Route 199, James City and York counties final environmental impact statement

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

ROUTE 199

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES

Final
Environmental Impact Statement

prepared for

Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
and
Virginia Department of Transportation

State Project 0199-047-102
and 0199-047-103
Federal Project F-126-1(101)

TD
7
.E5
1989

COASTAL ZONE
January 1989
INFORMATION CENTER

Property of CSC Library

FHWA-VA-EIS-86-01-F
Federal Highway Administration
Region Three

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
U.S. Department of Transportation COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
Federal Highway Administration 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

and

Virginia Department of Transportation

State Project Numbers 0199-047-102 and 0199-047-103
Federal Aid Project Number F-126-1(101)

Route 199 from Route 5 in James City County to Interstate 64 in York County.

The proposed access consists of extending Route 199 from Route 5 northward to
Interstate 64 as a four-lane divided access controlled facility.

Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) and 23 U.S.C. 128

This action complies with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.

Cooperating Agencies:

Virginia Marine Resources Commission

Department of the Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Date J.S. Hodge
Chief Engineer

Date Robert Gatz
Director
Office of Planning and Program
Development
Federal Highway Administration

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

For additional information contact:

Mr. Robert L. Hundley Mr. James M. Tumlin
Environmental Quality Engineer Division Administrator
Virginia Department of Highways Federal Highway Administration
and Transportation 400 North Eighth Street
1401 East Broad Street, P. 0. Box 10045
Room 114 Annex Richmond, Virginia 23240
Richmond, Virginia 23219

PHONE: (804) 786-4304 PHONE: (804) 771-2371

Table of Contents

Secti on Pa qe

SUMMARY

S-1 ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1
S-2 PERSONS TO CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION . . S-1
S-3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-1
S-4 PERMITS REQUIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-2
S-5 ALTERNATIVES STUDIED AND TI-E SELECTED ALTERNATIVE S-3
S-6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-5
S-7 BENEFICIAL EFFECTS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-5
S-8 ADVERSE EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-7

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 PLANNING BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.5 FUTURE TRAFFIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

3.0 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 PREVIOUS STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.3 BUILD ALTERNATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.4 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM
FURTF-ER EVALUATION . . . . . . 3-5
3.6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGE@@NT' 3-7

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.1 Existing Traff ic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1.2 Future Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4.1.3 Truck Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.2 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

4.2.1 Exi sti ng L and U se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18
4.2.2 Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22

4.3.1 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4.3.2 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22
4.3.3 Incom e ' ' * * * * * ' ' * * . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
4.3.4 Labor Force and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24

4.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES . . . . . . . . . 4-28

4.4.1 Neighborhood Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28
4.4.2 Emergency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
4.4.3 Institutions . . . . * * ' * . . . . . . . . . . 4-29
4.4.4 Parks, Recreation and Open Space . . . . . . .. . . . 4-30

4.5 CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31

4.5.1 Agricultural Lands . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-31
4.5.2 Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
4.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat . . . . . . . . . . 4-33
4.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . 4-33

4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

4.6.1 Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34
4.6.2 Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36
4.7 AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-43

4.8 NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

4.8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44
4.8.2 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
4.8.3 Noise Receptor Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
4.8.4 Existing Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-47
4.8.5 Predicted Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55

4.9 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . 4-56

4.9.1 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56
4.9.2 Groundwater and Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . 4-57
4.9.3 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59
4.9.4 Aquatic Ec logy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60
4.9.5 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
4.9.6 Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-63
4.9.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-63

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.1 Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2.1 Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A . . . . . 5-2
5.2.2 Alignment D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.2.3 No Build ATt-ernaLive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.3 SOCIOECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.3.1 Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.3.2 Special Relocation Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.3.3 Community Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.3.4 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.3.5 Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.3.6 Emplo@ment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
5.3.7 Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14
5.3.8 Property Tax Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17

5.5 CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

5.5.1 Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20
5.5.2 Forests . * * * * * * * * * * ' * ' * * * * ' * * 5-21
5.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife/Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21
5.5.4 Threatened/Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

5.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

5.6.1 Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24
5.6.2 Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24

5.7 AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26

5.7.1 Microscale Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-27
5.7.2 Conformance with the State Implementation Plan . . 5-30

5.8 ENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30

5.9 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33

5.9.1 Noise Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-33
5.9.2 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-41

5.10 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY . . . . . . . . 5-44

5.10.1 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-44
5.10.2 Groundwater and Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . 5-45
5.10.3 Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-46
---5.10.4 Aquatic Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-47
5.10.5 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48
5.10.6 Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-54

5.11 VISUAL EFFECTS . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55

5.12, COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

5.13 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-57

5.13.1 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-59

5.13.2 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-59
5.13.3 Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

5.14 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

5.15 SHORT-TERM USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61

5.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS . . . 5-62

5.17 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . 5-62

6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-70

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

8.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE
EIS ARE SENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

Appendix A

Questionnaires for Little Zion Baptist Church and
Mount Pleasant Baptist Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

Interagency Coordination Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2

Memorandum to Mr. R. A. Mannell from Mr. R. P. Morris . . . . . . B-7
Wetland Mitigation Plan - Site M-6A . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . B-9

Potential Plant Species for Mitigatin and Buffer Zone Plantings B-26

Appendix C - Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks Coordination

VDHL Letter Concurring wit h Recommended Phase II
Archaeological Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

VDHL Letter Concurring with No Impact Finding for Significant
Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2

No Adverse Effect Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4

Appendix D - Endangered Species - (Isotria medeoloides)

Section 7 Biological Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Recommendation by Virginia Department of Agriculture
and C ons um er S ervi ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2

Appendix E

Virginia Department of Transportation Road and Bridge
Specifications Section 107 14(b)3 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F

Wetlands Delineations for the Selected Alternative . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form Ad 1006 . . . . . . . . . G-1

List of Tables

Table E@jqe

S-1 Summary Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternates S-6

4-1 Existing Traffic Capacity Analysis 4-2
4-2 1990 Capacity Analysis 4-6
4-3 2010 Capacity Analysis 4-8
4-4 Alignment A Capacity Analysis 4-10
4-5 Alignment D Capacity Analysis 4-12
4-6 Rural Road Daily Traffic Service Volumes 4-15
4-7 Two Lane Rural Roadways Over Capacity 4-16
4-8 Noise Abatement Criteria 4-46
4-9 Site and Study Area Locations: Alignment A 4-48
4-10 Site and Study Area Locations: Alignments A-1 & A-2 4-50
4-11 Site and Study Area Locations: Revised Line A 4-51
4-12 Site and Study Area Locations: Alignment D 4-52

5-1 Direct Acreage of Terrestrial Habitat Lost for Each Alignment
Alternative by Habitat 5-22
5-2 Maximum 1-hour and 8-hour Predicted Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations (ppm) 5-29
5-3 Annual Energy Consumption 5-32
5-4 Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts: Alignments A and A-1 5-34
5-5 Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts: Alignment D 5-36
5-6 Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts: Revised Line A 5-38
5-7 Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts: Alignment A-2 5-39
5-8 Mitigation of Noise Impacts for Revised Line A 5-42
5-9 Direct Wetland Losses Incurred by Alignments 5-49
5-10 Selected Alignment (Revised Line A) Wetland Losses 5-50
5-11 Functional Values for Wetlands in the Study Area 5-52
5-12 Comparison of Build Alternative Costs (Dollars) 5-58

List of Figures

Following
Figure Paqe

S-1 Selected Alternative: Revised Line A S-4

1-1 Regional Location Map 1-2
1-2 Project Location Map 1-2
1-3 Alignment Alternatives 1-2

3-1 Typical Sections. 3-2
3-2 Alignments Considered 3-6

4-1 Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes. 4-2
4-2 No Build Alternative Traffic Forecast. 4-4
4-3 Alignment A Traffic Forecast. 4-4
4-4 Alignment D Traffic Forecast. 4-4
4-5 Habitat Types/Developed Areas. 4-32
4-6 Potentially Significant Architectural Sites. 4-34
4-7 Archaeological Sites. 4-36
4-8 Alignments A, A-1 and Revised Line A: Receiver Locations. 4-50
4-9 Alignment A-2: Receiver Locations. 4-50
4-10 Alignment D: Receiver Locations. 4-50
4-11 Wetlands. 4-62

5-1 Existing and Proposed Community Facilities. 5-1B
5-2 Air Quality Receptor Locations. 5-28

SUMMARY

S-1. ACTION

Federal Highway Administration Administrative Action Environmental State-

rn ent.

Draft
W Final
( ) Section 4(f) Statement

S-2. PERSONS TO CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Mr. Robert L. Hundley, Environmental Quality Enqineer, Environmental
Quality Division, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), 1401 East
Broad Street, Room 1114 Annex, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 786'-430 4.

Mr. James M. Tumlin, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, 400 North Eighth -Street, P. 0. Box 10045, Richmond, Virginia 23240,
(804) 771-2371.

S-3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in cooperation with the
Federal Highway Administration is proposing the construction of a four-lane,
divided, controlled access highway within the counties of James City and
York, Virginia. Designed to supplement the existing highway system, this
proposal will add traffic carrying capacity to the existing highway system and
will safely accommodate high-speed traffic movement in the area. Further, it
will better tie together the existing road network and improve access into the
project area.

The proposed southern project terminus is in the vicinity of the intersection of
completed Route 199 and Route 5 in James City County. The proposed

S-1

northeastern project terminus is in the vicinity of the existing 1-64 inter-
change with Route 646.

Each alignment alternative provides access at Routes 5, 615, 612, 60, 646 and
1-64. The proposed project will connect via interchanges at Route 60 and 1-64.
The remainder of the access points will initially be at-grade; however,
sufficient right-of-way will be acquired to accommodate the construction of
the interchanges when traffic demand warrants it. Initially an interchange at
1-64 and Route 60 will be built and ultimately interchanges at Route s 615, 612,
646 and 658 will be added. A minimum right-of -way width of 200 feet will be
required. Construction of this approximately seven and one-half mile project
will be primarily on new location. Total project costs provided by the VDOT
for the selected alternative are estimated at $27,000,000.

The proposed project is included in the transportation plans of the Peninsula
Metropolitan Planning Organization, Peninsula Planning District Commission,
York County, and James City County, as well as the City of Williamsburg.
This facility is projected to carry from 12,000 to 21,000 vehicles per day in
2010 on various segments of the build alignments.

Terrain throughout the proposed project corridor is rolling, and the study area
is traversed by numerous drainage areas. - Land use found in the study area
varies from natural ecosystems such as forests to manmade developments such
as residential and commercial retail areas. Forested land predominates in the
area traversed by the proposed project. Other land uses found in the project
area include agricultural, commercial, and public/sernipublic.

S-4. PERMITS REQUIRED

A U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Permit will be required to
perform work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and to discharge dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act.

S-2

A joint application process will be administered through the Commonwealth of
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The application involves the
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (COE), the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and local boards and agencies concerned with performing work in
the waters and wetlands of Virginia.

The Department will apply for all necessary permits from the Virginia State
Water Control Board, Virginia Marine Resources Commission and the Depart-
ment of the Army, Corps of Engineers. Prior to the selection of Revised Line
A as the preferred alignment, a biological assessment in response to Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was conducted. Also, a Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating has been obtained from the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS).

S-5. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED AND THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE, REVISED

LINE A

To meet the objectives developed during transportation planning for the area,
a number of alternatives were developed and considered. Seven alternatives,
six build alignments and a mass transit alternate, were dropped from further
consideration due to public water supply encroachment, or lack of cost
effectiveness. Another reason for eliminating these alternatives was the need
for a new interchange with 1-64.

Three alternative concepts for- Alignments A, D and A-2 were studied in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A comparision of these alignments
shows that Lines A or the A/A-2 combination have less overall environmental
impact and construction cost than Alignment D. However, during the
environmental analysis, a colony of small whorled pogonias (Isotria
Medeoloides), a federally and state endangered plant species was discovered
within 100 feet of Line A. Line A would also take two individual plants from a
sm aller colony of small-whorled pogonia.

When the endangered plant was discovered, VDOT began close coordination
with Dr. Donna Ware of the College of William and Mary and the Department

S-3

of Agriculture and Consumer Service, the State Agency responsible for
administering the Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act. Line A-1
was then established to avoid the endangered plant.

After receiving input from the public information meeting and hearing held on
April 3, 1986, VDOT continued coordinating with Dr. Ware and the Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services and made an additional adjustment to
Line A, herein referred to and identified as Revised Line A (see Figure S-1).

Prior to the selection of an alignment on Section 7 Biological Assessment was
performed. This assessment indicated that the Revised Line A minimized the
impact to the small-whorled pogonia and reduced the project construction
costs of Line A-1 by $1,533,500. This alignment was recommended by VDOT
and a Section 7 Biological Assessment of Isotria 'Medeoloides was administered
by the Department. Subsequently, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services have reviewed the proposed
alignment and support the Department's recommendation for the construction
of Revised Line A.

The Revised Line A has been selected as the alternative for Route 199. The

location of Revised Line A, the selected alignment, is the same as the location
of Line A except in the vicinity of the endangered plant species. Revised Line
A begins at Line D north of the Route 615 interchange. It moves northwest
and curves north and northeast joining Line A approximately 4,800 feet north
of Route 615. Overall the environmental impacts in the areas of noise,
cultural resources, disturbed forest area and floodplain encroachments are less
than for other alternatives. The costs and right-of-way required for the
selected alternative, Revised Line A, are moderate in comparison to estimates
for other alternatives studied. The selection of the Revised Line A alternative
was based on the recommendation resulting from the Section 7 Biological
Assessment of Isotria Medeoloides. This alternative minimizes costs while
retaining existing colonies of the endangered species as well as allows the use
of an alternative which incurs fewer environmental impacts as shown on Table
S-1. Figure S-1 shows the summary of impacts for the Revised Line A, the

S-4

= = m m m = = = m m = = m m = m = = =

FIGURE S-1

SELECTED ALIGNMENT

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

END PROJEC

SELEC ED LINE-
Revi ed Line A

-?@p lp@

Vill

'o.

.4'4

BEGIN P DJE T
L

T"
-<N 0 1 T @1

graphic scale in feet
1000 0 2000 4000

selected alternative and the other proposed alignments discussed in this
Environmental Impact Statement.

S-6. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS

A summary of the impacts is included in Table S-1. This table compares the
various alignments considered and discussed in the environmental impact
statement. Revised Line A avoids impacts to the small-whorled pogonias as
discussed in the Section 7-Biological Assessment (see Appendix D). Based
upon this and other information regarding the various alignments, VDOT has
concluded that the selection of Revised Line A is the preferred alternative for
the proposed Route 199 corridor.

S-7. BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

Construction of the proposed project will have the following beneficial

effects:

a. It will provide increased traffic carrying capacity to the existing
high way system.

b. It will tie together the existing road system, making it more functional.

C. It will facilitate the movement of emergency and rescue equipment.

d. It will improve access to several schools.

e. It will help implement the transportation planning goals of James City
County, York County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the
Peninsula Planning District Commission which will reduce through
traffic and congestion in Williamsburg and its pedestrian oriented areas
of Colonial Williamsburg (a major tourist attraction) and the College of
William and Mary.

S-5

Table S-1
Summary Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives

Alternative
Selected
Alternative/ No
Impact Revised A A D A-1 A-2 Build

Displacements
Families 13* 11 9 14 7 0
Businesses 0 1 0 0 1 0
Other 0 0 0 1 1 0
Loss of Real Estate
Tax Revenue $ 13,900 $ 15,000 $ 11,500 $ 16,900 $ 13,700 0
Right-of-Way Costs $ 3,573,000 $ 3,784,000 $ 3,139,000 $ 4,153,500 $ 3,513,000 0
Construction Costs $23,427,000 $23,149,000 $25,148,000 $24,380,000@ $23,297,000 0

TOTAL COSTS $27,000,000 $26,933,000 $28,287,000 .$28,533,500 $26,810,000

Noise Receptors Violations
FHWA Standards 7 8 10 - - 3
Archaeological Sites
Impacted 7 19 17 19 19 0

Historical Sites
Impacted 0 0 0 0 0 0
Upland Forest Area
Taken (acres) 146.8 146.8 164.5 149.5 146.8 0
Bottomland Forest Area/
Wetlands Taken (acres) 12.2** 10.6 22.3 8.9 10.6
Farmland Encroachment
(acres) 28.0 22.0 27.0 22.0 26.0 0
Floodplain Encroachment
(Direct and Longitudinal-
Acres) 10.6 10.6 22.3 8.9 10.6 0
Right-of-Way (acres) 250.6 250.6 246.5 264.3 270 0

Miles of Deficient
Roadway 14.26 14.26 13.48 14.26 14.26 21.96

Note: There is not a significant impact on air quality as a result of construction of any of the alternatives.

Data for Revised Line A is based on Virginia Department of Transportation information of November 1966.
VDOT, August 1988.
WAPORA, Inc. August 19B8.
(Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, Harland Bartholomew & Associates, January 1986 and June 1987).

S-,6

f. It will allow vehicles that originate or have destinations to the west,
northwest, and southwest of Williamsburg to bypass the central areas
and avoid congesting the business, institutional and tourist areas.

9. It will reduce traffic volumes in the design year on Route 60.

h. It will complement and facilitate planned land use development in
James City County.

i. It will provide better access to future development on the Warhill Tract
and to tourist support facilities located along Route 60.

j. It will provide better access to the growing residential area of James
City County west of Williamsburg.

k. A significant reduction in energy consumption will result from each of

the build alternatives.

S-8. ADVERSE EFFECTS

Construction of the proposed project will have the following adverse effects:

a. It will result in the displacement and relocation of 13 families.

b. It will convert approximately 146.8 acres of undeveloped forest land, 28
acres of agricultural land and 12.2 acres of wetlands (predominately
from Mill Creek, Chisel Run, Long Hill Swamp and Powhatan Creek
tributaries) to highway right-of-way, depending upon the build alterna-

tive selected.

C. The project will cost approximately $27,000,000.

d. Phase II archaeological studies indicate that one historic site and five
prehistoric sites require Phase III investigation prior to construction.

S-7

Additionally, another prehistoric site can be mitigated by avoiding it
during construction.

e. The Section 7 coordination and biological assessment studied the
impacts of the selected alternative, Revised Line A, on a colony of
small-whorled pogonias (Isotria medeoloides), a . federally listed
endangered plant species. After this study, the Virginia Department of
Transportation selected Revised Line A to avoid a direct take of any
plants and to miss the main colony by approximately 1,100 feet. A
complete description of planned mitigation measures and concurring
statements for the selected alignment and the mitigation plan by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Virginia Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services are included in Appendix D.

