HomeMy WebLinkAboutRt 29 Bypass Jack Jouett TrailU.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DRAFT SECTION 4(0 EVALUATION
Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School
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 by
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project involves construction of a new four-lane, limited access bypass to the west of
existing Route 29 to facilitate the movement of through traffic and to relieve congestion on existing
Route 29. Included in the project is a new access point into the North Grounds of the University of
Virginia. This Section 4(f) Eyaluation addresses the project's effects on a trail at Jack Jouett Middle
School.
Approved by:
Date
Planning and Enviromental Manager
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DRAFT SECTION 4(0 EVALUATION
Trail at Jack Jouett Middle School
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 by
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
and
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project involves construction of a new four-lane, limited access bypass to the west of
existing Route 29 to facilitate the movement of through traffic and to relieve congestion on existing
Route 29. Included in the project is a new access point into the North Grounds of the University of
Virginia. This Section 4(f) Evaluation addresses the project's effects on a trail at Jack Jouett Middle
School.
Approved by:
Date
Planning and Environmental Manager
Federal Highway Administration
DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
Contents
Page
Do
Attachment I
Description and Need for the Project ...................................................... i
Overview of Section 4(f) Involvement .................................................... 3
Section 4(0 Evaluation of Trail at Jouett Middle School ...................................... 4
1. Relationship to Proposed Project .................................................. 4
2. Size and Location ............................................................. 4
3. Ownership and Type of 4(0 Property .............................................. 4
4. Function ..................................................................... 7
5. Facilities .................................................................... 7
6. Access ...................................................................... 7
7. Relationship to Similarly Used Lands .............................................. 8
8. Applicable Clauses Affecting Ownership ........................................... 8
9. Unusual Characteristics ......................................................... 8
10. Impacts on Trail ............................................................... 8
I I. Avoidance Alternatives ........................................................ 11
12. Measures to Minimize Harm .................................................... 19
Coordination ....................................................................... 21
Correspondence with County Officials
The U.S. Department 0fTransportation Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303), Section 4(f),
requires that no publicly owned land from a public park or public recreation area, or land from a
significant historic site, be used for federal-aid highways unless there is no prudent and feasible
alternative. Significant historic sites are those listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Alternatives to avoid use of Section 4(f) properties and
measures to minimize harm to them must be considered.
The current design of the Route 29 Bypass involves the use of a portion of a trail recently identified
by Albemarle County as a public recreation facility. Based upon information provided by County
officials with jurisdiction over the school property containing the trail, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) determined that the trail constitutes a Section 4(f) resource, which requires
preparation of a Section 4(f) Evaluation. This Section 4(f) Evaluation describes the resource, the
project's impacts to it, avoidance alternatives, and measures m minimize harm.
A. DESCRIPTION AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The proposed improvements would provide a-new four-lane divided, limited access bypass to the
west of existing Route 29. It would extend approximately 10.04 kilometers (6.24 miles) 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 would also include
construction of a connector road into the North Grounds of the University of Virginia, located on
the south side of the Route 250 Bypass. Access to the new highway would be via imerchanges at
both ends, with no intermediate access pointz to crossroads or adjacent properties. This design is
referred to throughout this evaluation as the "currem design." Figure 1 shows the project alignment
and the location of the trail.
Route .9 Bypass. Section 4(f} Evaluation [
Current Design
Trail Location
Original Alternative 10
Figure 1
Location of Trail
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101
RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
SCALE (FEET)
I
0 1250 2500
Reference: USGS Quadrangles, Charlottesville West,
Charlottesville East
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 mm lanes) have
improved travel conditions in the corridor, existing Route 29 still passes through a heavily developed
commercial area and the flow of through traffic is impeded by congestion and a number of traffic
signals.
The proposed bypass is an important link in the State Arterial System, mandated by the Virginia
General Assembly to provide multilane divided, high-speed highways serving major towns and cities
in the state. 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.
