of the terrain shows that this area is very steep and not conducive to the placement of a trail. In fact no mitigation measures would be effective, underscoring the urgency to reexamine other feasible and prudent alternatives to the bypass. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the draft 4(f) evaluation is completely inadequate and legally insufficient. To meet section 4(f) re_quirements, the evaluation must be redone to include all of the school recreational facilities, to provide an objective and thorough analysis of the impacts on these facilities, and to reexamine the range of feasible and prudent alternatives. Such an analysis would reveal the severe impacts on the use of the recreational facilities as a result of the bypass. Equally important, an objective reanalysis of alternatives, including the Base Case with interchanges, is necessary to comply with section 4(f), as well as N-EPA in the light of the fundamental change in the nature of the project. I appreciate your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Deborah M. Murray Senior Attorney DMM/cas cc: Robert Fonseca-Martinez, FHWA, Division Administrator Edward S. Sundra, FHWA, Virginia Division 8 04/21/99 10:01 ~804 977 7428 CATCO ~002/002 CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE TRANSPORTATION COALITION, INC. April 20, 1999. J. Mark Wittkofski Environmental Planner Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219-1939 Re: Draft Section 4(f) evaluation Of Trails at Jack JoUett School, Albemarle County, VA Dear Mr. Wittkofski: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition (CATCO) believes that' the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation contains many errors and omissions and is completely self-serving to VDOT's purposes. CATCO has prepared a detailed analysis and commentary on the Evaluation, together with supporting documents. Enclosed are copies of this material, which can be helpful in your deliberations. VDOT has justified construction in the Alternative 10 Corridor by its own misrepresentations and. claims that there were no 4(f) properties involved, as well as no significant environmental impacts, no agricultural/forestal districts involved and no endangered species in the corridor path. The original CTB resolution in 1990 adopting Altemative 10 as the last in an established sequence of improvements could not have been made if this information had been known. It is time to rectify this totally discredited Justification for the Alternative 10 Corridor and determine.other prudent and feasible altema..tives. We know you will consider a!.l of the comments you receive in an open- minded manner and make the proper legal decision. lO7 Tally Ho Drive Charlottesville, Va. 22901 (804) 971-5714 04/2/./99 10:$~ ~804 977 ?428 CATC0 i~002/0.$.4 CHARLOTTES~LF,-ALBEMARLE TRANSPORTATION COALITION~ I~C, Comments on Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation of Trails at Jack ~[ouett Middle School in Albemarle County, VA The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Coalition, Inc. (CATCO) has been very i~volved with the bypass issue for the past 10 years and is well aware of the area involved in this issue. Overall, we find this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation to be completely self-serving to VDOT's purposes, The document contains many errors and omissions, In an,effort to help you make an objective analysis and meaninsful comment on this matter, we provide here some back, round information and list some of' our concerns. Contrary to the I34/I//report, th.ere ARE other prudent, an~i feasible alternatives, namely, the Base Case (widen a segment of Route 29 from 4 to 8 lanes) with srade separated intercha~es at Rio Road, Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road. This would satisfy the primary purpose of the DF. IS and the FEI$ (2.I-1). The tot~ through trn~c constitutes le~s than 10 % of the total tr_s.~c at Hydraulic Road and Route 29, according to the DEIS, thus indicating essentially a local traffic problem. The level of service on Route 29 without the f~ade separnled interchanges would be '~'", but would be an "A" with grade separated interchanges, with or without the bypass. At much less expense ($180-200 million for the 6.2 mile long bypass and $45 million for the ~rnde separated interchanges), this option is very much a prudent and feasible alternative with no Section 4(f) involvement. Also, the .comments ofvariou~ agencies quoted in/he FEIS showed that the. D~artment of ~ores, try., the $tlue W~,~ Control Board_ the D. epanment of the. Army and the Pi.edmont E~.vironmental CotmciI all recp~ended the_Base Case with _~.ade se.~arated in..terchanges. The .U.S. Envkonmental_Prote~on Agency_ and the .U...S. Departm.ent of the Interior, recommended Alternative 9, an F, xpresswa¥, similar to and on the same footprint as but more elaborate than, the Base Case with ~tde separated interchanges. The FEIS stated thai: 1, "No threatened or endangered species would be affected by any of the Candidate Build Akemates." (p. IV-34) 2. ",.,the selected Altc~r~tive takes no A~icultural/iomstal District land." (2. IV-36) 3. "The selected alternative ...Alternative 10, will have no S~iion 4(f) impacts.~ (p. VIII-1) The .~. eve three statements are all false. The federally endangered lames spinymussel was found nearby in the drainage path of nine tributaries crossed by Alternative 10. Alternative 10 h~ apparently always passed through a~ A~ri~ul~tral/l~orestal district. VDOT evidently incorreCtly'assumed that, when one landowner removed his property from the Ivy Creek Agficttltural~orestal Distri~ all of the other propen), in the Ivy Creek A~ricultura~orestal District in the bypass corridor was also removed. However, the adjacent landowner did not and does not intend to remove his property ~rom this District. CATCORSP.DOC .,. 04/2~/99 10:$~ ~'804 977 7428 CATCO ~003/034 Alternative 10 has apparently always passed 'through potential Section 4(f) property, namely, the jogging trails and recreation property at issue in the D4fE and belonging to the Albemarle County School Board. VDOT is trying to blame Albemarle County for VDOT's own oversight, because it is VDOT's responsibility to perform a proper Environmental Impact Statement and identhey ALL impacts of the proposed bypass. (Also, the fact that the Brookhill House, located in the Northern terminus area, is eligible for Historic designation and thus Section 4(f) protection, was not discovered by VDOT until late 1996, two years after the Environmental Assessment study of the termini modifications.) The Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT have broken agreements and resolution~ of 1990 and 1991 on transportation improvements projects. The 3'~ paragraph ofpage 3 of the D4fE implies an image of a satisfied and harmonious local and regional planning process. Such is not the case. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization has banned federal construction funds for the bypass from thc Transport~on Improvement Plan (TIP) for each of thc past thmc years, until specified conditions (water quality, noise, e~c.) requiring CTB/VDOT action are me~. The D4fl~ states (p. 4, 1st paragraph)that, "only the trail it,ll, and not the encompassing school property, constitute~ the Section 4(t') resource." This, apparently, is also incorrect because the "Section 4(0 Policy Paper" indicates that, "thc entire property and not just the portion of the property being used for the project" be considered in the sii~ificance determination. This implies that the adjacent school playing fields, also heavily used by the public and less than 150 feet from the north bound lane of the proposed bypass, would also come under the Section 4(f) definition and would be subject to a "constructive use" argument. The D4~ completely evades and ignores this aspect. The D4fE (p. ?, last paragraph) 9mits the fact that one of the trails' eastern portion access p. oints is near Albemarle High School and omits the fact that ample parldr~ is available behind :rack Jouett Middle School, This parking lot is much closer to several of the trailheads than the parking lots described in the D4fE. The D4fE (p. 8, 2"a paragraph) dc~s not address the fact that additional areas of the complex trail system behind the nearby Crreer Elementary School are impacted by the project. The D4fE (p. 8, #9) makes a very subjective and self-serving conclusion that "There are no unusual characteristics associated with this trail." This School Board property is about 217 acres and the bypass is to take 14.