S-8

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is located in the vicinity of the City of Williamsburg,
which lies in east-central Virginia on a peninsula of land surrounded by the
James River, York River, and Chesapeake Bay. The Regional Location and
Project Location Maps are shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2 respectively.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), in conjunction with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to extend Route 199
from Route 5 to 1-64. Construction of this segment of Route 199 will form a
circumferential system which will serve as 1) a collector for internal traffic in
Williamsburg, 2) a bypass for through traffic around Williamsburg, 3) a link
w'hich will tie together the existing road systems, and 4) access into the
mid-James City County area.

This study evaluates the impacts of the completion of Route 199 on traffic,
engineering, and environmental factors within the project corridor. The
proposed Route 199 is a controlled access, 4-lane divided highway beginning at
the intersection of the previously completed Route 199 and Route 5 and
continuing northward to its terminus at the interchanqe of 1-64 and Route 646.
The existing interchange at 1-64 will tie in with the propo sed Route 199. An
interchange will be built at Route 60 and ultimately interchanges at Routes
615, 612, 658 and 646 will be added. Alignment A, which is approximately 7.4
miles in length, and Alignment D, which is 8.1 miles long, are the two main
alternative alignments studied for Route 199. A colony of small-whorled
pogonias (Isotria medeoloides), an endangered plant species, was discovered at
the southern project terminus. As a result, Alignment A-1 and Revised Line A
were added as alternatives to the southern portion of Alignment A. These
alignments follow Alignment D for approximately 0.75 mile and proceeds
northeast for 1.1 miles until it ties into Alignment A at Chisel Run.
Alignment A -2 was added in between Alternatives A and D at the north end of
the project, running for approximately 1.3 miles from Route 60 to 1-64. The
purpose of this alternative is to improve access conditions in the vicinity of
the Williamsburg Pottery Factory/Route 646.

The No Build Alternative, which studies the effects if the road is not
constructed, is also considered. Each of the alternatives for the proposed
Route 199 are evaluated to assess the potential impacts of implementation and
to determine mitigation measures to avoid or lessen the adverse effects.
Alignment alternatives are illustrated in Figure 1-3 and the selected
alternative, Revised Line A, is discussed in the Summary Section S-5. and
Section 3.3 of this document.

1-2

FIGURE 1-1

REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

I lAC..

211
RKE

ONTE-
254 />
I'LL
I A"l
NO @RT H STAUNTON
IS SCALE %F MILES SII IIRM SPRINGS *1EENI611.1.1 WAYNESBORO
o X 2%
I 1_@l \

LIFTON
FORGIF

COVINGTON @LEXINGTON
BU NA SO
>ISTA

220 81 1IRIDGIE 60 IlU.KI.
A. 117ASTLE 8 CIANAW 5ol -.R..,/ I
A, eb LYNCH8UR N

o --r-SALEM
+ FUND, _-7-0o'- \@IN 29
19 FIELD CITY'
1,@ @7
PIT RADFOL
6CtINTINOOD @l A' RD 501
AZEWELL@ SIAN. ILTAt CHARLOTTE C. H.
RICHLANDS HRISTIAN B(j;G OOKN- 0
PULASKI " y -11I
N>
MOUNT
COE`BbRN I
1 .11 --Ilx I -_ ROCKY
SIG QRTON LEBIN01 S_-, 1L.Y. 221 1 0?m GRETNA

C.AT.A.
A1111-1 21 -..LA.. MARTINSVILLE / 29 30 SOUTH BU$TO
.LLE IDUFFIELD GATE CITY 59 IST ALAK\
BRIST 58
a INDEPENDEN E 221 fI_ STDA. 58 Lv 501
. . ...... 220 RIDGEWAY/
T E N N 1E S 5 E E N 0 R T H CAROL

FIGURE 1-2

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR AND ENVIRONS

JAMES CITY A.ND YORK COUNTIES

VIRGINIA

TO WEST POINT
DIASWND C,
RESCRWIR
0
TD. D .... ......

.... .. 601 arnwe Lond.ng

621 6
0"d
601D

TO RICHMOND*:*-"*
605
679 Cal 30 600 607
LAJ 603

746 60a
3
601
74 606
IQ 60
Corner son I Do
ran
C@n& y 168 Croo
Did"

b
57 to
Chnsle"so.,
corner
600W L0ftd,ng
603 610
602 606 N

602
arren C/ 7.
Mill 604 0
D7 64
"y P,
631

659
No PROJ C

-LINE A2
Cre
tons 6
sn'
's
632 Pond
C, 611 L,ghtfft0o

Shipyard
Landing Route 199 Corridor 16103
oiler
r CAMP PEARY
C.14
Ewell

crk
611 Center@ille 6511
61

z
A LINE 0

.,t 633
n

614
BuShn
_J

W t e
LINE Al
owlal

LINE A 615 114
A,gyms
4 REVISED
LINE A

TO CHARLES crr
S4
CHiCKAHOMiNY 6,3 6,5
8RIDGE 616
5 c. a a
6,4
WILLIAMSBURG
F,ve
_F@
37* 15'

615
1199 143
FtK
E ...... A,%A
I a 110 0"W ?a JAM

Jamestown 60
Jamestown ----
-Scollond___ Airport
Wharf Ferry Glass House A
Pt.

x STOwN
LB E G CT

1,lmd .4

N 0 R T H

9r.phic -.1o 1@ .11..

1/2 0 1 2

FIGURE 1-3

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

Williamsburg Pottery Factor

Outlet Mail 00

6%,
A2

Warhill Tract

-----------

gat

coo

LU=

4 4 4tG
@0 0,
44,9

mt. P r
leasant Baptist Church

Rt
<

BEGIN PROJECT

-4fl", ZT @,

graphic scale in feet
-0 0 2000
c@,

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

2.1 PLANNING BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962 requires an ongoing transportation
planning process in urbanized areas in order to receive federal funds for
transportation improvements. Pursuant to this act, the Peninsula Area
Transportation Study (PATS) was developed. This study is periodically

reevaluated to determine future traffic demands in the area and to outline
improvements that will satisfy those demands. The most recent PATS
reevaluation indicates the need to extend Route 199 northward from the Route
5 to 1-64. A 4-lane divided facility was recommended. The proposed action
for the construction of Revised Line A is presented in this document and is
consistent with the adopted transportation plan.

James City County considers the proposed project the top highway project in
the County. The proposed project is included in the County's 1981 Compre-
hensive Plan. Further, the James City County Board of Supervisors passed a
resolution on June 28, 1976, urging VDOT to accelerate completion of Route
199. Another resolution was passed by James City County on March 13, 1978,
askina VDOT to make a final corridor selection and begin design and
construction of the Route 199 extension as soon as possible.

York County's transportation plan includes the Route .199 concept. York
County officials consider the proposed project important to their development
plans in the study area.

The City of Williamsburg has included the proposed Route 199 concept in the
1981 Williamsburg Comprehensive Plan and their Transportation Plan. On
June 21, 1977, the Williamsburg City Council passed a resolution urging VDOT
to extend Route 199 to 1-64. Williamsburg considers the project important to
the City because it will relieve existing and future traffic congestion.

2-1

Others who have expressed their desire to see the extension of Route 199
include the Williamsburg-James City County Chamber of Commerce, the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Anheuser Busch, and the Williamsburg
Board of Realtors.

2.2 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

Williamsburg, Virginia is situated between two major metropolitan areas:
Richmond (to the north) and Hamptbn/Newport News (to the south). There are
several Major north-south highways which serve the Williamsburg area. 1-64,
which passes just east of Vlilliamsburg, is a 4 to 6-lane limited access facility,
extending the entire length of the Peninsula from Hampton/Newport News
north through the Richmond area. Another north-south highway is Route 60
(Richmond Road), which also extends the entire length of the Peninsula and
passes directly through the City of Williamsburg. Route 60 is currently a 4- to
5-lane major arterial traversing the developed portions of the study area. One
other major north-south oriented highway is Route 143. A 4-lane facility with
development along both sides, Route 143 originates in the Hampton/Newport
News area, parallels 1-64 northward up the Peninsula, passes through the City
of Williamsburg, and terminates northeast of Williamsburg at 1-64.

There are also a number of routes which radiate out from Williamsburg and
serve to connect Williamsburg with 1-64 and the adjoining areas. These
include Route 13?, Route 5, Route 3.1, Route 616, Route 615, Route 612,
Route 603, and Route 199. Route 132 is a 4-lane facility that serves as a
major link between 1-64 and Colonial Williamsburg (a major tourist attraction
in the Williamsburg area). Route 31 and Route 5 and the other routes
mentioned extend out from Williamsburg to the west. Each of these facilities
is a roadway through major development areas; Route 31 being 4 lanes, while
Route 5 is 2 to 4 lanes. All other routes are 2-lane rural roadways. Route 199
is a circumferential route around a portion of Williamsburg with interchanges
at 1-64, Route 143, Route 60, and the Colonial Parkway. It presently
terminates at an at-qrade intersection with Route 5 on the west side of the
city. Route 199 is a 2 to 4-lane limited access facility with sparse
development on either side. It now serves as a major connection between

2-2

Route 132, Route 5, and Route 31 and the area generally west of Williamsburg.
These routes are shown on Figure 1-2.

The proposed project will provide a connection between all these roads and
1-64 north of Williamsburg and the already completed section of Route 199
south of Williamsburg. This will provide for-improved traffic circulation in the
study area. As a western bypass, it will reduce some of the through traffic in
Williamsburg and allow it to bypass the congested area.

2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC

The study area's central location in the Peninsula and its tourist attractions,
combined with the presence of 1-64 and Route 60, result in a larqe number of
persons traveling through the area. In 1984, the average daily traf f ic (ADT) on
Route 1-64 was 28,000 vehicles and approximately 17,000 vehicles on Route
60. By 2010, without the construction of the proposed project, 1-64 will be
carrying an ADT of 37,000 vehicles and Route 60 will carry an averaqe of
28,500 vehicles with a ranqe of 25,000 to 31,800 vehicles per day, depending on
the segment. Projected ADT in 2010 on Route 199 varies from 12,000 vehicles
to 21,000 vehicles depending on the segment and alternative.

Levels of service (LOS) indicate the degree of conqe-stion on a oarticular
roadway: LOS A beinq the best, LOS F describing a forced flow (jammed)
condition, and LOS C usually considered acceptable. In 1984, peak hour LOS
on Route 60 ranged from B to F, depending on location. Overall, the street
system is operating at acceptable levels; however, the low LOS at several
locations indicates some existing operational problems. Improvements at the
intersections of Route 60 with Route 658 and Ironbound Road would result in
acceptable levels on this roadway for the time beina. In addition, improve-
ments are needed at the Richmond Road/Jamestown Road/Boundary Street
and Richmond Road/Lafayette S treet/Monti cello Avenue intersections; they
are both presently operating at unacceptable LOS and need upqrading in order
to function efficiently.

2-3

2.4 FUTURE DEVEL-OPMENT

Development in the project area is occurring as an expanding crescent around
Williamsburg with concentrations in the Kingsmill and Brewery areas to the
south and the Pottery Factory/Route 646 area, the Warhill Tract and Eastern
State Hospital to the west and north. Completion of the Route 199
circumferential route will allow vehicles that oriqinate or have destinations to
the west, northwest and southwest of Williamsburq to bypass the central areas.
In this way, more efficient travel is accomplished while reducing congestion in
Williamsburg's pedestri an- oriented areas of Colonial Williamsburg and the
College Of \VIlli2M and Mary.

2.5 FUTURE TRAFFIC

Future projections, described later in Sections 4.1.2 and 5.1, indicate that by

1990 traffic demand will have increased to such a volume that intersection
improvements will no longer be able to rectify the capacity problems.

Route 60 would have to be widened to 6 lanes by 1990 and 8 lanes by 2010 to
accommodate projected demand traffic. Construction of this roadway would
be inordinately expensive and would involve extensive relocations. For this
reason, the Route 199 circumferential concept is being considered as a
practicable alternative.

2-4

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

3.1 PREVIOUS STUDY

A pre vi ous dr af t E nvi-ronm ent al I mpact S tat em ent (EIS) f or the sam e S ecti on
of Route 199 was approved for public availability by FHWA on December 21,
1978. The two build alternatives which were considered are the same as
Alignments A and D described in the present study.

Due to the length of time since preparation of the original draft EIS, the
addition of Revised Line A, A-1 and A-2, and potential changes in the existing
environment since 1978, it was decided that a new draft EIS should be
prepared to determine and document project impacts.

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives (Alignments A, A-1, A-2, Revised Line A, 0 and the No Build
and Transportation Systems Management Alternates) evaluated in this state-
ment were developed over approximately an eight-year period. Officials of
the City of Williamsburg, York County, James City County, Peninsula
Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Peninsula Planning District
Commission, and environmental agencies were involved in the development of

these alternatives.

3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Two primary build alternatives, Alignments A and D and three secondary
variations, Alignments A-1 and A-2 and Revised Line A have been consic
As seen in Figure 1-3, these are identical in two sections of their alignments,
from Route 5 northward approximately 3,200 feet and in the vicinity of Route
60. All alternatives have the same ultimate termini. As a result of the
Section 7, biological assessment fo r Isotria Medeoloides, Revised Line A was
introduced to avoid the endangered species.

The minimum right-of-way width required would be 200 feet, including two
24-foot traffic lanes with 2 40-foot center median, shoulders, and drainage
ditches. See Figure 3- 1 for a tyoical section.

3-1

Revised Line A - The Selected Alternative--The location of Revised Line A is

the same as the location of Line A except in the vicinity of the endangered
plant species. Revised Line A begins at Line D north of the Route 615
interchange. It moves northwest and curves north and northeast joining Line A
approximately 4,800 feet north of Route 615. Figure S-1 shows Line A and the
other proposed alignments discussed in this Environmental Impact Statement.

Alignment A--As seen in Figure 1-3, this alternative begins at the existing
intersection of Routes 5, 199, and 616 at-grade and follows the existing
corridor of Route 616 for approximately 1,800 feet before swinging away to
the northwest. Then, on new- alignment, it continues northward passing
approximately 100 feet east of one of the streets in the Canterbury Hills
residential development. Approximately 2,500 feet north of Route 5, Route
616 will be relocated and connected to Route 5 east of the Route 5/Route 199
intersection. Access to the Bethany Baptist Church will be from Route 616.
Continuing northward, Alignment A crosses agricultural land and passes
approximately 150 feet west of the undeveloped end of a street in the Indigo
Terrace residential area.

Between Routes 6-16 and 615, Alignment A traverses open fields, agricultural,
and forest lands, including the upper reaches of Mill Creek. Alignment A will
initially connect at-grade with Route 615; however, sufficient riqht-of-way
will be acquired to allow for the future construction of an interchange.

Between Routes 615 and 612, Alignment A crosses forest land, two tributaries
to Chisel Run, and a portion of the Eastern State Hospital property.

Alignment A initially intersects at-grade with Route 612; however, sufficient
right-of-way will be acquired here also to allow for future interchange
construction when traffic conditions warrant. In crossing Eastern State
Hospital property, Alignment A will beat least 900 feet away from the closest
hospital structure. This alignment 2190 crosses the abandoned Eastern State
Hospital sewage treatment Plant. The hosoital now utilizes the mun!Ci.Dal
sewage system.

3-2

FIGURE 3-1
TYPICAL SECTIONS
ROUTE 199 @CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

64'

6-1 ro- i

200' MIN. R/W
\/-LIMITED ACCESS LINE /\V-

FINGER RAMPS (Diamond) LOOP RAMPS

r INV, ce, C, INV,-

S N 16' 1 0'--@ I IN 8' lo 181
ob 6'

I Nt_ _NV,_
C
8-+-
C,C

From Route 612, Alignment A crosses the upper reaches of Chisel Run,
traverses forest and agricultural land and crosses Route 658. Route 658 will
be grade separated initially and no access to Route 199 for the fire station is
planned. Access to Route 658 from Route 199 will be provided in the future as
an interchange is proposed for Route 658.

After crossing Route 658, Alignment A parallels the VEPCO transmission line,
crosses upper Long Hill Swamp just downstream of Scotts Pond, and swings
toward Route 60. It connects with Route 60 south of the existing intersections
of Routes 614 and 1000 with Route 60. An interchange is proposed between
Route 199 and Route 60 on the west side of Route 60. This was planned in
order to minimize impacts to residential development east of Route 60 and
minimize construction difficulties. The proposed interchange will provide
complete access.

The alignment will cross Route 60, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, and
Route 603 on a bridge structure. For safety reasons, no access to the new
facility will be allowed f rom Route 603. M otori sts travelinq on Route 603 and
desiring to reach Route 199 will first have to travel on Route 646. Ultimately
an interchange is planned at the int ersection of Route 199 and Route 646.

From Route 603, the proposed Alignment A swings north to cross existing
Route 646 and then parallels Route 646 to connect with the 1-64 interchange.
No modifications of this interchange are proposed. Service roads will be
constructed along the alignment in this area to provide local 'access. These
service roads and existing Route 646 will have direct access to Alignment A
via an at-orade intersection approximately halfway between Route 60 and the
1-64 interchanqe. York County has indicat ed that they need a minimum of one
access,point in this area to effectively implement their land development
pl a ns.

Alignment D--Alignments A and D are identical from Route 5 to approxi-
mately 3,500 feet north of Route 5. From the point of divergence, Line D
continues northwestward, intersectina Route 615 west of Mount Pleasant
Church. As in the case of Alignment A, provisions are included for the f ut ure
construction of an interchange at Route 615, if traffic warrants. In this area

3-3

of the project, Line D crosses the upper reaches of Mill Creek, forest land, and
agricultural land and passes approximately 350 feet east of an existing
residential street.

From Route 615, Line D crosses three-tr.@butaries to Powhatan Creek, crosses
Chisel Run, skirts the edge of the Windsor Forest Subdivision and Ford's
Colony and crosses Long Hill Swamp, before tying into Route 612 at-grade.
Sufficient right-of-way will be acquired to allow for the future construction
Of an interchange with Route 612 when future traffic warrants, probably
sometime before the year 2010.

From Route 612, Alignment D passes west of Lafayette High School, crosses
the Western Branch of Long Hill Swamp, and swings to the northeast to merge
with Alignment A approximately 1,500 feet west of Route 60. Forested land
and some cutover land is traversed in this area. Alignments D and A are
identical from 1,500 feet southwest of Route 60 to 1,000 feet northeast of
Route 60.

At this point, Alignment D swings away from Route 646 to pass south of some
existing homes, traversing forest, agricultural land, and a tributary to Queen
Creek before turning to connect to the 1-64 interchange. Aliqnment D will
allow Route 646 to remain intact.

York County officials have expressed a desire to have at least one point of
access to Alignment D in this area in order to implement their future plans.
Access has been incorporated and will align with the intersection of Route 646
and Route 199.