The existing section of Route 29 north of Charlottesville has in effect become a local street and no
longer adequately serves the mobility function intended for the Arterial System. 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 Si~mificance. Route 29 is the only north-south highway linking the urbanized areas through
and beyond central Virginia (Danville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Culpeper, and Warrenton,
Virginia; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Washington, D.C.). Representatives of these and other
localities along the corridor continue to strongly support the project to help meet regional and
statewide transportation needs.
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).
B. OVERVIEW OF SECTION 4(f) INVOLVEMENT
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) signed by FHWA on January 20, 1993 contained
Section 4(f)/106 Evaluations for five recreational or historic properties. These properties had been
identified through extensive coordination with local officials and through multiple field
investigations and evaluations of community and historic resources, as well as consultations with
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR). The Selected Alternative was the only
prudent and feasible bypass alternative that avoided use of any Section 4(f) properties.
During the design phase of the project, additional c~)ordination with citizens and County officials
occurred on a frequent and regular basis. After the Design Public Hearing was held, a suit filed by
the Sierra Club and the Piedmont Environmental Council alleged that a trail behind Jack Jouett
Middle School meets the criteria for Section 4(f) protection. County officials have since confirmed
that the trail comprises an important recreational resource for Albemarle County (see Section D of
this Section 4(f) Evaluation for coordination comments). Upon receiving this confn'mation, FHWA
and the Virginia Deparunent of Transportation (VDOT) commenced actions to prepare this Section
4(f) Evaluation.
Koute 29 Bypass, Section 4(t) Evaluation 3
The trail is an unpaved path through the woods behind Jack Jouett Middle School. A complete
description of it is provided in subsequent sections of this Evaluation. It is on school property and
is one of several other recreational facilities on the property. As a multiple-use property
accommodating several activities in addition to recreational use, only those portions of the property
which function primarily for recreational use are subject to Section 4(f). The only recreational
facility encroached on by the project is the trail. Therefore, only the trail itself, and not the
encompassing school property, constitutes the Section 4(f) resource.
The current design for the project would displace approximately 204 meters (668 feet) of the trail
with an area of approximately 0.05 hectare (0.12 acre). This impact constitutes approximately I 1
percent of the trail.
C. SECTION 4(0 EVALUATION OF TRAIL AT JOUETT MIDDLE SCHOOL
1. Relationship to Proposed Project
Figure 1 showed the location of the trail in relation to the Route 29 Bypass project. The current
design would cut offthe westernmost loop of the trail.
2. Size and Location
The unpaved trail is roughly 1.8 to 2.4 meters (6 to 8 feet) wide and approximately 1.85 kilometers
(1.15 miles) long. It is 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 2. The trail begins at the
southwestern comer of the playing field west of Jack Jouett Middle School, goes downhill through
the woods to an unnamed stream, roms southeastward to parallel the stream, then one branch tums
northward to remm to the east end of the field. The other branch continues eastward along the north
side of the stream and appears to have been cut offby construction of the new Piedmont Regional
Education Program School. The trail picks up again on the east side of the construction site and
continues eastward. At a sewer pump station it splits, with one branch going toward the Georgetown
Green residential development and the other taming north to end at the baseball field south of
Albemarle High School. Figure 3 shows a typical view of the trail. The surrounding deciduous
forest is comprised of hickory, tulip poplar, and various species of oaks.
3. Ownership and Type of 4(0 Property
The Albemarle County School Board owns the trail and all the other property comprising the
Albemarle CounW school complex. The complex includes Mary Greer Elementary School, Jack
Jouett Middle School, and Albemarle High School. The total acreage of the school complex
property is 216.691 acres according to the recorded deed (DB 287 P414, 11/23/49). The trail is a
publicly owned public recreation facility, which is one component of the encompassing multi-use
school property. There are no signs designating the trail or its hours of availability for public use.