$ acres. Except for the three school buildings, the playing fields and parking areas, most of the remaining acreage is covered with dense woods, mainly hardwoods which have not been harvested in recent times. The trails wind through these woods, up and down the hilly terrain. In several deep valleys, very active streams and the trails wind through massive rock outcroppings~ The valleys are particularly quiet and serene, yet still close and available to the most densely populated area of the urban region of Albemarle Count~. Indeed, the characmristics of'this trail are extremely unusual and attractive for such au urban area. The peace and tranquillity of the trails ~re a manet for those desiring to get away from today's hectic pace. The D4fE (p. 10, 1" paragraph) discusses the noise impact on the trails. The VDOT noise study indicated that the project will create noise levels for near portions of the trail wMch exceed the FHWA's noise abatement criteria of' 20 dBA or more, compared to the estimated background noise level of'48 dBA. For comparison, a fright train 100 feet away produces a noise level of CATCOI~P.DOC 04/2[/99 10:34 '~'S04 977 7428 CATe0 ~004/034 approximately 72 dBA. Historically, VDOT characterizes sound levels in units of equivalent decibels (dBA) orthe average sound level over a one-hour period. This method works for most applications such as large numbers of vehicles continuously passing by; However, tttis method does not indicate the maximum or peak sound level, which is generally 10 to 15 dB above the value noted with the averalgng techuiqu¢. For example, according to the t/DOT noise consultant, the noise from a single tractor trailer truck will produce a maximum or peak noise level that is 13 to 14 dBA greater than the average noise level calculated. This means that, whereas the VDOT noise study indicates thr~t an average noise level of 65 dBA would be experienced 131 Feet away from the cer~erliue of the nearest lane, the peak noise level experienced from each heavy truck passing by would be ~bout 82 dBA, lastinfl for several seconds. This noise level is approximately equlvaler~ to a pneumatic drill operating 50 feet away. This would be a very significant and extreme cha~§e in noise level from an estimated background today of 48 dBA. In addition, an independent noise study by a recognized authority, indicated that the actual noise levels for the bypass were much hif~her than the VDOT noise repor~ pres~w~tcd, because VDOT used minimal assumptions tllrouffhout, instead of the maximum assumptions required by federal regulations, so as to minimize the impacts. Moreover, i£the P,,oute 29 Corridor is transformed into an knerstate- like facility in the fiit~re, as VDOT desires, then an additional 19,000 vehicles per day have be~ predicted w be diverted to P, oute :29 from I-81 and 1-95, including many large tractor wailer trucks. This would sewrely escalate the noise level problem. This projected additional traffic was not mentioned or studied in the noise analysis. The D4fE (p.10, 2~ para,apb) discusses the air quality impact on the trails. The bypass is currently situated west ofthe trails and most of the winds blow from the west. Thus, the traffic exhaust fumes will be blowing toward and across the trails and also across the playing fields toward the Greet and lack ;Iouett Schools. The impact on air quality from the projected increase in traffic due to an upgraded P, oute 29 Corridor, as mentioned above, was not considered. Th~ D4fE (p. 10, last paragraph) discusses the visual impact on the trails. It is very difficult to even ii'asp the concept that, ~To lessen the visual effects of thc new road, a laudscapin§ plan would be incorporated,,." Bio landscaping plan could possibly lessen the severe effects ora four lane limited access highway passing throu~h a previously serene and peaceful wooded area. The D4ffi (p. 11 and 14) discusses .Avoidance.Alternatives A and B. These two avoidance alternatives entail a westward shift of the bypass at the trail area of 150 feet and S5 feet respectively. Both increase the encroachment onto the Agricultural/Forestal District and also create new Section 4(f) impacts on the Schiesinger Farm historic site. This historic site is approximately 2000 feet south of the trail area. The bypass design plans of January 1997 indicate'" that the distance of the bypass fight of way line to the Schlesinger property line is about 4? feet at the nearest point, which is 2000 feet from the trail area. Without detailed maps, not shown in the D4fE, it is difficult to understand how the roadway could be shifted 150 feet (Alternative A) or 85 feet (Alternative B) at the ~ail area and cause a much ~reaier than 47 feet shift of the ali~u'nent 2000 feet south, thus creating new 4(0 involvements on the Schlesinger historic site. When the bypass alignment was shii~ed less than 100 ~ at Sill]house Moun~in in 1996 to avoid the Section 4(f) Fa~lconer properS,, 50 foet high re~ining walls in a $0 foot deep cut werc placed in the design to eliminate the sloped edges of the original design. This was apparently a simple design issue then, and retaining walls for either a cut or a fill section could easily avoid a new Section 4(t') involvement with the Schlesinger property in this trails issue. Other problems are still present with these two avoidance alternatives, but this points out VDOT's lack ofthoroug~ analysis in design possibilities. ~ 04/21/99 10:~$ ~804 977 7428 cATco ~00~/054 The D4ffi (p. 19) discusses the n~ise issue under "constructive use" and again makes a simplistic statement that, '~Noise levels would not substantially inte~ere with the use and enjoyment of the trail becmlse serenity is not a. significant attribute of a trail ..." This statement is ridiculous because it is, indeed, the serenity, peacefulness and tranquillity of the trails that act as a magnet which attracts the public. Serenity is not a significant attribute for jogging or walkir~ beside a busy highway, but it is probably the main characteristic of a trail through quiet woods. The D4ffi (p. 19) mentions the aesthetics under "constru~ve use" and again makes a simplistic s~atement that, "Likewise, these alternatives would not substantially detxact from the aesthetics of the trail, which has no particular spectacular views or unusual natural or manrnade features." This statement is also ridiculous, for all the reasons given above. Webster's Dictionary defines aesthetics as: "perceptive, esp. by feeling. The branch of philosophy dealing with the beautiful, chiefly with respect to theories of its essential character, tests by which it may be judged, and its relation to the human mind; also the branch of psychology treating the sensations and emotions..." There is simply no way that a nearby limited ac~ss four lane high speed highway would not substantially detract.from the aesthetics of the trail, which today has the characteristics one perceives, fe~s and expects to experience on a serene, wooded walking/jop~ing trail. The estimated b. ackground noise level of 48 dBA (Leo.) used in the DraR Evaluation appears to be significantly higher than a _measured background level of 42 dB.~ Sound pressure levels were rec~tly measured, using a Larson-Davis Laboratories, Model $00B - Sound Level Meter, near tributary "K" on the lack louett jogging/walking trail. Thus, _trails and playing field~ up to 328 .feet dista_,l, ce (instead of 131 feet) from the centerline of the near lane, at lack louett and Greer Schools will experience .future noise Icvel increases of 20 dBA or ~reate_r, thus, an exceedance of FHWA.'s Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The measured noise level of 42,.dBA is proba.blv high by several dBA, since the noise from seven airplanes was included in this value. AccOrding to Mr. McSherry's (VDOT Environmental Division- Noise Analysis) statement to the Bypass Design Advisory Committee on September 25, 1997, the procedure for taking noise measurements was to acquire data only from highway traffic; noise from olanes or construction ~uipment W~ edited out on the recorder, It appears that in Table I, on page 10 ortho Draft Evaluation, that .the dro_~offrate of noise attenuation used was -4..