Alignment A-1--Alignment A-1 was considered at the southern end of the
project to avoid involvement with the federally listed endanqered plant species
called the small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). This alimment follows
Alignment D for ap proximately 0.75 mile, then proceeds northeasterly for
approximately 1.1 mile until it ties into Alignment A at Chisel Run.

3-4

Alignment A-2--Alignment A-2 is being considered to improve access con-
ditions in the Pottery area. This alignment runs between Aliqnments A and D
from Route 60 to 1-6.4, but follows Alignment A elsewhere.

3.4 NO BU ILD ALTERNATIVE

Under this alternative, no extension of Route 199 would occur. The facility
would be left as it is now, with no action taken beyond periodic maintenance
of the portion which already exists up to Route 5.

Although this study includes the development of multiple build alternatives,
the No Build Alternative will be considered a viable alternative and will

remain under consideration through the public hearing process.

3.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DROPPED FROM FURTHER

EVALUATION

During the course of project development, several alternatives were con-
sidered and eliminated; Original Alignment A, Original Alignment A-1,
Original Alignment A-2, Alignment C, Alignment C-1, Aliqnment AD and a
Mass Transit Alternative. The aliqnments, deD!cted in Figure 3-2, were
eliminated for the following reasons:

o They cross the Waller Mill Reservoir which is the public Nvater supply for
Williamsburg, a recreational resource for the area (Waller Mill Park), and a
fresh water fisheries resource. The State @.A/ater Control Board, Commis-
sion of Outdoor Recreation, Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries,
Virginia Division of Forestry, James City County, and Williamsburq were
critical of these alternatives for this reason.

o They were not in keeping with James Citv County's planning. The County
did not feel that alionments within such proximity to 'A/illiamsburq would
serve their transportation and development needs.

3-5

o Original Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and C-1 would require an interchange
with 1-64 between the 1-64 interchanges with Route 646 and Route 143.
The Route 646 interchange was considered more desirable because of the
large area of developable land it could serve.

The original Alignment A-1, a short section of proposed roadway between
Route 615 on Alignment D where A-1 ties back into Alignment A, was
eliminated from further consideration in the 1978 draft EIS because it did
not offer any real advantages over Alignment A and would have cost
approximately $250,000 more. Since then, it was discovered that the
proposed Alignment A traversed an area containing the small-whorled
pogonias. Alignment A-1 has, therefore, been re-introduced as a viable
alternative to the southern portion of Alignment A which will avoid the
endangered plants.

Consideration was given to terminating the Droposed project at Route 60 but it
was felt that this alternative would not adequately serve the area, nor would it
function as a true bypass.

A suggestion to move Alignment D west of its present location was eliminated
because it was not in keeping with James City County's plannino and it would
have crossed Middle Plantation, a planned community which had a develor)ed
road system and services. (No houses had been built.) In addition, the farther
west an alignment is located, the less traffic it will carry.

A suggestion was made to move Alignment r) east of its present location. A
slight shift to the east was eliminated because it would significantly impact
the Windsor Forest Subdivision. In addition, it would still cross the Chisel Run
floodplain.

An alignment between A and n (Alignment AD), as depicted in Figure 3-2, was
eliminated because it would impact more nontidal forested wetlands than
Alignment A. It would also result in more stream crossings and floodolain
encroachment than Alignment A. According to James City County officials, it

3-6

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

FIGURE 3-2
ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

END PROJEC

00
0

CI!"

E
IRATE
uvi

'o.
Ilk

Luz
J9

CIO

4, 0,
4f4,

ROJECT
BEGIN P

V.
L

-A'l 0 MRT @1

graphic scale in feet

10)o 0 2000 40(X

would have traversed the proposed development area of an existing residential
area, and it was not in keeping with James City County's development plan.

A Mass Transit Alternative was also considered. This alternative addressed
the benefit of an improved mass transit system on highway demand. There is
minimum public transit available within the study area and the existing transit
ridership levels have minimal impact on the area travel demand and its
associated traffic volumes. Discussions with James City County Transit
Authority and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) indicate that
they anticipate a minimal, if any, increase in transit service in the next five
years. There are currently no plans to increase the number of routes, route
miles, or equipment. With the uncertainty of continued federal funding of
local transit, it was assumed that the transit impact would be minimal in 1990.

In order to project the maximum level of transit service in the year 2010, a
review was made of transit usage in medium-to-large cities. Cities such as
Tucson, Arizona, and Memphis, Tennessee- -where extensive transit systems
are currently operatinq--have transit serving approximately 1.5 to 3 percent
of the daily trips. Both cities are spread out similar to Williamsburg. New
Orleans, a much more compact city, has approximately 10 percent of its daily
trips made by transit and represents a maximum amount of transit usage.
Additionally, the tourist trade in Williamshurq is not conducive to the transit
market. A high estimate of feasible transit usaqe in Williamsburg would be
the level that is being achieved in a medium-size city with an extensive
transit system. Therefore, it was assumed that 5 percent of t-he work trips and
2.8 percent for all other trips could be accommodated by transit. This resul ts
in an overall transit ridership of 3 percent, which would not be great enough to
eliminate the need for major roadway improvements.

3.6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

Inflationary construction costs and uncertain fuel supplies have made it
mandatory that existing transportation facilities he efficiently man2qed and
that low cost improvements be considered before committinq funds for more

3-7

costly projects. The process to achieve this objective is called Transportation
Systems Management (TSM). Typical TSM techniques include intersection
improvements, traffic signal synchronization, removal of on-street parking,
controlling access, reversible lanes, one-way pairs, transit, and nonmotorized
means of transportation.

The Transportation Systems Management Element, developed by the Metro-
politan Planning Organization (MPO)., recommends short-range h1qhway
improvements, improvement of the transit system, carpool-vanpool programs,
park-n-ride lots, bikeways, and transit improvements to accommodate the
elderly and handicapped. Several highway improvements', includinc
g two
intersection improvements on Route 60, an alternate route to the proposed
Route 199 circumferential, were specifically recommended. These were
Route 60 at Ridgeway Place and Route 60 at Turlinqton Road.

Even if all the prooosed TSM techniques recommended in the Peninsula Area
Transportation Study are implemented, the new transportation facilities
(including the Route 199 extension) and major improvements to existing
facilities which are recommended in the Long Range Transportation Element
of that document, will still be needed to accommodate projected traffic
demand at an acceptable level of service.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.1.1 Existing Traffic

The existing traffic operations in the study area were analyzed to
provide an assessment of the level of service being provided in the
Williamsburg area. Based on discussions with VDOT, 15 intersections
were selected as indicators of operating conditions. These inter-
sections include the major arteri al- arterial intersections in the study
area and encompass all signalized intersections.

Peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at each inter-
section. In addition, an inventory of existing conditions was per-
f orm ed. The inventory included geometry, traffic control, traffic
signal timing and phasing (if appropriate), parking conditions and bus
stop conditions. These data were used to conduct capacity analyses at
each intersection. Figure 4-1 shows existing traffic conditions. The
methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special
Report 209 was used in this analysis. The analyses were performed
using the microprocessor based computer program CAPCALC
developed by Roger Creighton Associates. The analysis includes a
capacity evaluation (volum e- to- capacity ratio) and a level of service
evaluation (measured by delay). Table 4-1 lists the results of the
capacity evaluations. The Traffic and Transportation Technical
Report provides a detailed description of the operations.

The capacity analysis methodology outlined in the 1985 Highway
Capacity Manual is substantially different from previous methods of
evaluating intersection operations. The methodology f or signalized
intersections includes two calculations, a volume-to-capacity ratio
and a level of service calculation. The volume- to-capacity ratio is an
indicator of the amount of available capacity that is being used by the
traffic volumes traversing the intersection. The level of service
calculation is an estimate of average delay per vehicle and this is not

4-1

Table 4-1
Existing Traffic Capacity Analysis

AM Pe Existing Conditions
,?k Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS

Route 60 & Route 646 0.391 B 0.555 B

Route 60 & Route 614 0.368 6 0.455 B

Route 60 & Route 658 170 D -86 F

Route 612 & Route 658 N/A 548 A

Longhill Road & Route 615 176 D 209 C

Route 60 & Route 615 1.251 F 0.882 C

Route 616 & Route 615 N/A 220 C

Route 60 & Route 132 0.443 C 0.628 C

Henry Street & Lafayette Street 0.535 B 0.863 C

Route 199 & Jamestown Road 0.620 C 0.954 C

Richmond Road & Route 60 0.819 B 1.201 B

Page/Laf ayette/Francis/Route 60 0.283 C 0.303 D

Boundary Street & Francis Street 296 C 260 C

Richmond Road/Jamestown Road/ 134 D -22 F
Boundary Street

Route 615 & Route 321 0.404 B 0.820 B

Richm ond R oad/L af ayette S treet/ 0.589 C 1.163 D
Monticello Avenue

1Volume to capacity ratio for signalized intersections and reserve capacity for
unsignalized intersections.

N/A indicates that count information was not available for the morning peak period.

Source: DSA Group, Inc., 1985.

4-2

FIGURE 4-1
EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA LEGEND

8790 Number of Vehicles

END PROJEC

C,
A7
V

-4

v,
V

@i a

E,
0

1% LU
120

906

AP a

0
BEGIN PROJ 17
0 LL
27 0

a
3
-<I 0 MRT M

Gw?
graphic scale ir feet
1000 0 2000 4000
40

necessarily directly related to the capacity of the intersection. As
stated in the Manual, it is possible for an intersection to have a
volume-to-capacity ratio greater than one and an acceptable level of
service (Level of Service D or better). It is also possible for an
intersection to have a volurn e- to- capacity ratio of less than one and
an unacceptable level of service (Level of Service E or F). Therefore,
it is necessary to evaluate both calculations. Therefore, if either
calculation is beyond acceptable limits, the intersection operations are
considered unacceptable. To accommodate this, Table 4-1 lists both
the volume-to-capacity ratio and the level of service.

As stated, the above applies to signalized intersections only. For
unsignalized intersections, the capacity evaluation is only the calcu-
lation of reserve capacity (unused capacity available). Unlike sig-
nalized intersections, this is directly related to level of service (see
Table 10-3 on page 10-9 in the Manual). While the reserve capacity
and level of service are redundant, they have both been included in
Table 4-1 to provide information about where in the range of each
level of service each intersection is operating. It should be noted that
the level of service for signalized intersections and unsignalized
intersections are based on different criteria and, therefore, are not
comparable. This is stated in the Manual (see page 10-9 in the
Manual). However, the same criteria of acceptable levels (i.e., Level
of Service D) can be used.

As seen in Table 4-1, there are some existing operational problems.
The unsignalized intersections of Route 60 and Route 658 and Rich-
mond Road/Jamestown Road/Boundary Street are operating at
unacceptable levels during the evening peak hour. The signalized
intersection of Route 60 with Ironbound Road is operating at capacity
with Level of Service F during the morning peak hour, although
evening peak hour conditions at this intersection are at an acceptable
level. The intersection of Richmond Road/Lafayette
Street/Mont! cello Avenue is operating at capacity during peak periods,
however the delay is within acceptable limits. Overall, the street
system is operating at acceptable levels. Improvements at the four

4-3

intersections discussed previously will allow the existing system to
provide acceptable operating conditions.

4.1.2 Future IDevelopment

The future traffic conditions in the study area are a function of the
area!s development and the available transportation system. The
future transportation system serving Williamsburg is discussed in
detail in the Traffic and Transportation Technical Report, along with
the development used for forecasting traffic. The following briefly
summarizes the future conditions as they relate to traffic.

The roadway system used in the analysis included all improvements
outlined in the most current Thoroughfare Plan (Year 2000 Plan).
These include: 1) the extensibn of Monticello Avenue to Waller Mill
Road, 2) the extension of Parkway [Drive to Route 143, and 3) tho'
Grove interchange on 1-64. The build alternative alignments included
the roadway improvements outlined above. I

The traffic forecasts were developed using a standard travel demand
model. The microprocessor based computer program MINUTP, devel-
oped by COMSIS Corporation, was used in this analysis. The traffic i's
forecasted based upon population and employment densities within the
study area. The procedure is outlined in the Traffic and Transporta-
tion Technical Report. The existing development densities (1980 base
year conditions) were obtained from the Peninsula Planning District
Commission (PPIDC) and were based on 1980 Census information. The
projections for 1990 and 2010 were developed from PPIDC projections
for 2005, development plans and trends in the area, and discussions
with representatives of James City and York Counties and the City of
Williamsburg. Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 show the projected 1990-2010
traffic conditions for each alternative alignment.

The specific projections are discussed in detail in the Socioeconomic
and Transportation Technical Reports. The major growth is antici-
pated in the Pottery area and the Warhill Tract north of Willi amsburq,

4-4

FIGURE 4-2
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC FORECASTS
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA
LEGEND

6575 1990 Volumes
(7425) 2010 Volumes
0

END PROJ C

.00

104

01
6 7
5
(13,

vj
%va
100
00

OP,

Y
ov 0
13%- 0
0 0

00)
'90
3,47,S)
%U
ow
>=
64
@P,

4, G
25
4f4
7
J-
0
o6 0
0: 5)

BEGI
T
0.
5,2
A00
S).

-0

0
?Sq)
12,900
-410TT
(J4,8001
04
2S) graphic 3cqle in feet
1000 0 2000 4000

FIGURE 4-3
ALIGNMENT A TRAFFIC FORECASTS
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA
LEGEND

6575 1990 Volumes

10
(7425) 2010 Volumes

ho E 0 PROJEC
!50
10

C,
Ile 14,050 -91
4(h

z.". 0*4
"10-

0 o
0)
6,850
ji
00
U1 7
5
W

-46 t
4f Ge
410 0,
44,
S_
X
4G'
A-S
3k
5)
<

B E
C T
,-Q I 1 0 4,000)
0)

0
43 62,
0

<
3,050
<<
_(15,000)
29,9
"is 1-25 graphic scale in feet
00)
looo 0 2000 4000

FIGURE 4-4
ALIGNMENT D TRAFFIC FORECASTS
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA
LEGEND

6575 1990 Volumes
(7425) 2010 Volumes
%9

END PROJEC

0
0

(P.0

vi
1 25
2
IV

0
%'o
A

@k
A
<

00
75
16
Ad 0) 27i

Uj= 7

'441@
A,
44,

lb 75
25)
C@j <
T
-IBEGI
45o) 9025)
A625 13,200
0
500) 8S
SA) -
@212 675
--(14,650)
2S) graphic 3cale in feet
io6o o 2000 4000

and the Kingsmill on the James and Brewery area south of Williams-
burg.

A significant factor affecting traffic conditions in Willia msburg is the
tourist trade. As discussed in the Technical Reports, tourist trade
declined in the area during the early 19BOs. It has increased recently
and is believed to have stabilized. Tourist traffic for Colonial
Williamsburg, the Pottery, Busch Gardens, and Jamestown Festival

Park was included in the forecasts.

The future conditions assessment encompassed three parts. The first
involved the capacity analyses conducted at the 15 intersections
analyzed under existing conditions. The second part involved an
analysis of the operations on Route 199 and the interchanges and
intersections. Finally, the system improvements necessary to accom-
modate the projected traffic volumes were discussed.

4.1.2.1 Future Conditions Capacity Analysis

Capacity evaluations were conducted for the peak period for the
selected intersections for each alternative. The traffic volumes for
1990 and 2010 were forecast using the travel demand model previously
discussed. As with the existing con(fitions, the methodology outlined
in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual was used. Table 4-2 lists the
operating conditions in 1990 for the three alternatives. As seen in the
table, five intersections will operate at unacceptable levels (LOS E or
F) in 1990 under the No Build Alternative. With Alignment A, four
intersections will still operate at an unacceptable level, while Align-
ment D would only have two. Of the intersections projected to
operate below Level of Service D for both the No Build Alternative
and Alignment A, two are unsignalized. The installation of traffic
signals at the intersections of Routes 60 and 658 and Longhill Road
and Ironbound Road will improve operations to acceptable levels.
Utlimately, an interchange is planned at Route 658. The construction
of Route 199 (either alignment') will allow the intersection of Route 60
and Ironbound Road to operate at an acceptable level. Under all
alternatives, improvements need to be made on Richmond Road (Route

4-5

Table 4-2
1990 Capacity Analyses

N
p Build 2 Aligjment A 2 Aligqment D 2
Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C Los

Route 60 & Route 6 46 0.811 C 0.488 C 0.502 C
Route 60 & Route 614 0.473 B 0.404 B 0.413 B
Route 60 & Route 658 (0.613) (B) (0.965) (C) (0.318) (B)
-189 F -644 F 150 D
Route 612 & Route 658 (0.302) (B) (0.771) (C) (0.079) (B)
464 A 116 D 795 A
Longhill Road & Route 615 (0.734) (B) (0.648) (B) (0.560) (B)
-13 F 71 E 187 D
Route 60 & Route 615 1.105 F 0.968 D O.BO7 D
Route 616 & Route 615 (0.842) (F) (0.497) (B) (0.530) (B)
182 D 310 B 293 C
Route 60 & Route 132 0.688 C 0.586 C 0.666 C
Henry & Lafayette 0.818 C 0.818 C 0.869 C
Route 199 & Jamestown Rd. 0.913 C 0.743 C 0.925 C
Richmond Rd. & Route 60 1.565 F 1' 445 F 1.331 E
Page/Laf ayette/Francis/60 0.323 C 0.395 D 0.393 D
Boundary St. & Francis St. (0.536) (B) (0.621) (B) (0.568) -- 1
320 B 696 B 385 B
Richmond Rd./Jamestown Rd./ (0.311) (B) (0.321) (B) (0.248) (B)
Boundary Street 357 B 401 A 378 B
Route 615 & Route 321 1.089 C 0.844 C 0.969 C
Richmond Rd./Lafayette St./ 2.084 F 1.939 F 2.017 F
Monticello Avenue

Indicates operation if signalized.

Volume-to-Capacity ratio for signalized intersections and reserve Capacity for unsignalized
intersections.
2LOS is Level of Service.

Source: DSA Group, Inc.

4-6

60) at the intersection with Route 60 Bypass and the intersection with
Lafayette Street/Monticello Avenue.

The results of the 2010 capacity analyses are listed in Table 4-3.
Under the No Build Alternative, 12 of the 16 intersections will operate
at unacceptable levels. With Alignment A, nine intersections will
provide unacceptable operation while ten intersections are anticipated
to operate at unacceptable levels with the construction of Alignment
D. The installation of traffic signal's at the over-capacity unsignalized
intersections will provide acceptable operations under all alternatives
except at the intersection of Routes 616 and 615 in the No Build

scenario.

The intersections of Richmond Road (Route 60) with Ironbound Road,
Route 60 Bypass, and Lafayette/Monticello will still need to be
improved under all alternatives. It should be noted, however, that the
build alignments significantly lower the projected volumes on Route
60, thus they will require significantly less improvements than the No
Build Alternative.