Route 29 Bypass, Section 4(t'} Evaluauon 4
Forestal District
PREP School
(new construction)
Jack Jouet~ MS
Softball
Fields
Ddver Training
\. Trail
'1 /
Mary Gmer ES School Bus Parking
[' Fueling Facility )
Practice Fields
Albemarle HS
Georgetown Green
SCALE: 1"=600'
O O
Figure 2
Trail Site
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
4. Function
Upon being apprised of the trail's potential status as a Section 4(f) resource, VDOT began
investigations. Initial observations indicated use of the trail by students from the school, perhaps
as part of the school's physical education classes. Use by the public, if any, appeared to be
secondary and incidental, and there were no outward indications that public recreation is a major
purpose of the trail. For example, there are no signs identifying the trail as a recreational resource
and the County's Land Use Plan, which lists a number of other facilities at the school as recreational
resources, does not include the trail.
Clarification of the trail's status and its role in fulfilling the County's recreation needs was requested
in a letter to the County Executive on June 11, 1998. In a written response dated August 14, 1998,
Albemarle County's Community Development Chief indicated that the trail behind Jack Jouett
Middle School is used for school athletic team training, academic programs, and general public use.
He further noted that the trail is used for training 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 trail is also used by earth science classes at the three schools. As provided by County
policy, school facilities function as public park/recreation facilities to serve the general public. In
addition, he said the trail is open after school hours for public use and is actively used by the public
for walking and jogging. The trail provides a "soft track facility in a natural setting for walking and
jogging near the most populated and densely developed part of the County." He stated that no
organized events are held on the trail and that "There are no definite plans for the future other than
maintenance to the existing trails and use."
In a follow-up letter, the Albemarle County Director of Parks and Recreation noted that the trail is
heavily used by the community because of its location in the most densely developed area of the
County and that it constitutes a significant recreational resource. According to the Director, sign-up
sheets at the trail indicate that public use is approximately 30 to 35 persons per day, and school
athletic teams who use the trail three to five times a week in season may have as many as 50 team
members on the trail at once. He further explained the County's policy of utilizing school facilities
to more efficiently meet the County's overall recreational needs. The facilities at the school complex
function as a district park, providing a variety of recreational activities such as tennis, field sports,
and walking.
5. Facilities
There are no facilities along the trail.
6. Access
Access to the westem portion of the trail is gained from the Jack Jouett Middle School playing field.
Parking is available approximately 244 meters (800 feet) to the northeast in a parking lot between
Jack Jouett Middle School and Mary Greer Elementary School. Access to the eastern portion of the
trail is from the Georgetown Green residential development or by walking around the outside of the
Route 29 Bypass. Section 4(f) Evaluation 7
fence surrounding the baseball field. No public parking is available at Georgetown Green. Parking
at Albemarle High School is approximately 305 meters (1,000 feet) northeast of the trail.
7. Relationship to Similarly Used Lands
The trail is a component of a larger assemblage of recreational facilities at the County school
complex, as illustrated on Figure 2. The trail complements other existing facilities in the area to
provide a variety of recreational oppommities. Information provided by the County indicates that
there are no other existing recreational trails that would be affected by the project. It was noted that
a planned trail along the South Fork Rivanna River is called for in the County's Land Use Plan and
Open Space Plan. No location for that 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.
The nearest site with comparable recreational trails is Whitewood Road Park. This is a 20-acre
wooded park approximately 366 meters (1,200 feet) 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. Trails through the park are either
paved or gravel and are approximately 1.8 to 3.0 meters (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. It is open from 6:30 a.m. until dark. The Ivy Creek Natural Area on the south bank of the
South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir, approximately 2.09 kilometers (1.3 miles) north of the school
complex, also contains trails. Jogging and biking are not permitted on the Ivy Creek Natural Area
trails.
8. Applicable Clauses Affecting Ownership
Thereare no clauses in the deed for this property that would affect ownership.
9. Unusual Characteristics
There are no unusual characteristics associated with. this trail.