$ db for a doubling of distance. This value is not applicable for a~ _elevated roadway, for which a 3 db .drog~ffrate should be used. Most of the proposed bypass is elevated in the vicinity of the louett trails. This error leads to greatly decreased noise level predictions at greaIer distances from the bypass. The MPO has twice r~quested that VDOT perform a re-analysis of its Final Design Noise Report of Febmary 1997, beeause of suspected deficiencies and omissions. The~e requests have been refused. La~k ofdocum~ntation concerning the noise data talcing, assumptions, traffic coums used, mix of vehicles, etc. leads to a cor~lete lack of confidence in the Draft Evaluation noise data, The dam in the Draft Evaluation supports the ..n.eedfor a c~gm_~lete re-anal~.sis of the Final Design Noise R~_ crt, Costs of Me pro0osed Route 29 B_ _v~ass continue to mount rapidly as more is revealed about design problems no~ heretofore acknowledged or perhaps ignored, The 1998-99 Six-Year Improvement Program cost, including the North Cxrounds Connector and hardship homes purchased prior to 1994, is $177.4 million. A more accurate total cost for the scheduled construction date ofluly 2002 is almost $200 million, using an inflation rate of 2.7%, as CATCORSP.DOC 4 04/21/99 10:36 ~804 977 7428 CATCO ~006/034 recommended by The Commission on thc Future of Transportation in Virginia in September 1997, for construction costs only. The argument that this project must be pursued because of the funding already put into k fails be.cause only about 7 % of the total project cost would be unrecoverable if. the project were to. be co. mpletely terminated at this point in time,. Thc Preliminary Er~ineering and Design costs ($11.0 million), re4ocation costs (estimated $30,000 per household '- -$0.9 million) and maybe some loss (~$2 million) on re-selling the right-of-way properties already purchased are costs which would not be recovered. Thus, thc total amount unrecoverable would only be approximately $14 million out of the total project cost of $200 million. This letter has attempted to ~ive some back~round for the Drai~ Section 4(0 Evaluation and provide our responses to most of the many very serious inaccuracies and omissions in this document. I hope that this information is helpful. Please do not'hesitate to call me ii'you have any questions. Sincerely, C.~eor~e tL Larie, President 107 Tally Ho Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 971-5714 Attachments: o 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. FF_.IS, dated January 20, 1993 (p. I-t), stating Projeot Purpose and Need; FEIS Table IV-3, showing that the level of service on Route 29 without thc grade separated interchanges would be "F', but would be an "A" with grade separated interchanges, with or without the bypass; FEIS Table H-4 showing a cost summary of various alternatives; VDOT Primary System Improvement Six-Year Programs FY '92 through FY '04, a compilation showing costs for the proposed Route 29 Bypass; FI~I$ Table IH-1 showing the Route 29 at Hydraulic Road intersection traffic in vehicles trips per day determined from origin-destination studies; FI~IS (p. VII-S), presenting an introduction of various federal, state and local agencies' comments on the DN. IS of 1990; FEIS (2 p.), comments from Commonwealth of Virglnia, Department of ASIiculture and Consumer Services; FEIS (1 p.), comments from Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Forestry; FEIS (2 p.), comments from Commonwealth of Virginia, State Water Control Board; FEIS (2 p.), comments from Dcpartm. ent of the Army; FEIS (5 p.), comments from the Piedmont l~nvironmental Council; FEIS (3 p.), comments from the U.S. ]~nvironmental Protection Agency, Re§ion IH; I~IS (3 p.), comments fi.om the U.$. Department of the Interior;, and, DBIS, Technical Memorandum dated March 1990 "Traffic and Transportation Analysis" - Appendix C, Table 2.4, showing Year 2010 Triangular Trip Table indicati~ 2204 vehicles per day of through traffic on U.S. ttoute 29. CATcoRSP.IX~C 5 ,,.. 04/21/99 10:37 '~804 977 7428 CATC0 ~007/0~4 FEWA. VA-EIS.90-02-F State Project No. 6029-002-122, PE 100 Virginia Deparunent of Transportation U,S. ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR STUDY CITY OF CHARLO~~ AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I1VIPA~ STATEMENT $ECI/ON 4($/106 ]~VALUAT~ON Submitted ,Pursuant To: 42 U.$.C. 4332(2) (c), 23 U.$.C. 128(a) 49 U.$.C. 303(c), and 16 U.S.C. 470(0 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Tr:_~:,ponation bat~ of ./.pproval Date of Approval Director, Of/ice of Pl_~{~g and Program Development Federal Highway Administration, Region 3 The followi~ persons may be contacted for document: Mr. Earl T. Robb Enviromnental Engneer Virginia Department of ~po~on 1401 E. Broad S~e~t Ric~ond, Vk~a ~219 Phone: (8~) ~S~9 .~ldi~ion~l information concerning this Mr. Sines NL Tumlia Division Administrator Federal Highway Ad~i-i.~tration 400 N. Eighth Street Richmond, Vir//nia 23240 Phone: (t/04) ?71-2371 The proposed project is to provide relief from current a~d anticipated traffic congeslion on the Route 29 north corridor in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. A B~se Case alternative with eight corridor construction alternatives have been considered in addition to Mass Transit and Tr~--~portation System Management (TIM) alternatives. An alternative has been selected following circulation of the Dra/t Environmental Impact Statemem, a Location Public Hearing, and a full consideration of com,~en~s received. 04/2.1./99 .1.0:$? "~804 97? ?4,28 CATCO [~ 008/034 I. PRO~I'ECT PBRPOSE AND NEED A. PROJECT PURPOSE ti.of the Route 29 Corrid.or Study is to find a solution to existin and future -~ on on a .~_~ee'mue secuou of U.S, ~t~Roui~-~0 B~--~ and the South Fork, Riw,~,,a River in the City of Charlo~eswille and Albemarle County "~ north, of Charlottes,rifle. _A secondary_ ~ose of the. ,.study ~s to complete a gpa in ong gob unprovements to U.S. Route 29 through central Virginia. South of this section of Route 29 the existing U.S. 29/U.$. Route 2.~0 Bypass is a four-lane limited-access facility with currently adequate capacity. At the northern end, the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna River h a four-lane fadli~ with adequate capacity for traffic projected through the year 2/)10, North of the bridge, development along Route 29 is more limited and traffic congestion h not now a problen~ thouih it will be necessary to I/mit addition_~J acce~ to the road to prevent future traffic con§esfion. For most of its length through 1Ftrginia, Route 29 is a four. lane divided highway, with controlled access features on some sections, h connects the WasM,~gton, D.C. metropolitan area with other urbanized areas t..hrough central Virginia such as Warrenton, Culpeper, Lynchburg, and Danville. The section of Route 29 hnder study is an uncontrolled access, four-lane-divided highway with a grass median and at-grade sign~ed intersections. This facility provides direct access to the numerous businesses located along both sides of the road. This section of Route 29 is the most heavily travell~d highway in the Charlottesville area, canying twice as much traffic as Interstate Route 64. It h the only major north-south highway serving the expanding development north of Charlottesville and surrounding portions of Albemarle County. Route 29 is the only major route connecting this development with other population and employment centers in Charlottesville. h also is the only route connecting points north of Charlottesville with points south of Charlottesville. The growing development, increasin~ tr.~c volumes, and the inadequate capacity of the existing road are causing increasing congestion as this section of Route 29 has become overloaded. Other factors also contribute to the congestion. For example, there are no bus turnouts along the existing route and buses stopping to pick up or discharge passengers interfere with traffic flow while they are stopped. Abe, trucks (two-~.le, four tire and larger) currently const/tute appro~mately 17 percent of the total traffic. Tractor trailers make up approxtmatily three percent of the total traffic. I-1 "1 .J imm 04/21/99 10:38 ~/~$04 977 7428 CATCO 009/034 T~T~E IF-3 ~010 Bss~ Cas~ Alt. 6 AlL 9 Alt. 9A A ~.60mph) F(<10 mpa) Alt, 10__ __. _ at P, io, Hydraulic, A (32 mph) A (32 mph) A (3I mi*h) AIL. 11 A (.~.6~tph) F (~:I0 mph) A (32 mph) Alt, I2 A (k. i0mpb) P (<10 mph) A (33 mph) NOTRS: S~ page 1-5 for d_~6nidons of levels of service., Almrz~tlve 9 ('P.%pr~y Altcrnatlw) would provid& thc worst l~v~I of set~i~ of ali of the bugd nkemafive~ · Western bypass alternatlv~ (10,11, & 12.), alongwith implementation of tim Base Case with grade.s~parate, d intcrcbang~ would providc the be.st l~v~ls of servic~ and Manual (1985)." This manual states, f~r this class of highway, that LOS ",6: is desi~natgct f.o.r traffic moving at ~.~s~ ~ of go ~p~ A. =~ ~ ~, ms ,h~ ahoy, ~o,' 3o .~p~ ~. LOs o_.__~ ~._2,~.~..h~ ~t20.10 ~-'~- C~..with no Bw__n~ but with ~.~_d~9 ~_~____~_ted ~__t_m'_chnn~eS should be an A instead of a . 