Route 199 is proposed to have a four-lane divided cross section.
Initial construction will provide at-grade intersections at the following
locations: Route 615, Route 612 and Route 646. Interchanges will be
provided at the time of construction at Route 60 and Interstate 64.
When warranted, interchanges are proposed to be constructed at
Routes 612, 615 and 646. Access to the Warhill Tract development
will be from Route 60.

The evaluation of route operations included an assessment of the
ability of the main line to accommodate the projected volumes and
peak period capacity analyses at the ramp terminals and intersections.
For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that interchanges had
been constructed at Routes 615 and 612.

According to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of
Route 199 is 25,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day, depending on the

4-7

Table 4-3
2010 Capacity Analyses

N All ment D
P Build 2 Aligqment A 2 2
Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS

Route 60 & Route 646 1.348 C 0.826 C 0.870 C
Route 60 & Route 614 1.147 B 0.731 B 0.780 B
Route 60 & Route 658 (0.900) (C) (0.984) (B) (0.584) (B)
-587 F -478 F -33 F
Route 612 & Route 658 (0.646) (C) (0.731) (B) (0.152) (B)
-98 F -83 F 701 A
Longhill Road & Route 615 (1.148) (B) (0.962) (B) (0.958) (B)
-400 F -184 F -177 F
Route 60 & Route 615 1.704 F 1.476 F 1.290 F
Route 616 & Route 615 (1.460) (F) (0.722) (B) (0.872) (C)
-298 F 146 D 73 E
Route 60 & Route 132 1.159 D 1.299 D 1.254 F
Henry & Lafayette 1.872 C 1.319 D 1.334 D
Route 199 & Jamestown Rd. 1.355 D 1.416 E 1.345 D
Richmond Rd. & Route 60 2.647 F 2.416 F 1.973 F
Page/Laf ayette/Francis/60 0.334 C 0.328 D 0.333 C
Boundary St. & Francis St. (0.303) (B) (0.318) (B) (0.318) (B)
600 A 574 A 825 A
Richmond Rd./Jamestown Rd. (0.168) (B) (0.187) (B) (0.188) (B)
Boundary Street 661 A 401 A 520 A
Route 615 & Route 321 1.604 F 1.008 C 1.275 D
Richmond Rd./Lafayette St./ 2.291 F 2.233 F 2.387 F
Monticello Avenue

Indicates operation if signalized.

Volume-to-Capacity ratio for signalized intersections and reserve capacity for unsignalized
intersections.
2LOS isLevel of Service.

Source: DSA Group, Inc.

4-8

impact of the at-grade intersections. The projected traffic volumes
on Route 199 vary from approximately 12,000 to 21,000 vehicles per
day by 2010. These projections are well below the capacity.
Therefore, four-lane divided facility is adequate for at least the next
25 years.

The operation of the intersections and interchanges was evaluated
using peak period capacity evaluations. The following describes the
evaluation of the two alignments.

Alignment A and Revised Line A

The operating conditions along Alignment A will be well within
acceptable limits. As previously stated, the results of the Alignment
A evaluations apply to Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and the selected
alternative, Revised Line A. The results of the capacity analyses are
listed in Table 4-4. As seen in the table, the ramp terminals for the
interchanges at Route 615, Route 612 and 1-64 will operate under stop
sign control through 2010. The southbound off -ramp at 615 will have a
limited capacity reserve in 2010 indicating the possible need for a
traffic signal. Traffic signals will need to be installed at the ramp

terminals of Routes 199 and 60.

Access from Route 199 to the Warhill tract was studied as part of the
initial traffic analysis. However, it has been determined that the
selected alternative, Revised Line A would not provide access from
Route 199, but would allow access from Route 60.

The intersection of Route 646 and Route 199 will serve as primary
access to the high density retail and tourist development projected for
the Pottery area. Several intersection geometrics were analyzed for
this location due to the high volume of turning movements. The
analysis indicates that the following geometrics are required to
operate at-grade:

4-9

TABLE 4-4

Alignment A Capacity Analyses
Intersection V/C(1) 1999 LOS(2) V/C(1) 2010 L OS (2)

Route 615 275 C 60 E
Southbound Ramps

Route 615 611 A 443 A
Northbound Ramps

Route 612 562 A 370 B
Southbound Ramps

Route 612 563 A 388 B
Northbound Ramps

Route 60 0.376 B 0.544 B
Southbound Ramps

Route 60 0.525 B 0.823 B
North bo und R am ps

Warhill Tract 640 A 119 D
Access Drive

Route 646(3) 0.447 B 0.876 D

1-64 296 C 204 C
Southbound Ramps

(1) Volum e- to- capacity ratio f or signalized intersections and rese rve capacity f or
unsignalized intersections.

(2) Level of Service.

(3) Assumes dual left-turn lanes and dual right-turn lanes on Route 199 and a
seven (7) lane cross section on Route 646.

Source: DSA Group, Inc.

4-10

Southbound Route 199: Dual right-turn lanes, two through
lanes, and a lef t-turn lane.

Northbound Route 199: a s hared through and right-turn
lane, a through lane, and dual left

turn I anes.

Westbound access from Zone 71: a right-turn lane, a through lane,
and a lef t-turn lane.

Eastbound Route 646: dual right-turn lanes, a through
lane, and dual lef t-turn lanes.

While this configuration is projected to operate at Level of Service C,
the intersection will be massive and confusing to motorists. The
confusions, accident potential, and delays associated with this large an
intersection indicate that a grade separation would be appropriate.
This could be accommodated at the proposed intersection location. A
full interchange will be necessary to accommodate traffic at this
intersection by the year 2010.

Alignment D

The analysis of Alignment D indicates that this alignment will also
operate within acceptable limits. The results of the capacity analyses
are listed in Table 4-5. As seen in the table, the interchange of Route
60 and Route 199 will need to be signalized at the time of
construction. In addition, the interchanges at Routes 612 and 615 will
need to be signalized prior to 2010. This is due to the increased
volume accessing Route 199 at these interchanges.

The increased volume on Route 199 also indicates the need for

sionalizing the access drive to the Warhill Tract. There will not be
adequate gaps in Route 199 traffic for the development traffic, and
geometric improvements alone will not provide acceptable operations.
It should be noted, however, that this is predicated on the projected

4-11

TABLE 4 -5

Alignment D Capacity Analyses

1999 2010
Intersection V/C(1) LOS(2) V/C(1) LOS(2)

Route 615 215 C -29 F
Southbound Ramps (0.433) (B)

Route 615 295 C 56 E
Northbound Ramps (0.377) (B)

Route 612 323 B -125 F
Southbound Ramps (0.655) (B)

Route 612 204 C -108 F
Northbound Ramps (0.681) (B)

Route 60 0.226 B 0.379 B
Southbound Ramps

Route 60 0.291 B 0.685 B
Northbound Ramps

Warhill Tract 320 B 26 E
Access Drive (.303) (A)
Route 646(3) 0.468 C 0.670 D

1-64 256 C 149 D
Southbound Ramps

( ) Indicates traffic signal control.

(1) Volum e- to- capacity ratio f or-signalized intersections and reserve capacity f or
unsignalized intersections.

(2) Level of Service.

(3) Assumes dual left-turn lanes and dual right-turn lanes on Route 199 and a
seven (7) lane cross section on Route 646.

Source: DSA Group, Inc.

4-12

land use for the Warhill Tract. If there is a major change in land use
type and/or density, this intersection will need to be re-examined.

The analysis of the intersection of Route 646 and Route 199 indicates
the need for the same cross-section requirements as Alignment A.
Given the proximity of the intersection to the 1-64 interchange for
this alignment, additional queuing and weaving problems are expected.
At a minimum, the intersection will need to be relocated to the
southwest (to approximately the location on Alignment A) to alleviate
queuing and weaving problems. As with Alignment A, it is
recommended that the intersection be grade-separated to alleviate
safety and delay problems.

The third part of the needs analysis involved an evaluation of the
roadway system and the need for improvements, other than the
construction of Route 199, to accommodate the projected traffic
volumes safely and efficiently. This involved the identification of
capacity deficiencies in the No Build Alternative street system and
those that are alleviated by the construction of Route 199.

The methodology for the evaluation of roadway capacity is defined in
the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. For rural roads, a range of daily
traffic volumes is defined for each level of service. For urban streets,
average travel speed is used to establish the level of service. It is not
possible to measure the travel speed f or a f uture condition.

Outside of the City of Williamsburg, the majority of the roadways
operate as rural highways, even though they may be considered within
the urban area. According to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, an
urban or suburban arterial is defined as a facility with siqnalized
intersection spacing of 2 miles or less. In addition, roadside develop-
ment can be intense, producing side friction to traffic and limiting
travel speed. Other than along Route 60, there are no traffic signals
today along the street system outside Williamsburg. In addition, the
projected traffic volumes do not indicate a need for a significant

4-13

number of signals (with spacing of 2 miles or less). Therefore, for
purposes of this analysis, the roadways outside the City of
Williamsburg were analyzed as rural highways. This was discussed
with representatives of VDOT and they concurred that this area is
outside the truly urbanized area and the roadways will actually
operate as rural roadways rather than urban streets.

The capacity deficiencies were identified using the criteria for rural
roadways outlined in Table 4-6. These criteria were developed using
the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The results of the system
capacities are listed in Table 4-7 for each of the alternatives for both

1990 and 2010.

In 1990, the No Build Alternative has over 8.5 miles of deficient
roadways. Alignment A has 10.6 miles of roadway operating at Level
of Service D or lower, and Alignment D has 4.6 miles of deficiencies.
The miles of deficient roadways under Alignment A are overstated due
to the segments of Routes 5 and 31, which are only slightly over Level

of Service C.

By the year 2010, over 22 miles of roadway will be deficient under the
No Build Alternative. This is decreased by 35 percent, to 14.26 miles
under Alignment A. Alignment D decreases the mileage by 38.7
percent to only 13.48 miles. This substantial reduction includes relief
to Longhill and Ironbound R02ds (a currently congested area) and
Routes 616 and 646. Under all alternatives, Route 321, Old James-
town Road, and portions of Routes 5 and 31 will need to be widened to

four lanes.

The urban street system evaluation methodology outlined in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual requires the use of travel speed. Since it is
impossible to do speed studies on future conditions, the intersection

4-14

Table 4-6
Rural Road Daily Traffic Service Volumes

Service Volume
L. 0. S. 2-lane Street 4-lane Street

A 2,400 28,000
B 4,800 44,000
C 7,900 56,000
D 13,500 70,000
E 22,900 801000
F 22,900 80,000.

4-15

Table 4-7
Two Lane Rural Roadways Over Capacity

1990 2010
L. 0. S. L. 0. L. 0. S. L. 0. S.
Altemative D E orF D E orF

No Build 7.15 1.46 12.78 9.18

Alignment A (A-1, A-2, 8.85 1.78 9.15 5.11
Revised Line A)

Alignment D 3.14 1.46 9.00 4.48

4-16

analyses were used as an indicator of urban street operations. As
previously discussed, the intersections along Route 60 will experience
problems for all alternatives. The capacity deficiencies are worse for
the No Build Alternatives. The construction of Route 199 will
decrease volumes on Route 60 by approximately 16 to 35 percent for
Alignments A and D respectively. This decrease will significantly
lessen the necessary additional roadway improvements. While Route
60 will need to be improved under all alternatives, the extent of the
improvements necessary under the build alternatives will be greatly
reduced. The roadway will need to provide 6 lanes from south of
Lafayette Street to north of Route 645 for the build alternatives. For
the No Build Alternative, an B-lane cross section will need to be
provided from Route 60 Bypass to Ironbound Road to accom-modate the
47,000 vehicles projected. This will be difficult, if not impossible, to
accomplish due to development in the area. The construction of Route
199 will eliminate this need.

4.1.3 Truck Routes

Neither the City of Williamsburg nor the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) has established signed truck routes through the
City of Williamsburg; however, signs have been placed by private
initiatives to prevent trucks from entering Colonial Williamsburg. At
the present time, there are several truck route signs located at the
intersections of Capital Landing Road and Page Street; Francis
Street/Lafayette Street/Page Street and Highway 60; Jamestown
Road/Boundary Street and Richmond Road; and Richmond Road and
Highway 60 (Bypass Road). There are also several "trucks prohibited"
signs located at the intersections of Francis Street/Lafayette
Street/Page Street and Highway 60; and Francis Street and Henry
Street.

4-17

4.2 LAND USE

The three jurisdictional areas affected by the construction of Route 199
include James City County, York County (i.e. the area north of Route 238 and,
thereby, includes the Naval Weapons Station), and the City of Williamsburg.
For discussion purposes, the following sections on existing and planned land
uses are separated into the three study area jurisdictions, mentioned above.

A more detailed discussion of land use in the James City County, York County,
and Williamsburg areas is included in the Socio-Economic Technical Report.

4.2.1 Existing Land Use

The majority of the three study areas consist of undeveloped and/or
open public lands (i.e., 58-88 percent of the total land area). Devel-
oped land consists mostly of single-family residential dwellings. The
following discussion highlights the important existing land use ele-
ments and provides associated acreage and percentaqe estimates by
specific locality.

James City County--James City County comprises 96,636 acres or
71.5 percent of the total land area under study ("Evaluation of Land
Uses and Zoning Districts," Working Paper #4, James City County,
November 1982, p. 4). Over 88 percent or roughly 85,263 acres of
James City County is agricultural, forested, or vacant land. The
remaining 12 percent (11,374 acres) of the County's land area contains
various urban or built-up categories of land use including residential,
communications and utilities, institutional, commercial and services,
transportation, and industrial.

The "Primary Service Area," which consists of 43,188 acres or 44.7
percent of the County, consists of areas presently served with public

4-18

water, sewer, and emergency and community services. Most of the
urban development (7,7B6 acres or 8.1 percent) exists within this
"Primary Service Area." Approximately 34 percent of land use in
developed James City County is characterized by single-family,
detached, residential development ("Evaluation of Land Uses and
Zoning District," Working Paper #4, James City County, November
1982, p. 4). Approximately 66 percent of the remaining developed land
uses are concentrated around the City of Williamsburg (i.e., roads,
club/civic organizations, institutional facilities, landfill, campgrounds,
mobile homes, railroad, and other minor uses).

York County--Approximately 26.1 percent of the three study areas or
35,194 acres are in York County (York County Land Use Plan,
Department of Planning, January 1983, pp. 4-19). Roughly 58 percent
of the existing land in the county is being used by the federal
government. This includes the Camp Peary Naval Reservation, the
U.S. Naval Supply Center Cheatham Annex, and the U.S. Naval
Weapons Station. Nonfederal resource management/protection and
conservation land uses constitute an additional 23 percent of the total
County land area. Private development is limited to the western and
central portions of the county. Residential uses account for nearly 30
percent of privately developed land in York County. Resi denti al
development, which consists mostly of single-family detached
subdivisions, represents nearly 85 percent of the total developed land
area in the County. The remaining 15 percent of developed land
consists of commercial and industrial developments. Commercial uses
have developed linearly along the major transportation routes adjacent
to established residential areas. Industrial sites are mostly
concentrated within industrial parks located in the lower portion of
the County.

City of Williamsburg--The 3,297-acre City of Williamsburg constitutes
approximately 2.4 percent of the total study area (Field Survey,
Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc. for the Williamsburg Compre-

4-19

hensive Plan, August-October 1980, p. 40). Public and semi-public
land uses account for nearly 40 percent of the City's land use. The
second largest category is vacant land which accounts for over 20
percent of the total area. The third largest land use category is
residential land occupying 19 percent of the Citys land. The
remaining 21 percent of total land area in Williamsburg consists of
commercial enterprises, transportation networks, industrial plants, and

water area.

4.2.2 Future Land Use

Long-term plans for the study area call for the continued trend toward
urbanization that has occurred over the past decade. Growth in
single-family residential and general commercial uses is expected by
both area planners and developers. Tourist, commercial, and pub-
lic/semi-public uses are expected to grow the least. This is due to the
anticipated saturation of the tourist market in the area by the end of
the 1980s and the anticipated stabilization of federal, state, and local
governm ent expansion.

James City County-James City County is expected to see the largest
growth of the three localities by the year 2010. According to the
County's Land Use Plan, both residential and commercial growth will
be clustered in nodes, many of which will be mixed-use in character
and planned in proximity to the Route 199 corridor, and which will
remain within the "Primary Service Area," defined by Route 614
(Centerville Road). The present residential pattern of development
will continue in this corridor, which some call the "residential heart-
land" of James City County. The planned communities of Kingsmill
and Ford's Colony will be built-out by 2010. Increased multifamily
development will appear as early as 1990, especially in the areas
southwest of Williamsburg. It is highly probable, given market forces,
that the large Warhill Tract, which extends from Route 60 west to
Route 614 (Centerville Road), will be developed into a relatively high
density, mixed-use development before the end of the century. The
same is true of the vacant property surrounding Eastern State Hos-

4-20

pital. Within the next two years, the state plans to auction off much
of the excess property surrounding the hospital.

County plans call for a limitation of water and sewer connections
within the "Primary Service Area." Given the emergent popularity of
slower County growth, it appears unlikely that this boundary will
expand before the year 2010.

Public school enrollment is projected to increase steadily between
1985 and 1993, according to the James City County/Williamsburg
School System (Superintendent's Office, James City County/City of
Williamsburg School System, October 1985). School officials project
that the existing elementary schools will reach enrollment capacity by
1988. They have, therefore, programmed construction of two new
schools during the next two years.

York County--Long-range plans for the upper part of York County call
for three major changes from the existing land use pattern: to
concentrate tourist/commercial growth in the vicinity of Route 646
between the Interstate 64 and Route 60; to reserve more areas for
multifamily uses in the area immediately north of Williamsburg; and to
identify two major industrial areas, one at the intersection of Airport
Road and Route 60 and the other along Penniman Road.

City of Willi amsburq--Willi amsburg has little room available for
additional development (other than infill development). The exception
is the 3.9 square mile area of James City County which is owned in
large part by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the College of
William and Mary. This area was annexed effective January 1984.
City officials visualize the annexed area as a major source of growth
f or the next several decades.

4-21

4.3 SOCIOECONONICS

4.3.1 Population

James City County, York County, and the City of Williamsburg--A
total of 41,235 persons resided in the study area in 1980 (U.S. Census,
1980). This represents a 17.8 percent increase over the 1970 total
population of 35,004 persons. The most recently available state
population estimate for the study area, according to the 1983
"Provisional Estimate" made by the Tayloe-Murphy Institute, is
43,990. The state projects a study area population of 47,103 in 1990
and 54,733 by 2010 (Virginia Department of Planning and Budget;
Tayloe-Murphy Institute; Harland & Associates, Inc.,
1985). It should be noted that, while York County and the City of
Williamsburg do not dispute the Tayloe-Murphy Institute state popu-
lation estimates and the State Department of Planning and Budget
population projections for their areas, James City County disputes
these agencies' projections as being consistently low.