10. Impacts on Trail
Displacement of Section of Trail. The current design of the project, as shown on Figure 4, would
require the use of approximately 0.05 hectare (0.12 acre) of land comprising the trail. This use
would displace approximately 204 meters (668 feet) of the trail, breaking its continuity. Without
relocating the displaced portion of the trail, or otherwise mitigating the impact, the trail would
essentially be severed and would serve as two separate dead-end trails.
Route 29 Bypass, Section 4(0 Evaluation
I~ Creek Agricultural
and Forestal District
ss
ss
ss
I
I
\
Trail
SCALE: 1"=200'
Construction Limits
Figure 4
Use of Trail by Proposed Project
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
Noise Levels. In noise studies conducted for the project, projected noise levels at various distances
from the road were determined by a noise model based on roadway geometry and traffic data inputs.
The table below shows the calculated noise levels at various distances. After construction of the
project, the nearest remaining portion of the trail would be approximately 40 meters (130 feet) from
the northbound lanes of the bypass. The noise studies indicate that this portion of the trail would
experience a noise level in the year 2022 of approximately 68 dBA. Portions of the trail farther away
from the road would experience incrementally lower noise levels, as suggested in the table. Thus,
the closest portion of the trail would experience future noise levels approximately 20 dBA higher
than the estimated existing noise level of 48 dBA. This represents a substantial increase in the noise
level and an exceedance of FHWA's noise abatement criterion (NAC). 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.
Table 1
NOISE LEVELS AT VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM PROJECT
Distance (from centerline of near lane) Noise Level
(dBA)
Meters Feet
10 33 76
20 66 72
30 98 69
4O 131 68
50 164 67
60 197 66
7O 230 65
80 262 64
90 295 63
100 328 62
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 Final EIS for
a site near the trail (Mary Greer Elementary School) are well below the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Therefore, the project would have a negligible effect on air quality along the
trail.
Visual 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. Thus, users of the severed portions of the
trail at the edge of the proposed right of way would see a roadway embankment approximately 3 to
17 meters high (10 to 58 feet). A trail user approaching from the northeast would, upon entering the
trail at the edge of the field, initially be able to look over and beyond the road; but, upon reaching
Route 29 Bypass, Seclion 4(f) Evaluation 1 0
the edge of the proposed right of way, the view to the west would be blocked by an embankment
approximately 3 meters (10 feet) high. A trail user approaching on the southern portion of the trail
would travel northwestward along the stream valley and then encounter an embankment
approximately 17 meters (58 feet) high carrying the roadway over the stream valley. This is in
contrast to the current views of the stream valley forested with medium-age to mature hardwoods.
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.
11. Avoidance Alternatives
Several altematives to avoid use of the trail by the project have been identified and evaluated. They
include previous alternatives addressed in the FEIS and modifications to the current design. Such
modifications include alignment shifts to the east or west, special design features such as retaining
walls, profile adjustments, and the use of bridges.
Previous Alternatives
Build altematives discussed in the FEIS included Altematives 6, 6B, 7, 7A, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Figure 5 shows the locations of these alignment alternatives in relation to the location of Section
4(f)/106 properties. All but Alternative 10 (the Selected Alternative upon which the current design
is based) would avoid use of land from the trail. However, the No-Build Alternative and
Alternatives 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 of the previously considered alternatives to the Selected Alternative represent feasible and
prudent Section 4(f) avoidance alternatives.
Modifications to Current Design
Five alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) that modify the current design to avoid use of the
trail have been considered. They are shown on Figures 6 through 10. Evaluation of these
alternatives has taken into account other environmental constraints in the area as well as design
considerations.