04/2~/99 10:39 ~'804 977 7428 CATe0 TABLE II-$ COST SUMM~Y ~010/054 Base Case 6 6B 7 7A 9 11 Base Case Note: Construction $ 17,584 $ 8,487 $ 343 $ 26,414 103,287 10,078 927 114,292 108,304 9,802 836 118,942 87,732 12,095 745 100,572 89,395 8,502 567 98,064 133,859 23,618 3,684 I61,161. 98,338 16,890 1,359 116,587 1.80,315 16,064 2,228 1.98,607 32,.304 1.4,441. 2,829 49,574 Costs of Candidate Build Alternatives do not include Bas~ Case Improvements. ! ] '1 ! I I ! ' '-I ! I ' ! I ] I I ....I I '1 --' ...... ' .... pRImARY' SYSTEM ~pRoVEM~NT ~X-YEAIT PROGRAMS FY - - .... F~WG ~ISTORY OF ~ARLO~r~E RO~E'~9 ~YPASS -- AL)~N~fO ....... ........ I I .... ~ .~,.~ .. ~ ~ ~ .. '~ z~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ........... ' I ~~, M Is~ .......... CSiS.~ ................... ~ PI~,~ ................. i.(I} 2~ ......... , {a).~ .... ~ ._ -.J I ~ ~ -~J lo $1~ ~ 10~72 ~1 ..... 1~ 1~ (q ~ _ ~ . . 04/21/99 10:40 ~'804 977 7428 CATC0 TABLE llI-I VEHICLE TRIPS PHR DAY 1987 Total ~1012/034 Through Percent 4,143 18% 4,935 19% 4,143 ~ 22% ,- 4,935 10~ - Route 29 at North Fork AL1tOS 2338 25,976 Route 29 at Hydraulic Road Autos \ -~^~e~) Total 46,117 49,642 From Table 1II-I in ~ FEIS as shown above, fl~ MMifi~i Table 1II-I givea b~low ~an l~ ob_~.in~d. Modified Table III-1 TRAFFIC ORIGIN- DESTINATION INFORMATION - ............... Route 29Trate~ .... 'l'~.e of Trail. ie at Hydraulic Road Int~rr, ection ~ as a I~'Cenmg¢ of .tp~,traffic 7 % ,Tb. rough_hemw track tmffio as a pezeealage of ~ 1.6 % .'l~hrou_eh heavv track lmffic as a p~cenia~e of~ 16 % .'I'5rou _~h ~ ~all tvoes as a pet~nmge of to..tal traffic 9.9 % Local heavy track traffic as a p~ommge of _total h.eavv track.ultime 78 % This chart dramatically demonstrates flint most (IS %) ef the heavy track traffic has local destinations and therefore will ¢ongnue to travel the congested Rout~ 29 North conidor. While the 'throu~" ~vy track trat~ comprises about 16% of the total %hro~glx" u-affic, it a~co~ for o~ 1.6% of tl~ total Iraffic. 04/21/99 10:40 9504 977 7428 CAT¢O Location Public The formal Location Public Heating was held in Charlot~ville over thre~ days, ~Iune 26, 27 and 28, 1990. For the first two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, June 26 and 27, the hearint was held at the Days Hotel, 1901 Emmet Street, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p~L The format on these two days included a sHd~ show shovm continuously in one room, d/splays and exht'bits s~t up for viewi~ and discussion in a~ adjacent room, and an area screened off where c/tizens could provide their statements to a stenographer for th~ official Public Hea~g Record. In the area of the'display materials, members of the study team and other VDOT staff were present at all times to explain the material, answer questions from the public and discuss the project. The third day of the Location Public Hear/n/, Thursday, ,lune 28, the heafin~ was held at the Padonn/ng Arts Center at Charlottesville Hish School, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The same exhibits and displays as shown the first two days were available ,in the lobby. Speakers were ~iven the opportunity to present their testimony for the offidal Public Hearing record in the auditoriun~ where testimony and statements were recorded by a court reporter. Stenographers were also available on this day to take individual statements from people in an area in the lobby. A Location Public Hearint~ transcript consisting o£ two volumes of written comments and one volume of oral comments was compiled. All comments received at the hearing duriz~ the official comment period wMch ended August 15, 1990, are included in the transcript Section D of this chapter presents public hearing comments and responses. The number of people attending the hearing was estimated to be 115 on June 8, 180 on June 27, and 350 on June 28. C. AGI/NCY CO~ AND RESPONSES The Route 29 DBIS was widely distributed to appropriate federal, state and local aSencies. The agencies are listed in Chapter VI. This section provides copies of the agency comments on the DBIS. The comments are reprinted, on the 'following pages in chronolo//cal order. Each agency letter is reprinted in a reduced size on the left side of the pate. Specific comments that warrant a response are indicated and numbered in the left hand margin. The res'pomes to these numbered comments are provided on the fight hal/of the page. VII.5 04/~1/99 10:41 */~804 977 7428 CATC0 ~014/0~4 AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS COMA{ENTING ON DRAFF 5/22/90 ~ Virginia Department of Aviation 5/22/90 x Virginia Outdoors Foundation 5/23/90 ~ Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse ,Setv/~ 6/05/90 ~ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oee~_,~c and Atmospheric Adminis~'ation 6/07/90 x Virginia Department of Hhtoric Resources 6/19/90 ~' Virginia Department of Agricttlture .and Comumer Services 6/22/90 '~ U.8. Department of Health and HttmanServices, Public Health Set,ice 6/28/90 ,/Virgin/a Department of Forestry 7/02/90 x .V.~ Department of Air Volhtion Control 7/03/90 ~ Virginia State Water Control Board 7/03/90 x U.S. Department of Transportation, Of/ice o£ the Secretary 7/09/90 ~" Virginia Department of Co~ervation and Recreation 7/o9/90 7/u/9o '7/z4/90 7/17/90 7/18/90 7/31/90 8/~0-90 / s/9o /14/ o s/ 4/9o 8/15/9o s/ .6/9o 8/ s/ o s/ t/9o o/ /90 U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy Piedmont Environmental Council U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.$. Department of Housing and Urban Development ~,/U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary City of Charlot~s,,ille, City Council Resolution County of Albemarle, Of/ice of Board of Supervisors Virg/n/a Department of Historic Resources Virginia Marine Resources Commission University of Virg/nia Piedmont Environmental Coundl Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries ¥irtiuia Council on the Environment U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service bt, Rt~lNl'Al~IM~Gn June 19, 1990 R.L..~undloy Departnmnt of Transportation East Broad Skcaet ~icfuwcad, Virginia ~3219 ,MARK Il. Il;liB5 E~.R. ONMEHTAL OIV-_~ Route 29 Corridor StudF -- Draft Envlronnen~s! Impact Your ~roject &029-002-122, PSI00 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL33JRE AND ~NSUMER SERVICES 61191~0 No pastidd~ usc b ontJclpated in ceJmecl[on w|lh (~nstrucllon or m-inteflnnce of thc o~. ~th tM s~clflnlio~ for cKh pf~u~ ~t ~ ~JMral]~t~ Disifl~ Dear Hr. Itundlsyl tmpac~ statement (EZS) and hse .tho relieving comments: Tho dcaft ElS contstna no discussion regarding the uso of pesticides in connection with the project that In the subject of the ElS. This agency auqgeets that thu ElS disclose whether penticides wIA! he used In connection ~ith the construction or maintenance of ~he project. If pesticides are expected to be used, this agency m:ggeetn that I plan he formulated for auch pesticide uso ~htch ~ould emphsnize the use st the tease toxic pesticides that age approprttte for the project and emploJ~nent of e~ectXve. If your agency has adopted a poll~y regarding pasticido use in all of its pro~ects, including ~ summary og that ~hether the project In question can bb operated in accordance vikh that policy ~ouidbe an acceptable alterflativa. C~ COMMONWEALTH o~ V~R(~INIA DI~PARTMENT OF FORESTRY VJROINIA OIDeARTMENT OF FOR18SIRY 6/28j90 Thc vHdcflingofReulo29 ami buildin~ o! three overpasses attune ~ld ~t m~t the ~ ib ~1~ ~d[~ of R~ 29. ~lfd~ dtcr~l~ h~ r~t aer~ o[ hi~l~ hbha~ mn a~ allcrna~ EndronmenlaJ lt.n~hleer I)epanment ol~Tnu~natlon 14Ol ~1 Broad Street Rkhmund. Virginb 23219 Dear Mr. Hundlcy: It is evident thai o t [real o! work and study bye 8one into the Route 29 ~d~ Study. ~o ~pafl~ of Fo~ d~ ~t h~ the mawr to pr~erly ~al~le ee m~y a[temat~s in ~s sludy. As a eeoc.ti statemenl we mid ~ Ih~ altcrnalivo th~ ~uld ~m the le~t ampul of distu~ce lO I~ e~lmmenl ~d slill ~mp]lsh lb major oh~cli~ of Ihe il a~ fha, Ihe wi~flin~ u[29 a~ mali~ th~ ee~s al R[~ ~wier Ofi~tb,,~ u~Mo~I ~an. eilhcr e~t or ~ql, m~ fit thc bill. We ~ 81~ Io do om m~l ~alual[dn ~ Ibc effe~J lo forest pr~uc~ when bo alternative ~n ff addilJonal lnfurmaJl, on Es required, plcar~ do net hes[tale Lo eontact us. Yery Italy youm, Brian W, Edson Dimkl Forester ~ Griffin Coffmau f' t'_ 1-- I ..... 2. _ Endangered Sp~a~i~s The ErS states that tho lint maintained by 4:he Virglnie 3, Agricultural Lands and Agricultural/Forests! Districts The EZS discloses that alVaf£1csnt amounts of prime I avrleuXtUral J. and gould be affected by several of ~he proposed ..