4.3.2 Housi nq

A high degree of owner-occupancy exists throughout the Route 199
study area, although renter-occupancy is on the increase due to the
increase in apartment construction, as well as to the continuing
escalation of residential sales prices.

James City County--Sixty percent of the year-round housinq units
within the Route 199 study area are located in James City County. In
1980, roughly two-thirds of County housing units were owner-occu-
pled. An unusually large proportion of housing units (10.4 percent)
were classified as vacant in the 1980 Census, a figure which County
planners claim to be in error (U.S. Census, 19BO).

Since the early 1970s, the mix of housing types in the County has
changed. In 1970, only 10.6 percent of the housing units available in
the County were apartments. During the last decade, 22.5 percent of

4-22

all new units constructed were apartments, and by 1980, apartments
accounted for 16 percent of available housing (U.S. Census, 1970 and
1980).

A significant asp6ct of the rapid suburban growth in James City
County has been the increase in the average value of single-family
dwelling units. In the spring of 1985, the average selling price for a
new home in the County was over $90,000. This high value reflects
the large percentage of the new housing constructed in the County to
meet the demand from upper income home purchasers. The success of
Kingsmill on the James and Windsor Forest illustrates this trend. In
1985, an estimated 10,900 dwelling units exist in the County
("Quarterly Population and Housing Unit Estimates," James City
County, 1982-1985).

The high cost of homes in James City County has not, however, slowed
the pace of construction relative to neighboring peninsula communi-
ties. During the past five years, only the City of Newport News has
consistently constructed more single-family units within its borders
than J am es C ity C ounty.

York County--The 2,677 upper part of York County households
accounted for nearly 20 percent of total study area households in 1980.
Compared to James City County and Williamsburg, this part of York
county has the highest percentage of owner occu 'pancy. During the
1970s, the greatest increase in absolute numbers occurred in
owner-occupied units which increased from 1,337 in 1970 to 1,957 in
1980. Renter-occupied units actually declined (U.S. Census, 1970 and
19BO).

City of Willi amsbur q--H ous! ng tenure relationships changed slightly
between 1970 and 1980. Sixty-three percent of total year-round
housing units were renter-occupied in 1980, 2 slight increase over 1970
figures, and renter-occupancy has increased since the census, due to
increased apartment construction. Owner- occupancy declined slightly
while the vacancy rate remained around 7 oercent.

4-23

4.3.3 Income

Study area median household income in 1979 ranged from a low of
$14,970 in the City of Williamsburg to a high of $22,141 in Upper York
County (U.S. Census, 1980). Areas with the highest median household
incomes were those which had received the greatest amount of
in-migration during the late 1970s.

An examination of 1979 household income distribution reveals that a
high proportion of James City County and Williamsburg households had
annual incomes of less than $10,000. York County had the highest
proportion of households, 45 percent, earning more than $25,000 per
year in 1979 (U.S. Census, 1980).

4.3.4 Labor F orce and E mpl oym ent

Tourism, government, and manufacturing are the mainstays of the
study area economy. The economy is highly dependent upon that of
the Peninsula region as a whole because such a significant portion of
the James City and York County residents out-commute to jobs in the
Newport News-Hampton Roads area or, to a lesser extent, to jobs in
the City of Williamsburg. The relative lack of nonresidential tax base
in James City County and York County is a.problem which influences
the existing and future economic base.

In the Williamsburq area, tourism is a basic industry. A majority of
visitors are from out of state, producing a net-inflow of revenue to
the state and to the localities. It contributes just over half (58.3
percent) of the area!s taxable retail sales. In 1981, tourists spent an
estimated $179.4 million in the area, not including transportation
expenses. Just over one-third was spent in James City County, $60.5
million, which represented 41.8 percent of the County's taxable sales.
The combined area travel- generated jobs totaled 9,688 which gene-
rated a payroll of $63.2 million for Williamsburq and James City
County in 1981, according to the Virginia State Travel Service. This
does not include the indirect economic stimulus produced as these

4-24

direct-payroll dollars were spent in the local area. The depth of
tourism in the area@s economy makes specific delineation of its impact
difficult. Undoubtedly, tourist dollars account for a large share of
merchandise and food and beverage sales in general.

James City County--Much of the existing commercial and industrial
development in James City County occurred during the late 1970s.
Generally speaking, James City County employment is concentrated in
the services, manufacturing, government, and retail trade sectors.

Employment tends to be concentrated in a small number of relatively
large establishments. The major employer in the County during the
months of October through May is Eastern State Hospital while Busch
Gardens surpasses it during the June through September peak tourist
season (Economic Base Study, 1980 Update to the Comprehensive Plan,
James City County, p. 35; and "Evaluative Study of the Economy of
James City County, Virginia," Ann Schwarz-Miller and Matthew
Marlin, February 1985, and Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc.,
1985). The County has seen relatively slow employment growth during
the 1980s due to slow growth in the beer (Anheuser Busch and Ball
Metal) and acrylic fibers (Badische) industries.

Area tourism declined sharply during the 1981-1982 recession, but has
stabilized during the last year. Busch Gardens attendance has
remained rather constant during the past several years. Aging of the
population and oversaturation of the theme park market may even lead

to decreased attendance in the future.

The Williamsburg Pottery Factory has experienced slow growth in the
last two or three years and has not added new jobs since 1980. Major.
growth in retail sales and employment has occurred at the Outlet Mail
nearby, which has benefitted not only from proximity to the Pottery,
but also from regional prosperity and the existence of Sunday blue
laws in Hampton and Newport News.

4-25

The prospects of high rates of growth, as seen in the 1970s, continuing
in the James City County retail sector in the future are not great.
The construction of a competing Pottery-type outlet in the Washing-
ton area by the South Carolina-based Waccamaw Pottery has posed a
strong threat to the James City County outlets, which cater to
busloads of shoppers from out-of-state. Further, the construction of a
K-Mart Shopping Center on the Will iamsburg- York County border has
begun to siphon-off some of the business of lower Peninsula-area
shoppers.

Individuals who live in James City County and commute to work in
neighboring communities are potential contributors to the County's
economic base. This income indirectly stimulates and enhances
economic growth. While other communities gain tax revenues from
business property, James City County gains the residential tax base.
Although revenues from the two sources may be comparable, it is the
"bedroom community" which bears the responsibility of education
expenditures, the major expenditure category for local governments

nationwide.

A 1980 County survey found that only 37 percent of employed James
City County residents worked in the County while 40 percent held jobs
in Williamsburg, 11 percent in Hampton and Newport News, and 6
percent in York County. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation employs
the most County residents in absolute numbers, followed closely by the
federal government.

This "bedroom community' affect is compounded by a lack of retail,
personal, and business-related services (groceries, medical, legal, etc.)
in James City County. The greater density of adjacent jurisdictions,
most notably the City of Williamsburg, has resulted in "leakages!' of
retail expenditures made by County residents outside of the County.
This comparatively slow growth in the services sector (with the
exception of tourism) limits the potential growth in the County's

nonresidential tax base.

4-26

York County--Similar to James City County, the upper part of York
County functions largely as a "bedroom community' and has a low
nonresidential tax base relative to the larger Peninsula localities.
Most employment opportunities, other than military employment,
presently found within the County provide support services for local
residents. Concentrations of employment have existed in the past and
are expected to continue to exist in the government, wholesale and
retail trade, and construction sectors of the County economy.

The upper part of York County commercial employment differs signif-
icantly from that of the lower part of the County. Commercial
activity is impacted heavily by tourists. As in the case of James City
County, "leakag&' of retail expenditures to the City of Williamsburg is
a problem, but to a lesser extent since- several retail centers exist in
York County, adjacent to the City. This problem of low nonresidential
tax base is compounded in York County by the large resident military
population: the large military land holdings in the upper county reduce
the number of prime commercial and industrial sites; and military
personnel stationed there tend to make retail and services related
expenditures at military exchanges, thereby reducing demand for such
f acili ties.

City of Williams bur g'--T he service sector dominates the economy of
Williamsburg. Both tourist and retail trade are basic or "export!'
industries which largely serve the neighboring jurisdictions of James
City and York Counties. Therefore, the City's economy is highly
dependent upon the expenditures of County residents, as well as of
to uri sts.

The College of William and Mary exhibits the major student enroll-
ment for the entire study area and employs a large number of
professional and support personnel.

The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation is the largest employer in the
study area. Hotel and restaurant businesses provide spin-off employ-

m ent.

4-27

4.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES

4.4.1 Neighborhood Cohesion

James City County--S ingle- family detached residential development is
situated in a crescent-shaped area around the City of Williamsburg
and along corridors south toward Grove and north toward Toano.

Upper York County--Over the past 20 years, new residential develop-
ment in the upper portion of York County has been concentrated in
small single-family detached subdivisions in the Queeds Lake Area
and in the area north of Penniman Road and south of 1-64, between the
Colonial Parkway and Route 199. Some additional residential uses
exist in the vicinity of Route 646 north of 1-64. The small amount of
multifamily residential use is limited to the area immediately north-
east of the City of Williamsburg. Neighborhood commercial activities
exist near the Country Club Acres, Schenck Estates and at the Queen's
Creek/Penniman Road intersection and the Route 60/Lightfoot inter-
section. Larger, generally commercial uses extend alonq Route 143
from Penniman Road to the Williamsburq City line. These centers
include James York Plaza, Be-Lo, Farm Fresh Shopping Center and
the new K-Mart Shopping Center.

City of Will iamsbur q--L and uses in Williamsburg are fragmented, with
clustered and stripped development separated by wedges of vacant
land. The central area is Colonial Williamsburq. The restored area
includes occupied single-family residences and popular commercial
establishments. Surrounding the restored area are city and university
buildings which radiate outward along Route 60 to the northwest and
southeast, Capital Landing Road to the north, and Jamestown and
Monticello Roads to the southwest.

The City of Williamsburg provides the focal point for commercial uses
in James City and York Counties. Major commercial shopping centers
are located along Route 60 in the northwest and northeast sectors.
Tourist commercial uses are interspersed with general commercial

4-28

uses along Routes 6 0 and 143. Merchants' Square, which is adjacent to
the restored area, is oriented entirely to tourist shopping.

4.4.2 Emergency Services

Three fire stations are located within James City County: Grove
Station, the Central Station on Route 5 and the Old Towne Road
Station. Emergency medical services are provided at each of these.
The Toano station remains as a volunteer facility. The primary goal of
the County Fire Department is to have at least 90 percent of County
development within 4 miles of a fire station, a goal which has become
increasingly difficult to meet. James City County officials have
expressed the need for access for emergency vehicles from the Old
Towne Road Fire Station to Route 199 if Alignment A is selected.

4.4.3 Institutions

James City County--Approximately six percent of the developed land
use in James City County is institutional development. ("Evaluation of
Land Uses and Zoning Districts," Working Paper #4, James City
County, November 1982, p. 4.) The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
and Eastern State Hospital account for the largest public land holdings
within the County. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation owns
approximately 4,000 acres in Williamsburg, James City and Upper
York Counties. The State owns approximately 360 acres in and around
Eastern State Hospital, which is situated in the geographic center of
the County.

James City County has the largest proportionate share of community
facilities in the study area. Most of these facilities are located in the
more densely populated Williamsburg area. The municipal center lies
adjacent to Kingsmill, while the courts, jail and library are operated
jointly with the City of Williamsburg and are located there.

The County and City of Williamsburg operate the only consolidated
school system in the state. Out of the seven existing schools, five are

4-29

located in James City County (Public Facilities, 1981 Update to the
Comprehensive Plan, James City County; James City County/City of
Williamsburg School System, Superintendent's Office, October 1985),
where approximately 80 percent of the enrolled students reside. The
highest enrollment ever was recorded in September 1985.

York County-4nstitutional facilities are located in lower York County
where the population is concentrated.

City of Willi amsburq--M aj or institutions, federal, watershed, churches,
cemeteries, and other institutional development comprise 1,031.5
acres or 31.3 percent of the total City land area.

4.4.4 Parks, Recreation, and 02en Space

James City County--James City County community recreational
facilities lie in the more densely populated Williamsburg area and two
major parks are located on Ironbound Road and Leisure Road.

A new County Social Services facility opened in 1985 off Strawberry
Plains Road and a new County Community Center opened in mid-1985
on Old Towne Road, across from the fire station. Both of these

facilities were sited for the central location and for the future
proximity to planned Route 199. Approximately 88 percent or 85,263
acres of the County consists of open and reserved land.

York County--According to the County's 1983 Land Use Plan,
agricultural activities contribute more to the perception of a rural
atmosphere than they do to the County's economic base. The
estimated six percent of the County's net land area which is currently
in commercially productive agricultural activity is concentrated in the
Lightfoot and Skimino areas. The majority of the County Park/Con-
servation Area is located in the lower part of the county. Vacant land
in the upper county area is located on the western side in areas zoned
for either residential or tourist commercial uses.

4-30

City of Will iamsbur g--Approxi m ately 689 acres or 21 percent of
Williamsburg is vacant land. Colonial Williamsburg has preserved open
spaces around the restored area and in the vicinity of the Information
Center and the visitor facilities south of the restored area. At the
headwaters of Queen's Creek, the City owns the Waller Mill Reservoir
and a substantial portion of its watershed. In September 1985, the
City of Williamsburg bought the f ormer Airport property owned by the
College. The City plans to leave this 210-acre site undeveloped to
preserve the Reservoir watershed. Combined with Camp Peary in
York County, this area comprises a large undeveloped area north of
the City. The 85-acre Colonial Williamsburg Golf Course is a major
recreational facility within the City. Parks and playgrounds comprise
57.5 acres of the City's land surface area. Colonial Williamsburg, one
of the most prominent of -all historic localities in the County, is a
resort area for thousands of tourists annually.

.4.5 CONSERVATION

4.5.1 Agricultural Lands

Approximately 3.5 percent of the land in the study area is presently in
cultivation. Typical crops raised include soybean and barley. A minor
land use component of the study area is pasture land. Improved
pasture is utilized primarily by dairy cows and horses. Vegetation in
these areas consists of planted forage species which may also support
a variety of f auna such as mice and other rodents.

Pursuant to the Farmland Protection Act, a Farmland Conversion
Rating was coordinated between the VDOT and the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). Acreages determined by the SCS to be of prime and
unique farmland impacted by Alignments A, A-1, A-2, Revised Line A
and D are respectively, 8.5, 7.5, 10.0, 9.6, and 4.8. Statewide or
locally important farmland converted for Alignments A, A-1, A-2,
Revised Line A, and D are 6.8, 6.6, 7.4, 7.6, and 9.1 acres respectively.
The total acreage of farmland affected by the selected alternative,
Revised Line A, is 28 acres.

4-31

Alignments A-1 and A-2 impact 26.0 acres and 27.0 acres,
respectively. In response to the SCS site assessment and rating
results, minor shifts in the proposed road alignment may be considered
during the final design to minimize impacts to farmland.

4.5.2 Forests

The study area contains over 5,000 acres of wooded tracts or frag-
ments encroached to varying degrees by development (Figure 4-5).
Upland forests are characterized by a canopy of deciduous, broad-
leaved trees dominated by white 02k (Quercus alba), beech (Faqus
grandifolia), and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). Loblolly and
short leaf pines (Pinus taeda and P. echinat2) are well represented in
some areas. Secondary tree species include hickories (Carya spp.),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), elm (Ulmus spp.), holly (Ilex spp.)
and other 02k species (Quercus spp.). Understory vegetation ranges
from very sparse to dense with the principal species consisting of
huckleberries (Gaylussacia spp.), blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), chestnut
(Castanea spp.) and sapling arboreal species. Ground cover is provided
by Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), partridgeberry
(Mitchella repens), wild grape (Vitis spp.), and Virginia creeper (Par-
thenocissus quiguefolia), U 'oland areas also include cutover areas which
consist of recently cut forest, roadsides, transmission corridors and
woodland edges. The flora of cutover areas consists of ruderal and
early successional species typical of disturbed habitats.

Lowland forests are also common within the study corridor. Dominant
tree species found in the study area include red maple (Acer rubrum),
sweetgum (L. styraciflua), tulip tree (L. tulipifera), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) and green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica). The
shrub layer is dominated by spicebush (Lindera benzoin), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), and pawpaw (Asimina spp.), with numerous
vines including greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans). Herbaceous communities include lizards tail (Sarurus
cernuus j ack- in- the- pulpit (,ArisaeM2 atrorubens) and numerous fern
species.

4-32

FIGURE 4-5

HABITAT TYPES / DEVELOPED AREAS

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA
LEGEND

FOREST 1UPLANO-BOTTOMLAND1

PASTURE

CULTIVATED FIELD

CUTOVER FOREST

DEVELOPED

E N D.

<<@

>=
610

4#
4,y

BEGIN PROJECT
L

0
-']:VN 0 R @TH

graphic scale in feet
1000 0 2000 40G

4.5.3 Terrestri al Wil dl if e and H abi tat

The forests and other terrestrial/wetland habitats in the study area
support a diversity of organisms. White-tail deer (Odocoileus vir-
ginarus are known to frequent the woods, cutover forest and open
areas. Upland woods with sufficiently dense understory are known to
support wildlife such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum (Didelphius
v! rqi ni ana Woodlands which are interspersed with old fields or
overgrown lots attract species such as the striped skunk (Mephitis
me hitis), woodchuck (Marmota monax), rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.),
eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and a variety of perching
birds or songbirds such as robins (Turdus migratorius , blue jays
(Cyancitt'a cristata), thrushes (Catharus spp.), hairy woodpeckers
(Picoides villosus), vireas (Vireo qilvus), warblers (Dendroica spp.),
field sparrows (Spizella pusilla) and many other resident and migrating
species including game birds. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) sightings
have also been reported in the study area. Fauna identified in the
wetlands section includes many species of birds, reptiles and
amphibians. The spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) was found to exist
in the wetlands associated with the study area.

4.5.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

One plant species federally listed as endangered is known to occur in
the study area: the small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides). A
single known population exists approximately 90 feet from the pro-
posed right-of-way of Alignment A. It currently consists of approxi-
mately 120 individual plants making it the largest known co lony south
of New England. Two plant species of concern are also known to occur
in the study area. These species are currently considered Category 2
candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A Section 7
biological assessment has been conducted to determine the effects of
Revised Line A on this species. One population of the New Jersey rush
(Juncus caesariensis) is located in the Mill Creek area south of Route

4-33

615. It is not believed to be impacted by either of the primary
alignments. The dwarf trillium (Trillium DUSillUM var. virginianum)
which is considered a Category 2 species occurs at several locations in
the drainages of Mill Creek, Chisel Run Creek, and Long Hill Swamp..
Only Alignment D will potentially cause an adverse impact to two of
the existing populations in Long Hill Swamp. No other alignment
causes a threat to any known populations.