Alternative A, shift alignment to the west. This alternative, shown on Figure 6, would involve
shifting approximately 1,006 meters (3,300 feet) of the alignment to the west of the presently
proposed alignment. The maximum shift would be approximately 46 meters (150 feet). With this
alternative, the northbound lanes would be approximately 26 meters (85 feet) from the trail at their
closest point. The impacts associated with this shift include the following:
Route 29 llyp~. Section 4(~ Evaluation
Figure 5
Previous Alternatives
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
~ Historic Properties
~ Parks
Scale (tulle)
o 1
./
and Forestal District
" ~ Construction Limits
:1
:1
I
\
\
Trail
;
/
Figure 6
Avoidance Alternative A
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
SC^LE: r'=200' Albemarle County, Virginia
An encroachment on the Schlesinger (Haffner) Farm historic site located to the south would
occur as a result of the westward shift in alignment: The encroachment, mounting to
approximately 0.27 hectare (0.67 acre), would creme another Section 4(f) involvement.
Encroachment on the tributary of Ivy Creek would increase, resulting in displacement of
approximately 912 meters (2,992 feet) of stream bottom. This additional displacement,
along with the westward shift, would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation,
which would also increase the concern for potential effects on downstream populations of
James spinymussel (federally listed endangered species) in Ivy Creek. This additional
encroachment would likely compromise the determination of no jeopardy to the mussel made
by the U.S. Fish.and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the current design.
Encroachment on wetlands associated with the tributary of Ivy Creek would increase to
approximately 0.29 hectare (0.71 acre).
Encroachment on the Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District would increase to
approximately 3.80 hectares (9.38 acres). Because this is greater than one acre of impact to
a single farm within the district, VDOT would be required under state law to submit a notice
to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors would then issue a finding
on whether the proposed project is necessary to provide service to the public in the most
economic and practical manner and whether it would have an unreasonably adverse effect
upon state or local policy.
Alternative B, shift alignment to the west with reduced design standard. Alternative B, shown
on Figure 7, would involve shifting approximately 1,006 meters (3,300 feet) of the aligrnuent to the
west of the presently proposed alignment. The maximum shift would be approximately 26 meters
(85 feet). With this alternative, the use of reduced design standards (steeper grades, lower design
speed, etc.) would allow a smaller lateral shift of the alignment and a narrower cross section due to
less earthwork in cuts and fills. This alternative would require FHWA approval of a design
exception to use standards lower than those to be usedon the remainder of the project. The impacts
associated with this alternative include the following:
An encroachment on the Schiesinger (Haffner) Farm historic site located to the south would
occur as a result of the westward shift in alignment. The encroachment, amounting to
approximately 0.03 hectare (0.07 acre), would create another Section 4(f) involvement.
Encroachment on the tributary of Ivy Creek would increase, resulting in displacement of
approximately 682 meters (2,238 feet) of stream bottom. This additional displacement,
along with the westward shift, would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation,
which would also increase the concern for potential effects on downstream populations of
James spinymussel (federally listed endangered species) in Ivy Creek. This additional
encroachment would likely compromise the determination of no jeopardy to the mussel made
by USFWS for the current design.
Route 29 Bypass, Section 4(0 Evaluation 1 4
Ivy Creek Agricultural
and Forestal District
: /
I
I
X
X
\
Construction Limits
...... , ,,~ .../ \% # ',._~ .
.. , .: ...:~ \ % ¥~
"~ '"- .... :'"'¢'': "5 f -~
)
~~Field~ '5
Figure 7
Avoidance Alternative B
Trail
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
sc^tE: r'--2oo' Albemarle County, Virginia
Encroachment on wetlands associated with the tributary of Ivy Creek would increase to
approximately 0.20 hectare (0.50 acre).
Encroachment on the Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District would increase to
approximately 2.26 hectares (5.58 acres). Because this is greater than one acre of impact to
a single farm within the district, VDOT would be required under state law to submit a notice
to the County Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors would then issue a finding
on whether the proposed project is necessary to provide service to the public in the most
economic and practical manner and whether it would have an unreasonably adverse effect
upon state or local policy.
Alternative C, shift alignment to the west and provide bridge. Alternative C, shown on Figure
8, would involve shifting approximately 1,006 meters (3,300 feet) of the alignment to the west of
the presently proposed alignment. The maximum shift would be approximately 18 meters (60 feet).