- tha~ you.Id no~ ~nvolve ~he Ieee of significant amounts of ~rA~lCural land. Seversl o~ ~e Pr~oe~ ~lte~ativee could a~,o a~ect existing egricultural/fores~81 districts by channeli~ grev~h ~o those districts. ~ia agency ~_ jn~ to Jvc 'eaterve ~ In choo~ a r f - e~ec~ en ag~ "~ a ~1 so or no Si score I y, Hark D. T~bbn cct Hr. 'B. H&eon J'-~rbaugh ' ' I['-1 -(Ir'"'1. il-'q"/.-lr':lZ, tr-.i.-, i[ Jl .... i la---., Hr. R. L. #undley Eueiroflmental Engineer Department of Transportation 1401Esst Broad Street . Richmond, Ytrglnla ~32i9 R£: Draft ElS - RQute Zg Corridor Study De4r Hr. #undley: Ne bare revleved referenced document and the Associated Aquslic Resources and Water Quality Technical Hslorandum a~d have the f011outn9 comments: . Sect?n lei-F-7 "#et2snds', Page 1~i-13, first p/ragreph. The sentence All thrme must be present for mn ired to be motla ds incorrect. Oefler&lly s}e/ktnn- e)l t~ ................. present, deriver, In certain eXCeFLIoMi &n~ rare cases, field ' indicators o~ one or mare ef the parameters could ~u mtss~n ~r~a Is still a weUand Seec~al ..... - ........... g, yet the ~l~ne t~e status er certain, disturbed or 'Problem ~;_ K~.?8~esl that the sentence be revised to qmomr4ll~ ill Total Parameters lust be rise ~otlands.' . .. P .L for an area to be _ Sec~on_l~=~ 'Traffic [mpacts', Page IV-3, The z... along Route {9. Its Inclusion in this section is Problematical. This praposal Is apparently not considered part of the 6ese 'oltarostlve, nor as Fart of Alternative 9 {expressvmy). It Is addressed tn none of the ethel Impact sections. Kovever, according to tho Information given, this alternative #ould solve the trifflc rrobTems that none o~ the other alternatives' can solve. #e suggest - hit this ~ropusal be discussed it the Jove! of detail that the ether a!t~natlv~s'have been accorded. ¥iRGII~'[A ~TATE WATER ~ONTROL ]~ARD 7/3/~0 ~1~ a~ ~ll~d ~f~o~; ~ m~to~ s~ m.t all ldtnlifl~ ~ ~tljK' W~re.eqa ff are of Ihe ~leflm Z ~ Bra~ ~N~ inle~bM alo~ R~Ie 29 ~ ;flclu~d in Ihe Rind alWflali~. ~ ~ di~ jo ~h O. 1~ de~ptEon of iht Kited altemaltK in ~ap~r ff. Bud Ihe e~t~ of their ~nsl~a ht~ ~ iflclud~ in , ~t ~pafi~n of Ihe ~temad~ thought t~ ~1~ ~. ' ~e ~ltem a~ ~lent e~ n~w dnR~ep~nl will de~ m0fc Al~mflo ~un~ ~ ~n djef~s In IK atle~ to ~annel ~ flew dt~op~nt fOrD ~naled 8[~h afc~ Ho~ ~cled lo ~ui~ or pr~ole a~ Iddiffo~l ~af~ I~ s~ In Ih ~ fe~o~ Ia.Ballon phn and fncl~d in Ihe fulufo 4. Dudfl~ the ~Jt~ d~i~ Ph~ p~ ~H ~ m~c for mna~nl mr hi~ ~ff {~ l~ ~lh ~~ltb Of V{t~flra Storm Wal~ ~a~cmt~t ~e nl~ ~lema(~ ~ ~ [~udc a a~i~ of Ihe ~ ~ork Rf~ R~r ~lr. Tho road namcs eommonTy used in the texl a*c shown In Fisurc I-3. Lcvcb of sundog f~ Iht C~ndidale Build Altematiws are as foll~ws: Page Section lv-V-~, eLa~d Uso". Page I¥-R. The Test paragraph as a result of hl.gllMay construction. Such development tan he considered a secondary Impact of the project. This document should assess the extent that this development Is Ilkalyto occur with an~ ulthout each alta~eotiva. One aspect of thts should bo & discussion of the edd~&lonel'ro&d Improvements promoted by each alternative. Section [V-H,I, "SItiais and Watersheds", Page [¥-R7._ RE _. _ commend rOOT fo~ Including the FHVA predictive procedures lo estimate usa, During tho project design phase, vi mould espect Vnet tu develop specific Information snub'lng that lung te~, btghffay runoff will ba adequately maimed to minimize pollutant Ioad~o9 to streams. This Is pirtlcnlerlr Import&at tn the case of any crossings of the South Fork Rlvaenl Ktver hservotr. the roma nines cuneouly used I~ thu text, such es Hydraulic Road, as identified In the Rase Case AItorna%t~e, tnprowaaents such as tka Headov Creek ~arkvay. Flea;es IV-I through lV-g. Values for "Level of Sarv*ce" should It Is suggested ~hat much of the air, noise, led on&rOY tachnl¢&l ~nformstion be pla~ed In a separate technical document tn order to simplify tho liS. A synops~$ of this technical ~DfereatJon. cooJ~ be provided In the prlmarp document. ThBnk you for the opportunlt~ tn consent. Sincure~y, '-C. t. Em[lick £uYJronaental trogrags Analyst Office of Water Resources Hanagemont AIL 11 A (~0 MPH) 3~ls inronnallon was incTuded in Ih~ brochure disutlm~.d at th~ ~blic Heidel Ju~ ~ I~ A~ltl~al ~ d~me~Mffon ~ air ~alJ~ n~ noT~ ~ p~wm~ ~ ffpaat* te~nl~ ~mo~ Jt wa felt i~ the infmmattoa ~e~nl~ Iff tb O~$ ~ ~ IO d~ a~uate~ ~e im~a of t~ allemativ~ Lb-. Ui,'L._bL_b L_b L.b: ..Lb,-- ; · : D~PAP, TI~E#T OF T#E AR#Y Permits Section Mr. R. L. HundLe¥, Environmental Kngineer Virginia Departmun~ of Transportation 1401 Esot Broad Street RLchmond, VlrgLnJ& 23219 Dear Hr. Hund~ey: oo~ento On the Brdft Environmental Impact Stete~ent (OKISt pr,paced £or tho ~rginia Department of TransportationSs 4V0OTI proposed excensias of end/or conversion to an exp£essMay for Route 29 in tho City of CharlottesviLle end Albemarle County i6029-002-~22,P8100). As Indicated in our Hovember 9, 1988 letter commenting aA this pro~ect (copy enclosed), the PorfolX District of the Corps of E~/lneers is participating as n cooperating agency iff the preparation or documents. We have the £ollowlflg co~nta arid [ecomndatto~ to make concerning the OKIS. Our regulations state that no diachor~o o~ dredged o[ fill material shall be permitted if there ia a practicable alte£nst~ve to the proposed d~scherge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic eoosyst~m, so long es the alternatlv~ does no~ have other significant adverse conmequeflcee. ~ractlcabLlit¥ can be dependent upon a n~mber o£ factors, such me engineering cosstrs~sts, cusip safety, etc. O~r regulations state that an alternative As considered practicable ~f lc in available and capable o£ being aeeo~plishud after taking inca consideration cost, existing teChnology, end Loglstl~e In light of overall pEo~ect purposes. 1£ the aQtAvityassociated with $ discharge [proposed for ~ate~s of tho United States) does not require access or proximity basic purpose, practicable alternatives that do not l~volve waters of the Vatted Steres ate presumed to be available, unless clearly stated otherwise. In providing t~is information, applicants should be emac. that the Corps wiLL establish and evaluate practicable alternatives In terms of the pEo~ectrs basic purpose. H~lle ue will fully codstder the applicant's views and ln~ocmetiou regarding the pro,act's purpose sad the existence of practicable alternatives, this review must be performed without undue deference to the applicant's wishes. 11tls p~oJact has been assessed in te~s of~eeting the needs and purpose for ~hich it is designed while at the sa~e time avoiding l~pacts to ua~ers of the United States. A variety o~ public interest feeLers, such as traffic presser, st socloeconomfo issues (pazticula~iy displacements), noise, and his~orlcol sites ore glen considerable MeLght In our evaluation of a project. fl~ever, the Co~s' p~l~ry co,cern In reviewing ~h8 p~ojec~ Ls ~eed on the infarction p~ov~ded, a relatively s~ll area of Meklands viii be i~acted by each of the alternatives.. ~ our if00 ~etter~ ~ ze~e~ed tha~ wetland delineation data' s~eets bo provided to the Co~s M~Ch ~h8 DEle. AS we stated, you should ~ubmLt the ~ta sheets bo~h fo~ ace~B detecmia~ to and er.es dete=mined to be none,fiends, la ~=t~cule=, we need to tevLe~ data sheets ~oE any ar.es determined to be the preferable altqa~nt, beaauoe At vLll ~vo minimal o~ fib - JmpactOt uAll not d~apZace any fan/lies, and ML)I not i~pac~ any com~Eed Co other' altec~tLvea. HO~V~F; Table IV-3 ~ndi~tes that the a~t~on separated interchanges dramatically isp~ves the leve~s-o~-secv~ce (~Si ~oc all or the alternatives except Alternative ~arefl~Ly, g~ade-separated LnteEchaflgoo cannot be ln~orsted into the design of Alternative 9, since At LB afl expressway along the existing oIAgoMnt whereas the o~hec aZcermativeo ~ypaaoes. If you de~ecntne'~ha~ grada-se~a~ed ln~e~changefl ~a~ rec~end ~hA~ the Bess Case be qJ~en~nq~deratiop. ~de ~e~r~t~s at'~ho ~n~ch~; ~he Base Cao~provid~o Alternative G i~acts the great*et ara~ o~ ~eclands ~.5 acres). Ho.eva~, It Is s~ated on ~ge IV-28 that the clve~lne wetland which accounts ~oc 1.3 acres o~ this Impact ~uld select Ali. emotive 6, ~o race--nd 2ha~ that ml~o~ ohl~ allqfl~t be included in the design. I I I I ~ut~o~d ~pact minAmlzatAco measures should be_~n~o~p~rat~d Jato the design of your selected alignment. 