4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.6.1 Architectural Resources

Literature search, field survey and coordination with the Virg inia
Division of Historic Landmarks (VDHL) were utilized to assess the
effects of the proposed Route 199 upgrading on the architectural
resources in the project area.

The general area surrounding the proposed road alignments is rural.
Because Alignment D follows the streambeds, very few architectural
resources of any period are found in this area. Five potentially
significant structures were identified within one mile of the proposed
alignments, four be! ng associated most closely with Alignment A and
one to the section of roadway common to both Alignment A and D in
the vicinity of Route 60. See Figure 4-6 f or general site locations.

The Lane Farm, located 100 feet east of the proposed Alignments A,
A-1, A-2, and Revised Line A was built af ter the Civil War by Captain
L. W. Lane. The house is of frame construction on brick piers which
were later filled in with a solid foundation. The house began as a side
hall structure with one room on the first floor and one above. Later

additions include a wing at the rear of the structure and a larger two
story addition to the west which retains the stair in the original
section as the only stair leading to the second f loor. An early
outbuilding stands 20 feet east of the house and two large barns built
in the mid 19th century are located north of thehouse. Thefarmhouse
is only slightly visible from Old Towne Road and is overgrown and in a

4-34

FIGURE 4-6
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL SITES
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

\RY HALL
A �70USE END PROJEC

EWELL PL.. 0

LANE FARM
SITE

/EASTERN
0
FACI

uj=

1 61
6"
W=

'4
61
0,

BEGIN P
ROJECT

o
<NO MIT @1

graphic scale in feet
1000 0 2000 4000

dilapidated condition. The two barns north of the house are partially
overgrown and also in poor condition. They are being used as open
storage sheds.

The VDHL archives include a survey of the Lane Farm site. This
survey states that there is little interest in this Post-Civil War
structure. According to the State Historic Preservation Officer, the
Lane Farm site is not eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. A letter stating VDHL concurrence with this finding
is in Appendix C of this document.

Cherry Hall, 950 feet north of the proposed Alignment A on Route
646, dates back at least to the 1840s and possibly earlier. It is of brick
construction with two and one-half stories and a basement. The roof

is gabled with two dormers and an end chimney. A porch has been
added to the federal style structure. From the exterior, the house
appears to be in good condition and is presently occupied. The 1985
report Towards a Resource Protection Process by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation lists Cherry Hall as a structure which is
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
This structure will not be affected by the selected alignment, Revised

Line A.

A two-story brick house was identified in the southwest portion of the
Eastern State Hospital grounds, over 200 feet east of the proposed
Alignment A. This structure, built in the federal style, is presently
being used for an off-campus program called "Turning Point." It is not
listed on the National Register of Historic Places and will not be
affected by the selected alignment, Revised Line A.

The Walsh House is located on Route 60 west of the Route 646/Route
60 intersection. It is located approximately 2,000 feet from the
proposed intersection of Route 199 and Route 60. It is a
one -and-one -half story frame construction clapboard house with a
gable roof and dormers and an attached two-story clapboard sidewing.
The structure dates to the mid 19th century and has several wooden
outbuildings associated with it. Although it may be eligible for listing,

4-35

it is not presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
and will not be affected by the selected alignment, Revised Line A.

The Ewell Plantation is a two-story frame construction residence with
a hip roof which dates to 1845. It is located three miles northwest of
Williamsburg on Route 60. It is approximately 2,800 feet east of
proposed Alignment A. Notable features include octagonal posts and a
two-story porch. During the Civil War, this house was said to have
served as a headquarters for General Sherman. The original owner,
Colonel Ewell was associated with the College of William and Mary.
Although the structure may be eligible, it is not presently listed on the
National Register of Historic Places and will not be affected by the

selected alternative.

4.6.2 Archaeological Resources

A Phase I Reconnaissance Survey of the archaeological resources in
the project area was conducted in compliance'with the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The research included a review of
historic and archival records and a field inspection of Alternative A
(including A-1 and A-2) and Alternative D. The purpose of the survey
was to provide information on probable locations of sites that might be
affected by the proposed project. The results of the survey indicated
that construction could have considerable impact on a number of
important prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources (see
Figure 4-7).

The results of this survey are reported in detail in the Cultural
Resources Technical Report which was prepared as part of this
environmental impact statement. This report is summarized below.

The environment of the project area is diverse, varying considerably in
terrain and natural resources. The broad upland areas offer large
tracts of harvestable timber, good agricultural soils, and topography
suitable for settlement and road systems. The low stream bottoms
provide an extremely rich resource base in terms of animal and plant

4-36

FIGURE 4-7

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

. . .............

LEGEND

SITE LOCATION

A20
A19
!020 END P OJEC

to*
0

10*
S4

6
6 A15
-71 4
1301
A14
4

12 A13
"0<"
A; YA
A Al
A8
uu **v*

U3
i AG
@@i Lu

6,0

'4 e
4AI" 0,
4f4

% A

BEGIN PROJECT

-'ql. 0 R @11

graphic scale in feet
1 1000 0 2000 4000

species available for hunting, fishing, and gathering. Such locations
are known to have attracted prehistoric groups in other areas. The
upland freshwater stream and swamp areas contrast significantly with
the estuarine environments of the tidal portions of these watercourses
in terms of resource diversity, availability, and navigability.

A total of 33 archaeological sites were located within, or immediately
adjacent to, the project corridor. See Figure 4-9 f or site locations. In
addition to the 33 sites recommended for Phase 11 evaluation, eight
areas were designated as potential site locations, but will require
additional research before being confirmed as having archaeological
site status. The VDHL concurs with these findings as indicated in the
letter included as Appendix A of this document. The large number of
sites found was somewhat unexpected in view of the negative results
produced by previous surveys. Given the locational models con-
structed from historical and prehistoric background research, many of
the sites were anticipated in advance; however, the site density,
particularly for prehistoric sites, was surprisingly high.

The survey strategy emphasized the documentation of the presence or
absence of archaeological resources within the project area. Because
the testing was of a limited nature and since most sites were
discovered through shovel testing, the findings represent tentative
statements of site size, preservation, and cultural affiliation. The
actual relationships between site boundaries and the limits of the
proposed right-of-way will require clarification during the next phase

of work.

The prehistoric sites are situated on the terraces, knolls, and necks of
land adjacent to Long Hill Swamp, Powhatan Creek, Chisel Run and
their tributaries. No prehistoric materials were revealed in the high,
flat areas away from the edges of terraces. All sites were located in
wooded areas, the majority of which have never been plowed. The
only evidence of previous disturbances was in the form of sewer lines,
which had truncated portions of several sites, and tree falls. Several
intact features, including hearths and pits, were encountered, indi-

4-37

eating a high level of site integrity for the resources within the
project area. Most sites are in shallow to deep colluvial deposits.

The prehistoric sites range from the Late Archaic Period to the Late
Woodland Period. The majority of sites, however, can be attributed to
the Middle Woodland Period, approximately 500 B.C. to A.D. 900.
The site patterning for the area is similar to the patterns exhibited
elsewhere in the C02Stal Plain (Mouer et. al. 1980). No attributable
materials from the Paleo-Indian Period or the Early and Middle
Archaic Periods were found, though more extensive testing might be
necessary before conclusive statements can be made about the repre-
sentation of these cultural episodes. Particular attention should be
paid to whether the lack of remains from those earlier periods reflects
the later development of the upland swamps or whether subsequent
environmental changes have masked the presence of such sites.

Two general site types emerged from the testing. The largest and
most diversified sites appear on low terraces at the confluences of the
major branches of the aforementioned streams. These sites were
designated complex activity sites and probably represent a series of
foray encampments exploiting the diverse plant and animal resources
of the interior zones. Smaller and less diversified sites, designated as
limited activity sites, were encountered on the small rises along the
streams, usually adjacent to sprinqheads.

One of the primary objectives in identification of historic sites within
the project corridor was the close examination of all features related
to land utilization and resource exploitation during the past three
centuries. While certain features which were indicative of and often
directly associated with domestic site occupations were carefully
noted, features related to transportation, logging and milling were also
identified. Historic maps such as the Pechon Map (1781), 1 F. Gilmer
Map (1B63), and the 1906 edition of the U.S.G.S. Williamsburg Quad-
rangle Map provided primary insight into both domestic site and
historic road locations. This information, combined with field recon-

4-38

naissance, permitted a limited and tentative reconstruction of devel-
opment within the immediate project area.

A very important class of landscape features, in the form of well-pre-
served early roads and corresponding fencelines, exists throughout the
project area. Site 44JC127, previously recorded as a zig-zag earth-'
work, was found to be a small portion of the extensive remains of
split-rail worm fences. The physical remnants of these fencelines,
which flanked both sides of the roads, resulted from soils accumulation
over many years, attesting to the duration and popularity of this style
of Virginia fencing. Many examples can be found in 18th and
19th-century literature citing the significance of such f ence systems
in the cultural landscape.

Alternative A (including A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A)--Nineteen
sensitive archaeological areas were identified within the proposed
impact zone. of this alternative which were studied in a Phase II
Evaluation. In general, the project area was found to have a high
density of prehistoric occupation and produced a wide range of
prehistoric ceramic types. These prehistoric sites appear to date from
the Late Archaic Period (2000 B.C.) to the Late Woodland Period (1000
A.D.). The majority of prehistoric sites, however, have been
attributed to the Middle Woodland Period, approximately 500 B.C. to

1000 A.D.

The Phase II evaluation of the prehistoric resources within the
proposed project corridor has resulted in the identification of six
prehistoric sites deemed eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places. Of these six sites, five are threatened by
the proposed project. Site A-11 is outside of the right-of-way and
should be avoided during construction. The five sites recommended
f or Ph as e III d2t 2 reco ve r y are:

A-8 - Prehistoric site

A-12 - Prehistoric site

A-13 - Prehistoric site

4-39

A-16 - Prehistoric site

A-17 - Prehistoric site

The prehistoric resources within the project corridor afford an
unprecedented opportunity to understand a pre viousl y- neglected
aspect of the cultural development of the James-York peninsula and
surrounding regions. Phase H site examination has documented the
presence of stratified deposits, hearths, possibly storage features,
limited organic preservation, and horizontal separation of functional
activities. Preliminary analysis of these sites indicate that they
represent the remains of seasonally-occupied resource procurement
sites with components ranging from the Late Archaic period
(2000-1200 B. C.) to the Late Woodland period (A.D. 900-1600). The
preliminary data also suggest that the interior areas of this portion of
the James-York peninsula were most intensively utilized during the
Middle Woodland period (500 B.C.-900 A.D.).

Phase III study will focus on f urther site-specific research, in an effort
to understand the range of diversity of habitat and adaptive strategies
within the naturally-defined settlement systems of the Chisel
Run/Long Hill Creek drainages. These goals include the accurate
definition of site content and structure, the delineation of
occupational episodes, and the further refinement of estimates of the
site age and site function. The classes of data required to meet these
goals can be recovered through a combination of controlled block
excavation and close-interval testing. Based on anticipated results of
site-specific research, some alternative hypotheses are offered
concerning the subs! sten ce-settlem ent patterns that emerged within
the type of drainage system represented by Powhat2n Creek and its
tributaries, Chisel Run and Long Hill Creek. The problem of how
these drai nage- specific patterns on the Peninsula relate to overall
regional patterns linking the interior and outer portions of the Virginia
coastal plain is also addressed.

4-40

Eighteenth and nineteenth century house sites and a water-powered
mill site were also discovered. Many of these sites may yield
archaeological data important for characterizing land utilization, and
resource exploitation in the project area. The historic-period sites are
located on the high, flat ground along historic roads and could suffer
direct impacts from construction. These sites may be eligible for
nomination to the National Register and have been studied in a Phase
II Evaluation.

Although eight historic-period sites were examined as part of the
Phase 11 evaluation study, only one was found to contain classes of
archaeological data whose research potential and integrity qualified it
for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. The
preservation plans recently orepared for James City County and other
Peninsula jurisdictions draw attention to the need for more intensive
study of these sites, as they have been largely ignored in the
scholarship and preservation efforts undertaken thus far within this
area (Brown and Bragdon 1986). Nevertheless, archaeological
manifestations of this property type within the Route 199 corridor
proved to be either lacking in integrity and substance, or fell outside
of the right-of-way. Although one surviving structure from the early
nineteenth century, the Lane farmhouse, should he properly recorded
before demolition, no other resource within the right-of-way
associated with nineteenth- and early twentieth- century agricultural
settlement requires further work.

The one historic site that has been considered eligible for inclusion on
the National Register, site A-3, contains the remains of an
mid- eighteenth- century milling operation that may be associated with
the production and processing of indigo. Only a handful of mills known
to have been in use prior to 1800 have been recorded in James City
and '@ork Counties. The possibility that this site may represent the
physical remains of an indigo- processina mill, originally located on

the Rich Nee k tract of Phil ir) Ludwell'sGreensprings plant ati on, makes
it even more unusual and worthy of careful recording and analysis.

This mill site may provide physical evidence of the overall layout and
organization of the milling process used in producing indigo. Although
documentary sources confirm the presence of such operations during
this period, no site of its kind has yet been identified or investigated
archaeol ogi call y on the James-York peninsula or within Virginia
Tidewater area. Further study of the documentary record concerning
the cultivation and processing of indigo, together with analysis of
surviving period illustrations, will provide a basis for identifying and
interpreting the site's features, including a mortar spread, postholes,
and nail concentrations. In addition, there are water- cont ai nment

features visible on the site. It is known that control of water was
important to both the cultivation and processing of indigo. Period
accounts also emphasize the importance of locating processing
stations near the fields where the indigo plant was grown.

Phase III work should therefore focus on clarifying the function of
these features, and recreating their overall layout. Special effort
should be made to confirm the presence of the kinds of facilities
known to have been used in i ndiqo- processing. These include sheds for
drying the plant, vats for fermenting and collecting the indigo, and
mills for crusing the plant into the precipitate known as "indigo mud."
It was this precipitate, in the form of cakes, that was retailed. Among
the categories of relevant data will be archaeological evidence of the
chemical preciDit2tes formed in the course of settling and fermentinq
the indiqo. The presence of these precir)tates may be detected
through appropriate chemical analysis of soil samples taken from the

site.

4-42

Alternative D--Seventeen sensitive archaeological areas warranted
Phase H Evaluation studies within the impact zone of proposed
Alt ernative D. The density of prehistoric remains was especially high
within this portion of the project area. Most of the sites within this
alternative are small, well-preserved prehistoric sites of the Middle
Woodland Period (500 B.C. to 1000 A.D.), which occur along the
margins of Powhatan Creek and Long Hill Swamp. These sites are
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register and could be
directly impacted by proposed construction. In addition, a small
family cemetery, dating to the early 20th century, could be disturbed
by construction.

4.7 AIR QUALITY

Analysis of air quality impacts is a major consideration in evaluating a
proposed transportation project. The primary objective is to examine whether
any of the proposed alternatives have potential for violating the air quality
standards and whether any of the proposed alternatives will interfere with the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and- maintenance of the air
quality standards.

An air quality analysis study was performed pursuant to Air Quality Con-
formity and Priority Procedures f or Use in Federal-Aid Highway and Federally
Funded Transit Programs, 23 CFR 770 of the Federal Register.

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was empowered to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) which established maximum allowable levels for various
air pollutants. States are required to submit an SIP for the attainment and
maintenance of these standards to be achieved at the earliest date commensu-
rate with technological and economic feasibility. The Virginia Air Pollution
Control Board VAPCB) under the provisions of the Air Pollution Control Law
of Virginia, has adopted the NAAGS as the State standards.

The Commonwealth of Virginia is divided into seven Air Quality Control
Regions (ACQR). The proposed project is located in the Hampton Roads

4-43

AQCR. In compliance with the Clean Air Act as amended in August 1977, this
region has been designated as an attainment area for all criteria pollutants.

4.8 NOISE

4.8.1 Introduction

On federally funded highway projects, the Federal Highway Admini-
stration (FHWA) reqLfires that highway noise impact be assessed
according to guidelines published in Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 of
the Federal-aid Highway Program Manual (FHPM 7-7-3). This noise
analysis evaluates the noise impacts of the proposed project and
considers possible abatement measures, in accordance with these
guidelines.

FHPM 7-7-3 specifies that sound levels shall be given in decibels (dB),
a logarithmic scale for measuring sound pressure levels. One decibel
represents roughly the smallest change in loudness that can be
perceived by the human ear. Also, an increase of 10 dB(A) corresponds
to a doubling of loudness.

Because the human ear is most sensitive to frequencies in the middle
and upper audible range, these frequencies must be given greater
weight than others in averaging sound contributions from all audible
frequency bands to arrive at a total noise level value. Sound level
values adjusted in this manner are desiqnated "A-weighted." Sound
levels measured in decibels and A-weighted are denoted dB(A).

The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model describes traffic
noise in terms of L eq sound levels measured in dB(A) units. During a
given period of time, the varying sound levels which occur are
associated with varying amounts of energy. If all of those energies
were added together, the result would be the total energy generated
during that period of time. For illustration purposes, cal.1 that total
energy "X." The L eq (equivalent sound level) for that time period is
defined to be the sound level which would oenerate X amount of

4-44

energy if it occurred constantly during that given time period. To
summarize, the total energy associated with the Leq sound level, if it
is constant over a period of time, is equivalent to the total amount of
energy associated with the varying sound levels actually occurring
during that period of time. Unless otherwise noted, the time period
under study is the period of peak traffic noise, usually peak, or rush
hour. All sound levels given in this study are Leq values measured on
the dB(A) scale.

Noise levels in the project area were determined for the existing
conditions, the design year No Build conditions and the design year
build conditions. The design year is a future year, 2010, chosen for
comparison with the present time. The design year No Build noise
levels are the noise levels occurring in the design year if the proposed
project is not constructed. Noise levels which will occur in the design
year, if the proposed project is constructed, are design year build noise

levels.

In order to determine the degree of impact of traffic noise on human
activity, the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) established by FHPM
7-7-3 are used. These criteria represent the upper limit of acceptable
traffic noise level conditions and also represent a balancing of that
which may be desirable and that which may be achievable. The NAC
is illustrated in Table 4-8.

The Noise Abatement Criteria apply only to areas having regular
human use, and where lowered noise levels are desirable. These
criteria do not apply to the entire tract of land on which the activity
is based, but only to that portion where the activity occurs.