With this alternative, bridges would be used to cross the tributary of Ivy Creek and extended
northward to eliminate encroachment on the trail by earthwork embankment. The bridges would be
approximately 545 meters (1,788 feet) long and would also span part of the Ivy Creek Agricultural
and Forestal District. The impacts associated with this alternative include the following:
The view from the lower portions of the trail would be of the underside of a bridge rather
thana roadway embankment. The clearance under the bridge (approximately 4 meters or 13
feet) would afford limited views beyond the bridge.
The tributary of Ivy Creek would be spanned, thus lessening potential for erosion and
sedimentation and the associated concern for potential effects on downstream James
spinymussel populations.
The estimated construction cost would increase by approximately $19.6 million.
Alternative D, bridge over the traiL Alternative D, shown on Figure 9, would use the same
alignment as the current design but would bridge over the trail. This is considered an avoidance
alternative because aerial crossings of linear Section 4(f) resources are not considered a "use'~ of the
resource unless piers or other appurtenances are placed on the resource or the bridge harms the
purposes for which the resource was established. The bridges would be approximately 275 meters
(902 feet) long for the southbound lanes and approximately 280 meters (919 feet) long for the
northbound lanes and would also span the tributary of Ivy Creek and a portion of the Ivy Creek
Agricultural and Forestal District. The clearance under the northbound lanes would be
approximately 4 meters (13 feet) at the points where the trail would pass under them. The impacts
associated with this alternative include the following:
The view from the lower portions of the trail would be ofthe underside of a bridge rather
than a roadway embankment. The clearance under the bridge (approximately 4 meters or 13
feet) would afford views beyond the bridge, although they would be interrupted somewhat
by the bridge piers.
Route 29 Bypa~l. Section 4(t') Evaluation 16
(~:: IW Creek Agricultural
~' and Forestal District
Construction ~
Trail
Construction Limits ' ?" "'
Avoid~ce Alternative C
Route 29 Bypass
Project: ~029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albem~le County, Virginia
Ivy Creek Agricultural
and Forestal District
Constru~c 'on Limits
I
\
\
Construction Limits
Trail
SCALE: 1"=200'
Figure 9
Avoidance Alternative D
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
The tributary of Ivy Creek would be spanned, thus lessening potential for erosion and
sedimentation and the associated concern for potential effects on downstream James
spinymussel populations in Ivy Creek.
The estimated construction cost would increase approximately $8.8 million.
Alternative E, shift alignment to the east. Alternative E, shown on Figure 10, would involve
shiffing approximately 3,810 meters (12,500 feet) of the alignment to the east of the presently
proposed alignment. The maximum shift would be approximately 610 meters (2,000 feet). The
impacts associated with this alternative include the following:
The view from a portion of the eastern segmem of the trail would be of the underside of a
bridge rather than a roadway embankment. The clearance under the bridge would afford
views beyond the bridge, although they would be interrupted somewhat by the bridge piers.
The tributary of Ivy Creek would be spanned with a bridge and the crossing location would
be farther upstream, thus lessening potential for erosion and sedimentation and the associated
concern for potential effects on downstream James spinymussel populations in Ivy Creek.
The new Piedmont Regional Education Program School currently under construction would
be displaced, as would the existing vehicular maintenance facility and its new expansion
currently under construction. This alternative would also split the school complex and
disrupt internal traffic circulation patterns.
Summary. Table 2 provides a comparative summary of impacts for the current design and the
avoidance alternatives for selected resources in the vicinity of the trail.
Constructive use. Constructive use occurs when a project does not physically incorporate land from
the Section 4(f) 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)]. 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 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 manmade features.