2o addiUon I'the zoad~ay~ reduced flZ~ nl~es, elLnlAatL~n or reduction of che~ relatively 8~lt~tAand impacts of the alternatives, due to stzuctural; logistical, o~ econ~Lc cuff·roasts. ~hat i~acta vbich retain after the lncorp~&~ ~ avoidable_and have eflF ~es~fons regarding o~c eo~n~, please He. AIAce Alten~r~S at f8041 441-7219. tau ~hould also send Sln~rel¥, CupieSFUrA~ohed ¢~/o encl! O. $. Fish and #lldll£e Service, Annapolis u. S. Fish and~Xldii~eSe~vice, Mite Harsh envi~onmenta~ Protection'Agency, Philadelphia J. U.S. ARMY CORI~J OF ENGEN,U-.ER~ NORFOLK DISTRICT The welland delineation data sheets were submlltd lo the Corps of [Enf~rteers la Wi.tie A1tcumlve 9 would have th fcutsl natural cnvTronmt~t [mpacu, It would ha~ olher dfawbacl~ ht4u~n$ Jml~ {o Imsbesses and r~idenst along Route 29 and eomld~rablc dlsmpffon ~urinf ~OnSlmclJofl. Il would o0t fully meet thc nerds of the pro~e~ nod wonM not pM~de ~bfMo~/scr~ for lord traffic on Rout0 2{. The ~ptt~ and Iocol lites UlM~[ Alternative 9 w~uM tally n~ore Irnl[[c than AJtema~vt ~0 sod Rout~ 2~ eomb~ned brauch Altt~ati~ 9 wou{d dk~t more .aff{c Jre~ the Meadow~eak P~..k,,~ty. AJtemative JO Flus Metdow~reek and Route2~would ~ar~/more no,h~0u~ lfldflc tho A~tema~t · i~u~ ~tdow~ck. The Base ~ase with A~ad~ separated blcrchanics i$ itc~udtd as a par of Iha Rlecled Idtefnedve. It alone, l.ow,,-~cr, w2'tlnol meet thenc~ds of the p£ojeCl, whtch include p~ovMil,g a means roi' IhrOlJ~h traffic o'n Route 29 to bjTtGss Ibc comtested and M&My ~vcfoped area bClween ~e Rmite 2S0 ]i~ptss und thc South Fink R[v~nna Rkcf. For Ibis reason, a Future bA~3s off the Alte.mallve l0 iI{~nmcnl ts nXso ~ ;m~ of thc stlcoed aTtemath~ Aliernatlvo 6 w~s flol i~[-ded as · Sma1 of the r~leeted IdtefttaliVe. The bypau on the Alternative Z0 a]Fptmr, ntb · fon~.rat~o part of Ibc selected attcma*tve and final doslfn wm not Jdu: FTace for a number of j~ari. At thh lmint it is pLemalure to dtlermioc spedfie design meas~fe.l to minimize wetland imp&as, suth as redu(~l fill srope.% :educin~ lbo mcdhn, or reteioi~ walls. These meamrcs ~R be con~dere~ dufin~ the phe~ d~.~ Again, sine~ tOnSlmttten of Ihs AJle~natlve {0 hy~tss. IMrtiofl'of II.c sclecled allcmttivc Ti a ~ong4att~e I~roJ~c~, It h I~l~atuMe at t~s tJma to Jdcnlffy mhl~flon sftc~ and pt(wide a detailed mlitf, allOn plan. When more detailed des(S· is hero, ¥D01' will besln Io Idenllff and oe(pire pore·dM mit~,allon sites as neecs~ry. The ~mPs of £sIRfneer~ stand~rd I~dl~ga commcnls will he considered and incorp~mted wherever passible in I~ldge desT~n for th~ projrzt. PIEDMONT' ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL lqO~ ~ait BrOtd Girlie 3uty t~. Xg~ Project 6QB9~02-]~8. PE leo D~ae Hr, Thank yo~ ~or llndJ~ the Pied~nt [nvironmBneai Cauncit i ~~ b~~ . - PIEDMOI~T F~tVIRONUEHTAI. COUNCil. ?i 141~0 lnfo[~ on Ihe pro~ t~ on I~ ~ -~ ~blb ~dflB ~ m~d~ iff ~dum aM h ~Refll MIh lbo p~w W In ~IWA Tedmi~l ~A) a~ wi~ I~ RIWA'I B~vlronmnml ]mpnd,M ~daled Pr~ur~ ~ 5. ~M~mcckh~yba~ef(~ ,~ ~a~ ~U~fl&ll~npTa~ a~ 7. ,~m b ~o Ifldu~ ofl~ lbo ImP~mln~ Fromm hr R~;o ~ (wld~g ~nneclor, Rm [~u~ in ;~ ~tuce hiBhy nt~[r~ m Iht uau~ ~1 (o Im.l s~ t~8 R~te ~ ~td ~t ~ I~unto rot IhMusIi tfBfflc and would } Hvdri. l [I Roa~. ®1 The P~=Csusporto tho construction of the Nhich Nill prOVide an adequate level of service for arterial alto orated that the throe q~adl Sloarotld lflttrcbam)es can on dcmm~ rc~l~ and ~Mm[. m~ilio~ ~[L ]f Infflc ~r~ bst~r the ~pamtcd InMf~w~ on R~tc ~, MIl pr~ an ~hl I~1 of smi~ 'A' on Routs 2~. IntcrehuJ~ ~ld h ~p~blo r~ mn ~ ~ml greo~ ~t n~l for I mmJo~ w~l~ ~ ~11~ 17. ~ Fnitem and ~ of~r~ntMlid~ ~o ~1 ~noml-- ~d on fk ~lalloo mod Im~ m on n ~n~ ~ ~n~ ~ ~o ~ of t~ W~hinet~ ~ Slu~ b ~1 ~bl~ la t~ r~n ~ stud~, and thb ~ ~ ®1 ~r. ~. L. Hun~lev page t~rEM deDsnoM upon thl vllidStynf certain funoa~eflgal canuldermd rlJiabll ~hifl a flaH DEli should bi deveAooed bated upon Dehl~ logicallY de~ivld &ssuqtSans. To iikl decisions or C- The data shows that norCh~outh through t~affic cuntinuin~ on Rou~e ~9 beyo~ ~hu Char~otteivL~)ear~& d. The da~a shaus.~h~t L. ~ r ~at L~~M~lbMlt re~lnm t~pfl~l~m~ ~ ~l~d~ 9, the ~, ~H ~ m ~1~ ~m~ I~1 o~ 1~ ~ Im M ~ ~p~l= ~1 ~ on ~ nd n u~pl~ls ~1 d ~ '~ n Ino ~1 I1~. ~n wi~ the ~ d~l~ t~ ~e ~ll~a for Imb eppl~ le ~e ~y ~ km ~ lo tb ~ ~p~ Sl6t ~1~ ~o a~mlm~nu ~M I~u~ ndd[t~l m~ns i~ thMo~h lan~ wMch ~ut~ · ~th ~ d~ iht t~;h In~ ~M ~mle at o~ a ~inm [~J m ' the Hatershed of the qrl~&rv ffater, supp~y for Khm County 4nd C/tV. All of thtl data. ~hronkcled through hundreds Of I*' In addit~n'te ~he Fore,expo concerns, thm P~C greatly concerned that ~enetructlan af any of the Dy-pale . by the County through I~ zant~g ordinate. ~hm histOrY af the zonl~. ~nformatk~n about the imnact Of tho 'can.tdita build i.orels~Y, have l~ch au effec~ iud da ~t~lo eo j~ruve Iota] reports. FurthermOre, dlveloplint ~oN occurt~ tn the Route corridor north of thl Cflarinttegvilln Srlii ~he un~tmi~ed Garultn~. '- facility.tn the Charlottmivllle area tn soite of the failure of the Oa~a orovidld and are al ~oliemsl damaging than any nf the by-Pass atternakivoa. h~ The expressuay takeomoreeJdencas and .ill . Mt rmsult in thl construction of · n~ road in the vicinity of any restdencle Nhlch avon DS non situated proNtmste to a ferestland, and no land from iny uateraheds of any ~]ic driflktn~ Mater' impoundments. Th~ ~xpr~l~my tak~ f~Ner nusiflnssls than any ~e nxpress~a~ takeg ~B2 acres te~m righk of ~hl I~DrlsINay provides 'through .tFafflc ~hB exprn~Hay ~equbrel aimpln~ and f.~r interchanqe~ &t Iks northern ®1 ~r. ~. L. Hundlev provided in the DEle. -, flabert T. 1Dennis. PresJ dent li~GIONIII 841 Ct. il,tM (luildMg / PhlMdlqJl~k Peml,ilvlmi 1Ol0! Hr. ~ames H. · Tumlin 4O0 N. Eighth Street RlchmonCt, vkrginl& 23240 Dear Hr. TumLim JUL Ss~tkou 309 of ~ho C~e~ Air ~, ~ bas reviewed tAe Draf~ ~vi~o~n~al ~ S~en~ {DSZ8) for ~e ~ve-re~ere~ p~oj~t, we ~va rac~o~o~K~on EPA*o rating sca~e, a co~ of ~l~ is e~losed for ~q~o~ic~. ~ ~Rinv Is d~sp~c~8. ~e- ~oll~l~ c~n~s ~e provides for ~oor consideration in ~ ri~ ~lroutat ~t S~at~nt (fKtSJ. proJac~ is to ease t~nf£k¢ congestion along Rou~e 29 norS# o~ C~rlo~teafllle. HovovoFe b~ Off ~e info--ties present~ t~ fl~ion KV o~ t~D~s.. ~o pro~s~ e~ldRe~iXd alternatives G~e~zar~adS. flinae t~e pro~s~iMaZ~erna~fves gould nec improve the~veX Of Se~lce effuse 29, ve~esCion ~8 ne~ for on a n~ Z~Rien. The OCS states that kltefftit~ves 6, S~, ?, arid 7A feller tho general ZocatioB of tho progranwd HeadovcrasJc Parkvay. The HeadoveFeeJc ParkvaF end the Rko Hoed/Route 250 Bypass Conflecto~ are Included as par~ of eJ~ Oafs Casa or 3M-b~lld alCernRlve. ~aso analysis, evaluaein!r alternatives $, 4fi, 7, and ~&, nay be redttlldAn~. ThO DK[S shoUl~ clearly shay tau Fortiona of Lie U.S. ENVIRONI~ENTAL PROTECIION AGI~fCY ?/17/~0 T~c lulected ahematho, which indud~. Ihzoo lrad~-pp:Med iflt~u~ along R~to 29. Mil p~ l n~ I~1 ~ ~ ~ B~lo 29. ~temu~ 9 ~ld smdo ~mto I~ ~ I~ ~ R~ ~. hi the J.te~io~ ~ne~ aM r~i~ ~ R~ ~ ~ ~ld ~ ~s dhmpiion lo lb ~ at lb ~m of bi ~dab ~ns ~m~ tho 3dnt ~flm~ pl~ b ~~ ~A~ all dtham in thh ~ Imp~d I~ Jm~~ ~m~~d ~ Rome ~ lmpnm of lbo Bm ~ ~ hd~ aH h olh~r m~ h th ad~led ~flon p~ hJ tb Bm ~ I~lf ~ ~ ~u~ t~ ~ nd Im~ ~n~ ~~i~ ~1~ ~ hhlodc pmp~ I~ Iht m~r AIM~lh 9 ~M bM ~r mmml ~~ ~p~ t~ ih olbr th ~[nl bio ~ ~d~, It ~M ~t ~tto~ ~.t the ~ or lbo ~Jtd and ~ m pr~ a ~ ~ d ~ hr ~e ~ IM I~1 A~h~ ~liom of~ ~S hn m[u vehicb ~m~m from ~f tho p~ proJ~ ~m~ ~ ~lnld ~ns_~A~L ~m ~o F~I HIB~ Admbh~t~s ~o~m ~l~u J ~ ~r~ntng~ ~ht z~ ~M simware ~t U M~I derail ~lau: ~t ~hMe mil~ i~I~ ~ ~lal~t~Jp~ ~hlch ~ 20.6~ mid -%. d~ - ~rna~ive ~ve ~e ~t~lal lot grea~eF e~ives mir screw, v~e~ ~ Rive ~a~ ~O ..... h Fork Rlv~  the ~' ' p~ue z~m-~- , va ~r~.'__.,.1 61spJ~mm ~ , b~Jnesa ~e of e~ cenue~s is ~e ultiute SgJ~ieU Of the preferr~ ~'s stag feel~g ~ ~enever ~Oib~e, l of ~_ -~e~at~tO sat [ ~e p~oJ -- -~-~s~u% p%ese~e areas, . I ~rt~Xtural ~ ' B~.~JJIM&L~ ~_he t]Fi)es 0£ ~odelS ~sed ~o a~oul4 briefly d~scr~ pr~ic~ t~ ~ ~els.p~es~-J '- in tbs ~%s ~cXgro~ air ~&ibl . ~e exta~i~ or mi Ot air quality =re ~te~tlpltY ~ne~.~a~ on ~%e Zv-~min ~tear~ c~... 6. & g. I1, VACAL3 lm2PTM Ine0~omle~ mcleOrd°Aic~! eond[tiol~ t~t ~ pr~ ~ . ~ ~ud ~ d ~ ~ler ~r ~ ~'~b~ia ~ ~d ~ cl[~le un~ I ~mtt~ S~uM ~ h ~red ~dng fl~ ~}~ t~ ~LL k [ i -1 1 1 1 - 1 .... i ~- ! ~ .... 1 I ®! ®1 · 1~o rEIS dmuJd IhOW tbs Level Of Service ILO~I jnprovements Juprovesent8 associated vith &ltemative 9. ~e cban~e Ju does no~ provide a~ua~e inferables on tho Improvements to traffic co~itl~8 ~n Route 29. In a~tion, tile rEIS Should clearly identify ~he progr~ed be in.clod bY ~he ~tld al~eroatives. Hitiga~to~ for ~y / ~e noise ~ndo! used to predict the future nois8 conditions should be ldentifie*J an~t the assumptions described In the FEI& ~o su~JeSt that tho idvisocy Council on IlistorJc l~reeervadon be cont~ea r~Kding th~ develo~n~ o~ a He~r~d~ of ~gree~fl~ for project l~cu to National R~istK Historic Places. | ~hs FSI$ Should explain the Infornation headed to co~plete [~he Impact raciu~ e~re sheet r~ulr~ by cae Farml~d Protection linfurnation uIll ~ attalfle~ ~d vhan t~e score shee~ ~Ill be ~nt~ct Denier H. ilgney a~ (21S) J2. use and populadee p~jectio~ Maximum volumes (peak-hour) were ~d Is p~o~ ~t~ m~lOom ex~ for ~u~ ~ ~ sites w~rc I~er volum~ ~wo u~ I~ mere bJrly Kplt ~nditio~.