When the predicted design year build noise levels in the project area
approach the NAC or are substantially higher than existing levels, the
Department must consider implementation of measures to reduce the
traffic noise. If it is found that such mitigation measures will cause
adverse social, economic, or environmental effects which outweigh the
benefits received, the highway agency may dismiss them from con-

sideration.

4-45

Table 4-8
Noise Abatement Criteria
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels dB(A)

Activity
Categor Leg(h) Description of Activity Category

A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extra-
(Ex t eri or) ordinary 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.

B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
(Ext eri or) active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hos-
pit als.

C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not
(Exterior) included in Categories A or B above.

D Undeveloped lands.

E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting
(Interior) rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals,
and auditoriums.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, FHWA, 1982.

4-46

4. B. 2 Exi sti ng C ondi ti ons

The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed Route
199-Williamsburg Bypass project and its possible alternatives (A, A-1,
A-2, Revised Line A and D) is typical of a rural suburban community.
Motor vehicles along Interstate 64 and Route 60, and other rural-type
roads are the major intrusive sources of noise. Presently, forest land
predominates the project area. Other land uses include agricultural,
residential, commercial, and public/semi- public.

4.8.3 Noise Receptor Locations

Noise sensitive areas along the pro posed Route 199 consist of resi-
dential areas, the Eastern State Hospital, Lafayette High School, and
several churches. Figures 4-8 to 4-10 illustrate 41 sites in the project
area that were selected f or noise analysis on the basis of the f ollowing

cri teri a:

o Noise sensitivity
o Anticipated impact from one or more project alternatives
o Representation of other sites with similar characteristics
a Degree of coverage of the study area

A brief description of these sites is presented in Tables 4-9 to 4-11.

4.8.4 Existing Noise Levels

Noise measurements were taken during daylight hours in the week of
December 2-6, 19B5, using a GENRAD GR 1988 Integrating Sound
Level Meter and Analyzer (Type 1). The "A-weighted" frequency scale
was used, with a normal sensitive 50 mV/Pa microphone (with wind-
screen) attached to the meter. The meter was calibrated before and
after each site measurement with a GENRAD Type 1562 Sound Level
Calibrator at 114 dB sound pressure level for 60 seconds. The meter
was tripod-mounted at 4-1 feet above the ground, and connected to a
2
pri nter. In areas where there was no dominant noise source, the

4-47

Table 4-9
Site and Study Area Locations
Alignment A

Distance from
centerline of
proposed Route
Site No. Location Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

1A-2 Fern Cliff Drive/ Residential area west of 250 f t.
Canterbury Hills proposed Route 199, from
Community at Station Route 5 to Station 131.
129

1A-3 Midland Townhouses Residential area east of 150 ft.
at Station 138 proposed Route 199, from
Station 130 to Station 145.

2 A-1 Indigo Terrace Residential area east of 250 ft.
area at Statioln pOtposed Route 199, from
150 Station 145 to Route 615.

2A-2 Mount Pleasark Church, cemetery and resi- 550 ft.
Church and Cemetery dential area south of Route
at Station 163 615, west of proposed Routa
199.

2A-3 Brookhaven Community Residential area south of 250 ft.
at Station 163 Route 615, east of proposed
Route 199.

2A-4 West of proposed Residential area south of 1500 ft.
Route 199 at Route 615, west of proposed
Station 160 Route 199.

2A-5 West of proposed Residential area north of 2200 ft.
Route 199 at Route 615, east of Route 613,
Station 170 west of proposed Route 199.

3A-2 Farm Homes at Residential area south of 700 ft.
Station 263 Route 612, east of proposed
Route 199.

4A-2 Apartment area Residential area south of 1050 f t.
under construction Route 68, west of proposed
at Station 287 Route 199.

4-48

Table 4-9
(Continued)

Distance from
centerline of
Site No. Location proposed Route
Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

5A-1 East of Route 199 Residential area north of 35Q ft.
at Station 318 Route 658, east of proposed
Route 199.

7A-1 West of proposed Residential area north of 140 ft.
Route 199 at Route 603, west of proposed
Station 423 Route 199.

7A-2 West of proposed Zion Baptist Church and 950 ft.
Route 199 at cemetery south of Route
Station 412 614. and Highway 60, west of
proposed Route 199.

7A-3 East of proposed Residential area east of 200 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, south of
Station 415 Route 603, north of U.S. 60.

8A-I North of proposed Residential area north of 850 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, west of
Station 491 Route 168.

8A-2 North of proposed Residential area north of 200 f t.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, along
Station 481 the north side of Route 646.

8'A-3 South of proposed Residential area south of 400 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, along
Station 464 the south side of Route 646.

4-49

Table 4-10
Site and Study Area Locations
Alignment A-1

No site area receptors were identified with this alignment alternative, as the proposed route
is entirely in undeveloped use.

Alignment A-2

Distance from
centerline of
proposed Route
Site No. Location Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

A2-1 North of proposed Residential area southwest 920 ft.
Route 199 at of U.S. 168, north of proposed
Station 487 Route 199.

A2-2 North of proposed Residential area north of 250 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199.
Station 4B2

A2-3 North of proposed Residential area north of 200 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199.
Station 473

A2-4 South of proposed Residential area south of 450 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199.
Station 455

A2-5 South of proposed Residential area south of 700 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199.
Station 474

4-50

FIGURE 4-8
ALIGNMENTS A, A 1 AND
REVISED LINE A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA LEGEND

RECEIVER LOCATION

IIA-I

BA-
END PROJEC

7A-2 A-1

5,A-
4
-2
A

Lu=

>
HVI-2
2A-3

.4 44

IA-
2

BEGIN PROJE

1P
L

6 'k

N 0 R @TH

graphic scale In feet
1009 0 2000 4000

FIGURE 4-9
ALIGNMENT A-2: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA LEGEND

RECEIVER LOCATION

A2-1

A2-
A2-3 END PROJ C
ojr A 1-5

10
6-1
6-1

C-11

V..

Co 41,
uj=

/44# a
4
Vo 0,
4f4,,
Y

R"C',

BEGIN PRO E

0
-:fq'N 0 1 @TH
It it it I 1 11

graphic scale in feet
lo(To o 2000 4000

FIGURE 4-10

ALIGNMENT D: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA
LEGEND

RECEIVER LOCATION

70-

1?, ENU PROJECI
-4 >;70-1
5D-2 0-3

40-2

..........

3 ul

5 4

Lu
29-Z +4
>=
vo
W
2D
0-3
4 G
2

10.51 J-71
F <<

-Nk BEGIN PROJE
1-0
L

..........
-44N0 R T H

graphic scat. In feet
1000 0 --2000 40

Table 4-11
Site and Study Area Locations
Revised Line A

Distance from
centerline of
proposed Route
Site No. Location Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

1A-3 Midland Townhouses Residential area east of 200 f t.
at Station 138 proposed Route 199, from
Station 130 to Station 145.

2A-1 Indigo Terrace Residential area east of 500 ft.
area at Station proposed Route 199, from
150 Station 145 to Route 615.

2A-2 Mount Pleasant Church, cemetery and resi- 300 f t.
Church and Cemetery dential area south of Route
at Station 163 615, west of proposed Route
199.

2A-3 Brookhaven Community Residential area south of 1050 ft.
at Station 163 Route 615, east of proposed
Route 199.

2A-4 West of proposed Residential area south of 550 ft.
Route 199 at Route 615, west of proposed
Station 160 Route 199.

2A-5 West of proposed Residential area north of 1300 ft.
Route 199 at Route 615, east of Route 613,
Station 170 west of proposed Route 199.

4-51

Table 4-12
Site and Study Area Locations
Alignment D

Distance from
centerline of
proposed Route
Site No. Location Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

1D-1 East of proposed Mount Pleasant Church, ceme- 400 f t.
Route 199 at tery, and residential area
Station 164 south of Route 615, east of
proposed Route 199.

ID-2 West of proposed Residential area south of 450 ft.
Route 199 at Route 615, west of proposed
Station 165 Route 199.

1D-3 Brookhaven Community Residential area south of 1050 ft.
at Station 163 Route 615, east of proposed
Route 199.

1D-4 Indigo Terrace Residential area east of 500 ft.
area at Station proposed Route 199.
150

1D-5 Fern Cliff Drive/ Residential area west of 250 ft.
Canterbury Hills proposed Route 199, from
Community at Route 5 to Station 131.
Station 129

1D-6 Midland Townhouses Residential area east of 200 ft.
at Station 138 proposed Route 199, from
Station 130 to Station 145.

2 D-1 West of proposed Residential area northeast 1150 ft.
Route 199 at of Route 613, west of pro-
Station 191 posed Route 199.

2D-2 West of proposed Residential area northeast 920 ft.
Route 199 at of Route 613, west of pro-
Station 203 posed Route 199.

2D-3 West of proposed Residential area north of 600 ft.
Route 199 at Route 613, west of proposed
Station 178 Route 199.

4-52

Table 4-12
(Continued)

Distance from
centerline of
proposed Route
Site No. Location Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

3D-I West of proposed Residential area west of 280 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, at the
Station 323 northern end of Stocker Drive,
in the middle of the Plantation/
Fords Estates area.

3D-2 East of proposed Residential area east of 380 f t.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, at the
Station 327 northern end of Hempstead Road,
in the Windsor Forest Community.

3D-3 West of proposed Residential area west of 440 f t.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, at Bonyman
Station 320 Court, in the middle of Plan-
tation/Fords Estates area.

3D-4 East of proposed Residential area east of 350 ft.
Route 199 at proposed Route 199, at the
Station 302 southern end of Hempstead Road,
in the Windsor Forest Community.

4D-1 East of proposed Lafayette High School, and 1000 ft.
Route 199 at residential area north of
Station 351 Route 612, east of proposed
Route 199.

4D-2 West of proposed Residential area north of 600 ft.
Route 199 at Route 612, east of proposed
Station 347 Route 199.

5D-1 East of proposed Lafayette High School, northern 800 ft.
Route 199 at portion, west of track.
Station 365

5D-2 West of proposed- Zion Baptist Church and 950 ft.
Route 199 at cemetery south of Route 614
Station 470 and Highway 60, west of
proposed Route 199.

5D-3 East of proposed Residential area south of 140 f t.
Route 199 at Route 603, east of proposed
Station 471 Route 199, north of U.S. 60.

5 D-4 West of proposed Residential area north of 200 ft.
Route 199 at Route 603, west of proposed
Station 477 Route 199.

4-53

Table 4-12
(Continued)

Distance from
centerline of
proposed Route
Site No. Location Areas Represented 199 (Estimated)

7 D-I West of proposed Residential area, horse 400 ft.
Route 199 at farm, west of proposed
Station 466 Route 199.

7D-2 North of proposed Residential area northwest 920 ft.
Route 199 at of Route 646, and southwest
Station 491 of U.S. 64/Route 168.

4-54

GENRAD Meter was used to establish ambient noise levels. A

thirty-minute field study period was used.

In areas where the dominant noise source was traffic, the ambient
noise levels were determined by using the Federal Highway Admini-
stration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, STAMINA
2.0. Basically, the STAMINA 2.0 program estimates the acoustic
intensity at a receiver location resulting from a series of roadway
segments; e.g., the source. Sound characteristics are defined by such
variables as vehicle speed, and distribution of vehicle types (i.e.,
medium truck, heavy truck, auto). The characteristics of the
source -to-receiver path include the effects of intervening barriers,
topography, trees and atmospheric absorption.

Sample estimates made by the STAMINA program were compared and
verified by field noise equipment measurements. The existing noise
levels at all the 48 sites as obtained from field monitoring and model
studies are presented in Section 5.9. The existing noise levels in the
project area range between 37 and 62 dB. Lowest value (about 40 dB)
has been measured in the rural area with no nearby roadway. This
represents a typical location not influenced by nearby traffic and the
noise level at this location can be taken as the representative
background noise level in the project area. Maximum noise level of
about 62 dB has been measured close to Route 60. At this location,
motor vehicles on Route 60 are major intrusive sources of noise.
These studies suggest that existing daytime L eq values in the project
area are between 40 and 60 dB. Nighttime L eq values are expected to
be between 30 and 50 dB. Furthermore, the existing noise levels are
below the required noise abatement criteria of 67 dB(A).

4.8.5 Predicted Noise Levels

Noise levels were predicted for all 48 receptors, utilizing STAMINA
2.0. Because traffic is anticipated to be the primary source of noise
at all sites if the proposed project is constructed, all design year build

4-55

levels were calculated by incorporating forecasted traffic volumes

into the model.

Assessment of noise impacts requires four comparisons of noise

levels:

1. Existing to Design YeaL - illustrates the change which would
occur between the present time and the year 2010, assuming the
proposed project is constructed;

2. No Build and Build Alternatives A, A-1, A-2, Revised Line A and
D - demonstrates the portion of change that can actually be
attributed to the proposed project; and

3. Build to Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) - Determines whether
the predicted noise levels will be compatible with present land
use if the proposed project is constructed.

4. Build to Substantial Increases in dBA - For the purposes of this
study, 10 dBA or more would represent a substantial increase in
dBA. 10 dBA is equal to a doubling of sound to the receptor, and
is useful to compare relative impacts to receptors when sound

levels are low.

Results obtained from these comparisons are summarized in Section

5.9.

4.9 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY

4.9.1 Hydrology

Both lentic and lotic systems occur in the study area. The predomi-

nant lentic bodies are Waller Mill Reservoir and Scott's Pond. Waller

Mill Reservoir is important hydrologically as a water supply source and

as an aid in runoff control.

4-56

Stream water resources in the project area include Mill Creek, Queen
Creek, and tributaries of Powhatan Creek. The primary tributaries of
Powhatan Creek are Long Hill Swamp and Chisel Run. Powhatan
Creek flows generally south approximately 21 miles to its confluence
with the James River. The upper perimeter of the watershed follows
approximately along the 100-foot mean sea level contour. These
streams are not used as a drinking water supply source and there are
no public water supply reservoirs or watersheds for public water
supplies in the study area (Virginia Department of Health, 1985).

4.9.2 Groundwater and Mineral Resources

The Commonwealth of Virginia adopted both standards and criteria for
groundwater in 1977 with the intent of protecting and preserving the
quality of its groundwater resources. One of every four Virginians
depends on groundwater as a potable water source. In addition, many
streams are recharged by groundwater, particularly during periods of
low flow or dry weather conditions. Standards and criteria applying to
groundwater have been adopted both for the State and for the
individual physiographic provinces in the case of certain parameters.

Four aquifers form a complex aquifer system in the study area. These
aquifers are known as the 1) Quaternary, 2) Yorktown, 3)
Eocene -Paleocene, and 4) Cretaceous. All four aquifer contain water
that generally meets the state standards for drinking water.

The Quaternary aquifer lies at the surface and is approximately 40 to
60 feet thick in the study area. The sand zones of the aquifer are
tapped for small water supplies for miscellaneous domestic uses.
Individual wells typically yield a few gallons per minute. Although
total usage of this aquifer is unknown, it's yield for the entire area of
James City County and is approximately several thousand gallons a
day. This aquifer is recharged soley by precipitation.

4-57

The Yorktown aquifer consists of beds of fine to coarse sand with
some gravel and shells. It contains water under artesian conditions as
it is separated from the overlying Quaternary aquifer by sandy clay
and clay. The Yorktown aquifer is approximately 150 to 200 feet thick
in the study area. It is capable of producing up to 100 gallons of water
per minute from an individual well, but has not been used as a primary
source of water because greater yield is available from the underlying
aquifer. Water recharges the Yorktown aquifer by downward vertical
leakage from the Quaternary aquifer and by groundwater flow from
the west which enters the aquifer along the Fall Line.

The Eocene -Paleocene is an artesian aquifer consisting of beds and

lenses of fine to coarse sands with thin beds of shell material and

limestone. The Eocene-Paleocene aquifer is approximately 100 to 150
feet thick in the study area and produces from 5 to 25 gallons per
minute per foot of drawdown from a typical well. It is confined and
separated from the overlyi ng Yorktown aquifer by clays and marl. In
some areas this aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with the underlying
aquifer. The Eocene -Paleocene aquifer supplies water to domestic
wells and residential subdivision. In James City County, total
pumpage from this aquifer is estimated at less than 1 million gallons
per day. Groundwater flow in the aquifer is toward pumping centers
which are generally located to the west of Williamsburg. The
Eocene-Paleocene aquifer is primarily recharged from the slow
vertical leakage of overlying aquifers and from a westerly lateral

f low.

The Cretaceous aquifer is the most productive and extensively used
source of groundwater in James City County. It consists of a series of
interbedded sand, silt and clay layers. The estimated depth of the
aquifer is 1100 to 1300 feet in the study area. The cretaceous aquifer
is seperated from the overlying. Ecocene-Paleacene by clays, silts
and fine grained clastics. Most wells are placed in the upper 200 foot
of the aquifer with some sand units being as thick as 75 feet. The
specific capacities of wells in the aquifer range from 5 to 30 gallons

4-58

per minute per foot of drawdown. Well yields range from 100 to 1,000
gallons per minute. Movement of groundwater in the Cretaceous
aquifer is generally toward pumping centers. Total pumpage in James
City County is estimated at 7 to 8 million gallons a day. The major
pumping center in the study area is in Colonial Williamsburg. Another
major pumping center occurs at the Don Badische Company, southeast
of the study area. The Cretaceous aquifer contains both fresh and
saline waters. Pumpage in the study area favors the movement of
saline water from the east toward the cone of depressions caused by
pumping centers. However, data shows that the position of saline
water defined by the 250 milligrams per liter contour line has been
relatively stable since 1913. The cretaceous aquifer is recharged by
leakage of freshwater from overlying aquifers and through lateral
movement of groundwater from the west, where Cretaceous sediments
are at the surface along the Fall Line.

Mineral resources in the study area consist of various sediments
deposited over igneous metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. Depth of
sediments vary between 1000 and 1500 feet and consist of such
materials as sand, clay, peat, shell, quartz, marl, limestone and gravel.
Resources of quartz, marl and limestone range between 300 and 400 ft
in thickness and are resources typically found above the igneous and
metamorphic formations, which generally lie at a 300-400 foot depth.
Sandstone and shall are of unknown thickness.

4.9.3 Su-rfa'ce Water

Four streams were selected for sampling in the study area (see Figure
1-3): Queen Creek, Mill Creek, Chisel Run, and Long Hill Swamp.
Each of the latter three were flowing systems that had relatively
unconsolidated bottoms of fine sand, silt, and detritus. Obstructions

4-59

such as fallen trees are common features that provide good habitat
heterogeneity. Queen Creek was anticipated as being crossed by
Alignment D, but it was merely a sh'allow ravine without flowing water
at the time of inspection.