12. Measures to Minimize Harm
One of the principal measures to minimize harm would be to relocate the section of trail that would
be displaced by the project so as not to sever the trail. The severed portions would be reconnected
by building a new section of trail along or near the toe of the fill embankment, as shown on Figure
11. Another measure would be to provide landscaping on the fill slopes that would screen the
roadway from the trail. Work on such a landscaping plan is already in progress for incorporation
Route 29 Bypass. Section 4(0 EValuauon 19
°
'\ \,
Trail
Georgetown
Green
Figure 10
Avoidance Alternative E
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA-002-001, PE 101
SCALE: 1"=!000' Albemarle County, Virginia
Table 2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Alternative
Impact Category Current
Design A B C D E
Displacements
Families 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit Organizations 0 0 0 0 0 2
Section 4(0 Involvements (acres)
Trail at Jouett Middle School 0.12 0 0 0 0* 0*
Historic Schlesinger Farm 0 0.67 0.07 0 0 0
(Haff~er Farm)
Aquatic Resources
Number of Stream Crossings 1 1 1 1 1 1
Length of Stream Bottom Displaced 612 2,992 2,238 0 0 0
fleet)
Wetlands Displaced (acres) 0.20 0.71 0.50 0 0 0
Agricultural/Forestal District 2.68 9.38 5.58 0.92 0.82 0
Encroachment (acres)
*This alternative would bridge over the trail and therefore would not "use" it under Section 4(f)2
into the final design. Providing noise abatement at this location does not appear to be cost-effectiVe.
Installation of a more permanent surface (paving) was considered, but County officials have said the
current natural surface is preferred.
Another measure to reduce harm would be to use bridges on the same alignment as the current
design. These bridges would not be long enough to completely span the trail as in Avoidance
Alternative D, but would eliminate encroachment on approximately 45 meters (148 feet) of the trail,
a reduction of approximately 20%. The bridges would be approximately 270 meters (886 feet) long
for the southbound lanes and 140 meters (459 feet) long for the northbound lanes. They would span
the tributary of Ivy Creek, thus lessening the potential for erosion and sedimentation and potential
effects on downstream populations of James spinymussel populations. They would also span a
portion of the Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, thus. reducing encroachment on the
district to less than one acre. These bridges would increase the estimated construction cost by
approximately $4.7 million.
Route 29 Bypass. Section 4(0 Evaluation
! ! ' ! ! ..... I ' ..... ] I ..... i -! 1 i '! ! i '1 ~-! - '! '- ]
ivy Crook ^gdcuitural
and Fomstal District
,tf
/ ..- Construction Limits
/
~),,' Constr~'~.tiod Limits --~ '~. ~ ~
..... .,~ ~',, ~ce.~e~as ~,. ~ ~
Figure 11
Measures to Minimize Ham
Relocated
Trail
SCALE: 1"=200'
Route 29 Bypass
Project: 6029-002-F22, PE 101; RUVA~002-001, PE 101
Albemarle County, Virginia
D. COORDINATION
Over the past 10 years of planning and design on this project, extensive coordination has been
conducted with Albemarle County officials, local citizens groups, and the public. During all that
time, the trail was never raised as an issue. Only when litigation was initiated by the Sierra Club and
'the Piedmont Environmental Council did anyone express concern for impacts to the trail.
Upon learning that the trail is an issue, VDOT initiated investigations to evaluate the trail and the
project's effects on it. Albemarle County officials with jurisdiction over the property were consulted
to clarify the role of the trail in the County's recreation programs, identify impacts to the trail, and
develop potential mitigation measures. The following is a synopsis of these consultations. Copies
of the actual correspondence are included in Attachment 1.
Date
Coordination with Albemarle County Officials
6/11/98
Letter from 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, outlining the role of the trail in Albemarle
County's overall recreational facilities and programs and providing information on
trail users.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
Correspondence with County Officials
Route 29 Bypa.~,, Sectior~ 4(f) Evaluation
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Plannin!t & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia ?.2902-4596
(804) 296-5823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE;
Patsy Napier, Project Manager
David Benish, Chief of Community Development
August 14, 1998
Response to questions regarding existing mails at County School Complex
The following are responses to your questions re~arding the above noted trails:
1. What is the major purpose of the trails?
The trails are used for school athletic team u'aining, academic pro.-ams and general public use. The trails
am used for training by Albemarle Hig~ 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. [f 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 i~ails provide a soR
track facility in a natural setting for walking and jogging ne.ar the most populated and densely developed
pan of the County. This trail system serves to help meet the demands from this pan of the County and
compliment other existing facilities in the area to provide a variety of u'aiI types and sellings for walking
and running opportunities.