~flng na~aJ a~iviv lim~ f~ t~ f~liIi~ ~ Id ~ ~p~n~ ~ the tD~II hour. ~ ~t l ~e ~k ~ur. ~ t~c ~M ~ h t~ m~lln~ a~ p~ntco iff th~ One properly ~Jt~ble for the National itqhler of Historic Places will bc a~vmcty affected by lbo sclectaS Iftenmtive. An y. xcmtcd Section lO6 Memozanclum of Agreement is ineorperated in tho FBS. v-74CIIM~-PD! · R ~0~474 United Stat~s D~partment of the Interior OYtl(~ oF T]t~ SEC I~'r,o.Y 400 ~o~h EJqh~ street Richard, VA 33240-0045 t got the Oeprtment og the Interior's This res~d~_ t°~_~tro~enuI ;Sec tLon CouflCy, vXrginia- non~ 4(f use o~.Seotion 4If ..... ~- ~s desirable ~rom ~he ~, 1G, or ~ .... s~d~nt o~ i~ccm would ~ a~xd~. em ora s - DeFending o~ the alternatives' vetlan~n Pr~.vide_~_va~ ~o~ion, ground~at©r diaehar~e aha luding ~gratorv bird~, deer, ~aver and ourArt~mwr o.r Tm~ mtmuoR, oriqc~ oF ~ ~~y lnfo~ b p~n~ lo ~ A~-~ R~ ted Wafer ~eli~ T~nI~T d di~n~ Ol~r mlMmk a~ ~h f~ ~lhtn have ~n M~d ' - ' num~ ~f h~ indudlul mm~ e~rou~nml 1~ ~mnomlc end w~M ku~ ~ ~ut ~pad In ~mo a~ it ~M ~ effo~e~ m~l t~ __ J: Hid-Atlantis forested Netianda are eiperieneing a decline. Tn V~gin~a alone, between 1956 and L977, approximately 57,000 acres of Falustrine veqetated wetlands, most o£ which Here eorested, were destroyed I;ifler and finn replacement wetlands is nor~mlly r~quired share a ~ro)~cc causes forested uetle~ has not reached a h~gh level in successful cries. Lt ~ay take up ~o 30 years ~or planted The ~e~m,n~"~ eupe~alJy concern~ abou~ losses o~ th~ sC their deotrUcClon on a region-wide scale, and ~e general ]acx o~ au~eess In a~emp~ to replace lomt a~reige. Although o~ Me, lands ~aaoed by this pro3~ were no~ documented ty~and oMuflt. Me presume that forested areas o0uprise the bulk ~ra~Co for the~tnt-flance of mpeoiem d~verm~ty, several o~ the ai~er~tives p~sed Mill fraO~nt these forested a~eae, thereby De~iled diagrams depL~&Jng locations and ~undar~es e~Latin~ uetiand~, streams, and ~a. [n relation ~G the pro, Bed roadway alignments. A breakdoun og wetland t~pes and acreages of im~cts fo~ ~he candida~e SC Lhe build alternatives. ~he De~rtmen~ finds alternative coneer~ut~on of an.expressway along the existing Rants 29, to be th~ leas~ 4aMgLng ~:om · f~ah in4 M~ldiL~e resources st~nd~lnt. Llteratu~Cl~ed T~ner, H.W.. a~d J.T. Finn. 1986. S~aeus and Recent Trends of Wetlands tn f~ve Htd-A~lantic S~ates. fftldlife service, fish and ~Lldi~fe ,e~lando Inventory PzoJ~. K~n Corner, Geological Resources - The Terrestrial Ecology Technical fle~orand~, aL~edGn .P. II~-L0 vas no~ inuluded for zev~ev an~ the ~he draf~ EIS d~o not address the geologLc study corridor. The document should at~e the ineen~[on to eonduc~ de~aU~ geo~echnlc~l studies along ~he pro,sad proJ~c~ corridor. Tbs projec~ l~eo Ln Seismic R, ak Zone [[ of Lhe cb&Fission ear,quake of ~886. K~tga~iofl o~ ~h~a and o~her ~en~ia~ geologic h~zarda, if ~hey exist, ®1 Klneral Resources 7he draft document does not mention mineral resources, and according to tho Gureau*s Hkneraln Yearbook for 1987 crushed ~tone is produced in Alher~Arle county.. In . Resources of Virginia, 1983).shows four crushed stone west of charlottnsuille. According to 9enfl~ell Publish,ns Co.. Hat~ral Gao Pipelines nap (i982l of the United sta~es and Canada. a pipeline ks lassoed Lo the northuost part of the county 4nd one in the ~orthern ~art. fltneral resouress, impacts to Lhose resources, and pla~n for relocating or pro, eating pipelines, if they pass through the pro~sot area, should be dkscussed in subsequent reports or environmental documents. [~ flu adverse sCat'~meflC to ~haC e~t should be include in the [lnal document. o~ ~ U.S. Army Corfu of tug~neorn ~rntt for reco~eflded alternatkve 9 vou]4~ ~hat of no objection, provided ~ha~ un, lan6 iupauta are nkfl~ize4 and o~ensat~on for unavoidable ~oremted ,ericsOn ,~ a k:i basis for other wetland types. [mplementatto~ o~ other alternative allg~en~B ks not SU~RY_~NTS alternatives, aa~erna~ive f be dGt~f-~-lo th~ pre~erred al~er~ve atone LC boui~ hay4 the least lmptct to ~bl~ bisons, a~ fish and ~Lldll~o re~urces. are gEl]in9 to ooo~rate and c, rdinate rich you on a pJe~s~ eonc~the kbgko~u[ Oir~tor~ ~a~ional Park Serv~oe. H~d- ~7013~. Par ma~era ~r~a~ning ~o fish and wildlife resources ~TS g]2-2007, co~er~al 301;269~5448). For ma~ero to 9eologio resources, ~leaae c0nea~t the ~tiflg Dire=tar for Engineering Geology. U.s. ~ologtcal Survey, ntneral resources, please contact tho Chief. [~ermouu~&in OFerattone Center0 Bureau o~ Hine.. P.O. ~oK 25005. Denver Feder&l Center, Denver. Colorado 80225 (~eJephone~ 776-0263, co~nercAal 303;236-0263l, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these SLncerely, ~o~g£co o~ Environmental Af~aLre RoberL L. Hundley' Environmental Engineer VLFgin)a Depg.~of Tranu~F~a~lon RLch~nd, VA 23219 va. SHPO .Va. ~ 04/Ii/99 10:$~ ~'804 977 74i8 C&TC0 ~053/034 ,TRAF.FIC 'AND' I ! il Table 2.3, 2000' Tri~.gular Trip T~,bl¢ APPENDIX C ~]034/034 Tabl~ 2.4 (~)Triangular Trip Table ROUTE 29 BYPASS State Project Number: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101 Federal Project Number: NH-037-2 (130) Albemarle County, Virginia APPENDIX D U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Federal Highway Administration Response 3/700 Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator, to Willie R. Taylor U. S. Department of the Interior 1 / 13/00 Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary Route 29 Bypass, Final Section 4(f) Evaluation D-1 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Virginia Division (804)775-3320 March 7, 2000 P.O. Box 10249 400 N. 8th Street Rm. 750 Richmond, Virginia 23240 IN REPLY REFER TO: Route 29 Bypass; Albemarle County School Complex; Section 4(f) Evaluation; ~ Albemarle County, Virginia; Federal No. NH-037-2(130) State No. 6029-002-F22-PE101 ER-99/985 Mr. Willie R. Taylor, Director Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Department of the Interior Main Street Building, MS 2340 1849 C Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20240 Dear Mr. Taylor: We have received your letter dated January 13, 2000, transmitting comments on the subject Section 4(f) Ev~uation. The purpose of this letter is to respond to your comments and let you know how we intend to proceed in light of those comments. As you are aware, we are required to coordinate with the U.S. Department of the Interior under the 1966 Department of Transportation Act on matters related to Section 4(f). At issue is whether the Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have pursued all possible planning to minimize harm to the Albemarle County School Complex. We believe that we have. Ever since the initiation of the Route 29 Corridor Study in the late-1980s, Albemarle County officials have been extensively involved in the planning of what is now known as the Route 29 Bypass. Accordingly, VDOT has worked with county officials to identify and avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive resources in the area. County officials were regular participants throughout the development of the Route 29 Corridor Study which established the initial location of the proposed bypass, and they initially endorsed the selected alternative that impacted the Albemarle County School Complex. Following issuance of a Record of Decision in 1993, county officials were closely involved in the development of the design of the selected alternative. During this time, VDOT worked with county officials to reduce harm to the school complex and avoid other school properties. Despite these initial efforts with county officials, neither FHWA or VDOT knew of the presence or significance of recreational trails located on school property. In addition, neither FHWA nor VDOT knew of the decision by county officials, through their adoption of the Community Facilities Plan in 1991, to designate all public schools as public recreational facilities. It wasn't until January 1998 with the filing-of a lawsuit by the Southern Environmental Law Center that FHWA and VDOT became aware of the presence of the trails and their significance. In August of 1998, county officials finally provided VDOT with information on the trails and information on their designation of public, school property as "district parks." Once FHWA made a decision that use of the trails on the Albemarle County School Complex were subject to the provisions of Section 4(f), we requested mapping of the trails