The trails are also seen as a major r~source to the high school's cross-country, track and other sport teams.
There is a need for safe convenient so~ surface :rails for training runs.According_ to School Board policy,
Albemarle school athletes are prOhibited from practicing on most public ~ 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).
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 as public recreational facilities ~n the Comprehensive Plan. This has been
the case since the adoption of the Community Facilities P..l.an (May, 1991) and was reaffirmed in the
updated Land Use Plan component of the Comprehensive~lan, adopted June 1995 (excerpts fi-om both
documenm 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 deveiupment 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 ama 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. When 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 $ouett Middle School was upgraded in I990 when the cross-country
team and athletic department pooled funds ($$,000) to pay a contractor to level and expand the existing
trail. The primary group behind the initial u'aiI development has been the Albemarle cross-country team
and boosters. Their interest was generated by the limited training opportunities/facilities available in the
County atthe time. Over time, the participants in trail development have included the Monticello Area
Community Action Agency (MACAA), the Boy Scouts, and various service fraternities 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. Who were they constructed for and what purposes do they use them?
See the responses to questions 1, 3, and 5.
7. Hho 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?
The trails are still used for athletic team training and academic programs. The uails are also regularly used
by residents of neighborhoods along (and within) the Pdo/Hydrauiic Road "loop" and Georgetown and
Barracks Roads. According to the crnss-counu'y 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. Are there organized events for which the trails are used?
No. To date, there have been no organized events scheduled at this facility.(trail area). It is considered a
back-up facility for Albemarle cross-country meets.
I0. [$ 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.
I 1. What are thefuture plans for the trails?
There are no definite plans for the future other than maintenance to the existing lrails and use. The future
of the trail system after construction of the bypass will be considered at that time.
12. 7o what extent would this projeCt's effects on the mails affect county recreational programs?
The bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trail system, and will reduce
the arlxactiveness 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 wails or other recreational facilities, either existing or planned, that are or could
be affected by this project?
Y~s. 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 un--ding that the greenwa¥ pro .~sal has
been discussed with the Bypass Design Committee.
If you need any further information or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to con~ac~ me.
Cc: Wayne Cilimbe~g
Al Reasor
PatMullaney
Planning. R.E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Department
County Office Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Telephone (804) 296.5844
RECEIVED
NOV 1 0 199§
DELEUW, CATHER & COMPANY
FAIRFAX, VA.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Patsy Napier, Project Manager
Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation 'fz~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 opporBmity tO expand and elaborate on some of the responses of
August 21, t998 by David Benish, Chief of Community Development to your questions regarding
the trails at the County school complex.
i. What is the major purpose of the trails?
The provision of trails for public recreation is a major function of the Parks and Recreation
Department. 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 si~cant 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
oppommities; and, (2) the preservation of environmental or historically significant resources. Due
to the extensive developmem 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 sig, nificant 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
reco~iyed 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 I32, trails are
mentioned. "District parks provide additional facilities and recreational opportunities beyond what
is provided in smaller community parks. There should be a reasonable variety of recreational
facilities and oppo~mities; tot lots, tenni~ 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 Jotter Middle School and Greer Elementary
School, is designated a District Park on page 49 ofthe Albemarle County Commullity 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.
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 anew 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. t think this clearly shows the
significance this land has as a recreational resource to the County.
8. How many people use the trails 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 tmiIs 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 ar 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
program~?
As David stated the bypass would eliminate, or severely impact, major portions of the existing trails
system, and will greatly reduce the attractiveness ofwhat remains. Any toss oftrails in thi.q ar~ 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 are~ 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
Al Keaser
David Benish