from Albemarle so that avoidance and minimization alternatives could be developed. To date, we have not receivgd a response from the county. As documented in Appendix B of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, VDOT's consultant met with county officials onNovember 17, 1998, to discuss avoidance and minimization alternatives and potential mitigation. Although county officials were receptive to discussing mitigation efforts at that time, they later responded in their comments on the draft Section 4(f) 'Evaluation dated April of 1999 that impacts to the trail could not be mitigated. Notwithstanding the comments of County officials, VDOT has explored measures to minimize harm to the Albemarle County School Complex although it is noted that these minimization efforts are not intended to completely mitigate the impact of the project. Based on these efforts, VDOT has committed to the following minimization efforts which will reduce the total use of the school complex from 15:17 acres to 12.43 (approximately 7% of the school complex) and avoid any use of the trail behind Jack Jouett Middle School: The alignment has been shifted to the west to the degree permissible without encroaching upon Schlesinger Farm, another Section 4(f) resource, and without moving the alignment closer to Ivy Creek which contains occurrences of the federally endangered James spinymussel. In April of 1998, we entered into formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service due to potential impacts to the James spinymussel. In June of 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued their biological opinion which imposed several conditions required to be implemented during construction. The cross section has been reduced (as requested by the county officials) by reducing the width of the median. The cross section has been reduced (as requested by county officials) by crossing the stream on bridge instead of fill. The vertical alignment has been lowered to reduce noise impacts, the amount of fill, and the overall visual intrusion of the roadway on the school. Because of the topography, the road sits below the level of the school and associated playing fields in a natural valley. In order to further minimize visual impacts, cut and fill slopes will be revegetated and landscaped (as requested by county officials) with indigenous tree species, beginning with seedlings or nursery stock, that will help block the view of the road and allow it to blend in with the surrounding landscape over time. * A fence has been added to prohibit pedestrian access (as requested by county officials). Although there is sOme question whether the trails behind Mary Greer Elementary School are functioning as a recreational resource since the majority of the trails are on private property, maintenance of the trails is not readily apparent, and the Portion of the trails on school property are not completely contiguous, the trail will be reconnected outside the highway right-of-way for those who use it for recreational purposes. '* As is standard practice, Albemarle County will be fully compensated for all right-of-way acquired for the project. A few other minimization efforts have been considered but will not be incorporated into the project for the reasons indicated: Noise barriers to reduce noise impacts on the school complex have been considered but rejected by VDOT because of the cost and the limited benefit they will provide. Barriers costing between $1.02 and $1.3 million dollars have been considered but rejected because they would not completely eliminate the noise impact. VDOT offered to provide a more permanent surface on impacted portions of the trail but county officials rejected the offer. To summarize, FHWA and VDOT believe that they have explored all possible planning to minimize harm to the Albemarle County School Complex. Since the inception of the Route 29 Corridor Study, FI-IWA and VDOT has worked with county officials in a good-faith effort to identify and avoid Section 4(I') resources including public schools. Upon being made aware of the presence of the trails at the school complex, FHWA and VDOT took the appropriate steps to address it in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(f). At this time, we plan to make some minor changes and finalize the Section 4(f) Evaluation. Once the document is finalized, we will provide you with a copy. As per your request, we will meet with the County prior to the acquisition of right-of-way and address any outstanding issues. However, we do not anticipate any additional minimization measures as a result of such a meeting. The Southern Environmental Law Center, in papers filed with the court, characterized the County's position as such: "...the concurrence of the County, and therefore the removal of DOI's objections, is not likely to occur any time soon, if ever." Sincerely, Roberto Fonseca-Martinez Division Administrator By: Ed~ward S. Suhdra ' E~X, ironmental Specialist, Sr. ER-99/985 Mr. Robeno Fom~.,a-Marrmez Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Post Office Box 10249 400 North 8th Street, Room 750 Richmond Virginia 23240 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Waahingtoa, D.C. 2024~ Dear MA'. Fonseca-~ez This is in response to the request/'or the Department o/. the Inta'ior's comments on the revised Section 4(/) Evaluation /'or the Albemarle County School Complex, R. out~ 29 Bypass, Albemarle County, Virginia. Section 4(0 Evaluation Comments 'We are pleased that the proposed project has been revised to avoid the wait system at Jack Jouer: Middle School However, we do not believe that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm to the Albemarle County School Complex. Correspondence from the County and other groups expresses very serious concerns abou~ the direct and cons~uctive use of the School Complex by the proposed project because it witI take approximately 12.43 acres from an undisturbed natural setting of school property and 771 linear/'eel of multi-use trails under the minimi~tion alternative. Also, ~here is no indication that this [arge acreage will be replaced or compensation will be paid to the County to be earmarked for park and recreational purposes. We share those concerns and recommend that officials from the Federal Highway Admmiswa~on and the V/rgm/a Department of Transportation meet with Albemarle County Officials in order to reach a wrinen agreement concerning projec~ altemar/ves, including impacts and m/ti~ation measures w Section 4(f) resources, which should encompass the Albemarle County School Complex (approximately 218 acres) and the entire Agnor~Hurt Elementary School property of approximately I9.5 acres. We would continue to oppose the projec~ until such an agreement is reached to the satisfaction of County officials. A signed copy of the agreement should be included in the Final Section 4(0 Evaluation. and Wdd~liFe Resource The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) completed formal consultation on. Route 29 with submission of a biological opinion to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) dated June 5, 1998. The biological opimou detailed potential impa~ts of the projec~ on the James River spinymusset (Pleurobema collina). The biological opinion authorized incidental take of the James River spinymussel associated with the consw~crion of Route 29 in Albemarle County, Virginia. As required by 50 CFR 402. t6, reinitia~on of formal consultation by FHWA with FWS is required if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded: (2) new information reveals effects of' the action that may impact listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the Opinion: (3) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the Opinion or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. Since there are no changes to the alignment in the vicinity of Ivy Creek and .[ouett Middle School, re- initiation of formal consultation with the FWS on this project will not be required. Summary Comments We would be pleased to review and comment on any agreement signed with County officials concerning project alternatives, impacts and miugation to the School Complex when cimulated for public review and CO~n~T~ent. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. Willie R. Taylor Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance CC: ' Mr. Earl T. Robb Environmental Administrator Virginia Depa, tmcnt of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, Virgima 23219-1939 Ms. Pat Mullancy Dircmxa' of Parks and Recreation County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road CharlottemrilIe, Virginia ~902-4596