Mill Creek is a first and second order stream that is intermittent in

most years. It varies from one to three feet wide and from one to five
inches deep. Its banks vary from one to three feet high and as such
has the most steeply cut banks of any stream in the study area.

Chisel Run is a second order stream considerably larger than Mill
Creek. Average width is six feet and average depth is five inches.
Scour holes are relatively common and provide good habitat hetero-
geneity. Shallow banks are generally one foot high which facilitates
floodplain dispersal of water during storm events.

Long Hill Swamp is a third order stream that flows south to form the
Powhatan Creek at the confluence with Chisel Run. It is the largest
stream potentially impacted by the project. It varies from 8 to 12
feet wide and from 4 to 24 inches deep. As with Chisel Run, its
shallow banks facilitate stormwater dispersal across a relatively wide
floodplain.

Water quality data were collected at each selected sampling loca tion
in May and August, 1985, except Location 12 (Queen Creek), which
was dry at the alignment crossing during both sampling periods. The
collected water quality data indicates no unusual findings with all
parameters within acceptable standards.

4.9.4 Aquatic Ecology

Fish and benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled in May and August
1985 in order to describe the baseline biotic communities present
within the study area. Fish sampling was accomplished using a 4-foot
x 12-foot, 0.25-inch mesh seine. Benthic macroinvertebrates were

4-60

sampled quantitatively using an Ekman dredge and qualitatively using
D-frame dipnets.

A total of 19 fish species were collected in the study area. The fauna
was dominated by mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), eastern mud-
minnow (Umbra pygmaea), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum) and
pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus). Sport fish such as bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), chain pickerel
(Esox niger and grass pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus) were
limited in distribution, usually confined to scour holes. Chisel Run
offered the greatest habitat heterogeneity as is reflected by the
diversity of fish species collected, including the bluespotted and
redear sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus and Lepornis microlophus).

Mill Creek, the smallest creek in the area, supported a low number of
species and few individuals, whereas Long j-iill Creek supported a
diversity somewhat similar to that of Chisel Run. The lower portions
(those associated with Alignment D) of Long Hill Creek supported a
larger density and diversity of fish than the upper portion due to
increased stream size and habitat diversity.

In addition to providing habitat for those.fish collected, creeks of the
study area may be used during favorable years by spawning alosids.
Anadromous species having the greatest potential for utilizing these
creeks are the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus and blueback herring
(Alosa aestivalis). Lower Powhatan Creek has been confirmed as an
alosid spawning site (Davis et al. 1970), and spawning is known to
occur at least as far upstream as mile 8.7 (Mudre etal. 1985).
However, all creeks crossed in the Chisel Run drainage area are
upstream of an impassable dam. This limits the potential habitat of
these species to the Mill Creek and Long Hill Swamp crossings.
Mitigation measures are explained in more detail in Section 5.10.4 and
in the Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report.

4-61

A diverse macro invertebrate fauna was present in the study area.
Common organisms include amphipods, isopods, odonates and chirono-
mids. Differences in species composition and density among and
within sampling locations appeared to be related to habitat. Through-
out the streams sampled, the bottom substrate consisted of soft silts
and sands. In many areas, leaf litter was abundant. Where leaf litter
was abundant, numerous detritivors and scavenging epibenthic
organisms were common (Asellus spp. and Gammarus spp.) as well as
predatory forms such as many odonates. Conversely, where leaf litter
was absent burrowing epibenthic forms (various midges and worms)
were most common. Freshwater mussels were found sporadically
throughout the creeks of the study area. The predominant species was
Elliptio complanata, a common species in streams of the eastern
seaboard. A particularly dense population was found in the east
branch of Long Hill Swamp at Stations 9 and 10.

4.9.5 Wetlands

Ten wetland types in three watersheds were identified on the proposed
ROW of the -selected alighn,04(Figure 4-11). A total of 12.17 acres
-will be directly affected. Nine of the wetlands, accounting for 11.86
acres, are classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous
wetlands with hydrologic regimes ranging from temporarily flooded to
seasonally flooded to permanently flooded (beaver impounded). The
remaining wetland (#14, 0.31 acres) is a seasonally flooded, palustrine,
shrub-scrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetland. All but one of the

wetlands are located an alluvial sediments in the flood zones of small
streams. Wetland #19 is a seepage slope perched on clayey soil above

the flood zone of Chisel Run. Due to the location of the wetlands

along streams, they have relatively high values for surface hydrologic
functions (flood storage, shoreline anchoring, and sediment trapping)
and -low values for groundwater hydrologic functions (recharge and
discharge). Wetland functional values are summarized in Table 5-11.

4-62

FIGURE 4-11

WETLANDS

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR
JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA LEGEND

PFOIE -PALUSTRINE, FORESTED, DECIDUOUS BROADLEAVED,
SEASONAL SATURATED, NON-TIDAL

PF05F -PALUSTRINE, FORESTED, DEAD,
SEMIPERMANENT, NON-TIDAL
P F -PALUSTRINE, EMERGENT-OPEN WATER,
ow
SEMIPERMANENT, NON-TIDAL
PFOIC -PALUSTRINE, FORESTED, DECIDUOUS BROADLEAVED,
WE= SEASONAL. NON-TIDAL
PFOIA -PALUSTRINE, FORESTED, DECIDUOUS BROADLEAVED,
-TIDAL
TEMPORARY. NON
6

POWZ -PALUSTRINE, OPEN WATER,
UNKOWN BOTTOM
OJEC PABZ -PALUSTRINE, AQUATIC BED, INTERMITTENTLY
END P
EXPOSED-PERMANENT

L 10 Z It CU T I , IMNET N WAT R.
PERMANENT.IMPOUNDED
PSSIC -PALUSTRINE, SCRUB/SHRUB, DECIDUOUS BROADLEAVED
SEASONAL
PFO I Hb -PALUSTRINE, FORESTED, DECinUOUS BROADLEAVED.
PERMANENT - BEAVERDAM

#13 -WETLAND LOSSES FOR SELECTED ALIGNMENT
lReler to Table 5-10)

13
5 PSSIC
#14-

70 PF01A
#12

PF01A
019

PFOIC
#11
4

PFOIC
0

PF01A
+8
Is 701 A

5
PF01A
#3
IF . 5
4

LLI 15

4 4f
.4
OP
t 44,,

PF01A

BE N
PRO EC
L

_n
-4'NO R T @H

graphic scale in feet
1000 0 2000 400-

_x,

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

5.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

The environmental consequences of the traffic due to the alternatives are the
additional roadway improvements needed to provide acceptable levels of
service in the area. The following discusses the impacts of each alternative.

No Build Alternative--The major improvements required on the alternative
include: (1) the widening of Route 60 to 8 lanes from Route 60 Bypass to
Ironbound Road, (2) widening of Route 60 to 6 lanes from Ironbound Road to
Route 645, and (3) the widening of approximately 22 miles of two lane
roadways. In addition, improvements need to be made to 13 intersections. All
of the improvements can be Made without significant impacts on surrounding
areas except the widening of Route 60 to 8 lanes. The widening in the area
between Route 60 Bypass and Ironbound Road cannot be accommodated
without a significant amount of relocations of existing commercial
development.

Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A--To provide an acceptable level
of operation on the system, the following improvements need to be
implemented: (1) widen Route 60 to 6 lanes from Lafayette Road to Route
645, (2) widen approximately 14.25 miles of two-lane roadways to 4 lanes, and
make intersection improvements at 10 locations. These improvements can all
be completed with a minimum impact on adjacent areas. The improvements to
the rural roadways required by Alignment A represent 2 35 r)ercent reduction
over the improvements needed f or the No Build Alternative.

.Aliqnment D--This alignment requires the following improvements: (1)
widening Route 60 to 6 lanes from Lafayette Road to Route 645, (2) widening
approximately 13.5 miles of two-lane roadways to four lanes, and (3) improve-
ments at 9 intersections. As with Alignment A, these improvements can be
implemented without a significant impact on the surrounding area. It should
be noted that the improvements required on two-lane roadways are reduced 38
percent from the No Build Alternative'.

5-1

Overall, the build alternatives will provide a better level of service, with less
additional improvements required, than the No Build Alternative. In addition,
Alignment D will provide slightly better traffic service than Alignment A.
This is due to a spreading of the traffic on Alignment D and the relief provided
to Route 60.

5.1.1 Trucks

At present, heavy trucks are moving along Route 5, in and out of the
west side of Williamsburg, and then along Route 199 to 1-64. Addi-
tionally, movement is occurring in the Williamsburg area along the
Route 5/31 corridor, and then back to the north, along Route 60. The
completion of Route 199 around the west and north sides of Williams-
burg will provide a route for these trucks to the north, without
entering the inner-core area of Williamsburg. This will result in more
efficient travel for the trucks and increase the aesthetics of Williams-
burg, especially in the Historic District where heavy truck traffic is
thought to be incompatible by many. The quantity of truck traffic
actually rerouted was not quantified. The travel demand model
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation for the traffic
projections combined truck traffic and non-homebase trips. The
model allowed only five trip types and the Department did not select
truck traffic as a specific trip type, but used the truck traffic and
non-homebase trip combination. It is likely that up to 50% of truck
traffic destined to downtown Williamsburg will be rerouted.

5.2 LAND USE

5.2.1 Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A

Alignment A has appeared on James City County's Land Development
Concept Mtap since 1975. Consequently, intensive residential, com-
mercial, and industrial uses, as well as community facilities, have been
sited adjacent to this alignment. Low density residential use is
planned for the short segment of Alignment A-1 and Revised Line A
that is different from Alignment A.

5-2

York County, on the other hand, sees the portion of Route 199
between Route 603 and 1-64 as a major impetus for upper portion of
the county to attract economic development. In 1984, this area was
changed from low-density residential to tourist commercial at the
instigation of the Williamsburg Pottery Factory and many of the
property owners who reside in the corridor.

Construction of the road is a priority listed in York County's Trans-
portation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Super-
visors has not officially stated a preference of one alignment over the
other. The Board has stated, however, its desire not to upgrade Route
646 while at the same time building Route 199. The Williamsburg
Pottery Factory, the major land owner in the York County portion of
the corridor, opposes Alignment A, stating that this alternative would
take the most buildable portion Of 2 site on which it plans to expand.

5.2.2 Alignment D

James City County planners have expressed opposition to this align-
ment because their plans and public facility locations support Align-
ment A, which has been a component of the County Plan f or a decade.
The current plan (described previously) attempts to concentrate
growth in a crescent-shaped corridor around the City of Williamsburg,
ostensibly to control the amount and cost of public services associated
with development. It would, therefore, be anticipated that to modify
the alignment in James City County would antagonize some private
development groups, as well as County planners, many of whom view
Alignment A as integral to future land use plans.

5.2.3 No Build Alternative

A substantially large transportation demand along the existing section
of Route 199, on Route 60, and in the area in general, can currently be
observed and is projected to significantly increase over the next
several years. If the proposed circumferential facility is not

5-3

implemented, this traffic demand would have to be served by
alternative facilities, especially Route 60. Traffic analysis indicates
that this would cause the level of service, on the existing streets in the
project corridor to increase until a forced flow condition is reached.
Congestion will increase travel times for motorists and result in
increased fuel consumption, higher levels of air pollutants, greater
delays for emergency vehicles and an aesthetically unpleasant and
incompatible atmosphere in the Williamsburg Historic District. The
existing transportation network within James City County, York
County, and the City of Williamsburg is inadequate for future growth
and will deter industrial/commercial growth in the region. .

Conversely, if the project is not constructed, there will be no
displacement of families or businesses; no adverse wetland, con-
struction or visual impacts will result; right-of-way would not have to
be 2c qui red, and f unds will not have to be expended.

5.3 SOCIOECONOMICS

5.3.1 Relocation

Alignment A--Construction of Alignment A would displace an esti-
mated eleven families, two of which reside in mobile homes. All
families which would be displaced occupy homes located between
Route 60 and Interstate 64.

Of the estimated eleven displaced families, four are low- to
moderate-income minorities. Three of these families reside in
single-family dwelling units and own their properties, which are 211 in
sound condition. A more detailed discussion of properties and pro ' perty
values is included in the SocioEconomic Technical Report. One of
these homes is occupied by elderly persons, however, all four are
estimated to live on fixed incomes.

5-4

Many homeowners on Route 60 have indicated their desire to County
officials to have their property rezoned from low-density residential
to nonresidential use, should the Warhill Tract which is located across
the street, be similarly rezoned. County officials have indicated that
such a request is not unreasonable. There does not, therefore, appear
to be any major opposition to residential relocation f rom this area.

The two mobile homes to be displaced are located along Mooretown
Road, directly across from the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad tracks.
The larger of the two mobile homes is relatively new and is occupied
by a young, lower-income minority family. The second mobile home
appears to be vacant.

The remaining six families to be displaced occupy houses adjacent to
Route 646 in York County. All are occupied by white middle-income
families, several with children. These homes are of modest size and
appear to be owner-occupied and in f air to very good condition.

One business, the WBCJ radio station and tower, will be displaced by
Alignment A. It appears that the radio station could relocate on
available vacant land in western James City County; however, new
facilities will most likely have to be constructed. A more detailed
discussion of displacements is included in the Socio-Economic Techni-
c al Report.

Alignment D-Residential displacement would occur at three points
along the Alignment D corridor: Route 615; Route 60; and Route 646
near its intersection with Interstate 64. An estimated eight families
would be displaced by Alignment D. The dwelling units to be displaced
are two mobile homes (one of which apparently is vacant) and seven
single-family detached homes. The same four minority relocations
described for Alignment A must also be relocated for Alignment D.
At least one of these four families is elderly.

Alignment A-1--An estimated 13 families would be displaced by this
alignment; 11 are the same as Alignment A and an additional three

5-5

occur where A-1 diverges. Family characteristics for these three
families are similar to the 11 previously discussed for Alignment A.

Revised Line A--An estimated 13 families would be displaced by this
alignment based on a November 1986 estimate by VDOT. Three of the
13 residential displacements are located at or near Williamsburg
Pottery interchange.

Alignment A-2--Six families would be displaced by Alignment A-2,
which covers the area south of Route 646 between the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad tracks and 1-64. One is a young, moderate-income
bl ac k f am ily, while the rem ai ning f! ve f arnili es im pacted are belie ved

to be middle- income white households.

No Build Alternative--No displacement of families will occur if Route

199 is not constructed.

5.3.2 Special Relocation Problems

Alignment A, A-1, A-2, Revised Line A and D--It may be difficult to
relocate the mobile homes on Alignment A and D. Although the
County has the highest number of mobile home park sites in the
Peninsula region, it is estimated that the current vacancy rate is less
than three percent. Mobile homes are permitted, with a special use
permit, on individual lots in the General Agricultural zone. Recent
revisions of the County Zoning Ordinance prohibit relocation within
the County of any mobile home which does not meet U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development standards (mobile homes built
after 1976). It is anticipated that one, and perhaps both, of the mobile
homes displaced by Alignments A, D and A-2 will not meet HUD
standards and, therefore, could not be relocated within James City
County. In addition mobile home placement requires a special use
permit and can only be placed on specially zoned sites. This reduces
the number of replacement possibilities f or mobile homes
signif icantly.

5-6

Acquiring replacement single-family detached housing for the low- to
moderate-income families displaced by Alignment A will also be
difficult. According to the Williamsburg Board of Realtors, the 1985
average selling price of a detached residential unit is $99,834 and
$86,622 for an attached townhouse or condominium in Williamsburg,
James City County, Upper York County and the portions of New Kent
and Charles City Counties. These numbers reflect only those trans-
actions which occurred through a real estate broker and include both
new and re-sale homes. These prices make it particularly difficult for
low- to moderate-income families to find affordable housing,
especially in James City County which, in recent years, has recorded
the highest average selling price for single-family detached housing in
the Williamsburg area. Lower- and moderately -priced homes exist
primarily in the northwestern portions of both James City and York
Counties. Several newer Upper James City County subdivisions, for
example "Racefield and Wedgewood," have been developed recently
where housing prices average between $50,000 and $60,000.

Comparable replacement housing in both James City and Upper York
Counties range in age from one to over fifty years old and conditions
range from excellent to fair. Most comparables are one-story frame
or brick dwellings containing six to seven rooms with one or

one-and-a-half baths.

Each displacee will be given sufficient time to negotiate for and
obtain possession of decent, safe and sanitary housing. All housing
offered will be fair and available to all persons regardless of race,
religion, sex or national origin.

The requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act will be followed.
The objective is to afford each displacee the opportunity to relocate
to an equal or better facility than one presently occupied. There is
also a commitment to last resort housing.

5-7

5.3.3 Community C ohesi on

The communities which exist presently in the Route 199 corridors
range from smaller, established low- to moderate-income communi-
ties to new, large-scale planned communities oriented toward the
upper-middle income homeowner. The rapid amount of residential
growth which has occurred during the past decade, particularly in
James City County, has resulted in a continually changing community
pattern.

All build alignments follow logical community boundaries except for
the few instances described below.

Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A--Further northward, at its
intersection with Route 615, Alignment A transverses the western
edge of the Strawberry Plains Road area. Alignment A separates the
Indigo Terrace/Brookhaven Drive on the east from Indigo Dam Road on
the west. Indigo Terrace/Brookhaven Drive is a middle-income area,
with a high percentage of mobile homes. Situated between these two
areas is the Mount Pleasant Baptist Church which serves as a focal
point of the Indigo Terrace/Brookhaven community.

Alignment A would create a physical barrier between the church and
the community it serves. This negative impact will be balanced,
however, by the positive influence of reduced traffic congestion along
Ironbound Road which is one of the most severe problems facing this
community, according to James City County's Community Develop-
ment Plan.

The new single-family and multifamily communities in the Longhill
Road vicinity would benefit from Alignment A over the long term, in
terms of improved access and reduced traffic congestion along Long-
hill Road. Each development tends to be 2 community unto itself and,
therefore, the addition of Route 199 would not necessarily detract
f rom an y s e ns e of comm u ni ty coh esi on.

5-8

Alignment D--At Ironbound Road, Alignment D crosses between Mount
Pleasant Baptist Church and Indigo Dam Road, retaining the church on
the same side of the roadway to the Indigo Terrace, having a less
divisive impact upon this community than Alignment A.

No Build Alternative--If Route 199 is not built, traffic congestion may
continue to be a problem along Ironbound Road. In the long term, the
new single-family and multifamily communities in the Longhill Road
vicinity would benefit from improved access and reduced traffic
congestion from Alignment A construction. However, the disruptions
to community cohesion described for Alignment A also would not be

realized.

5.3.4 Housi ng

Alignments A, A-1 and Revised Line A--The residential development
patterns in this corridor have been established to a large extent during
the past decade and would not be altered significantly as a result of
the roadway. The proximity of the corridor to the rapidly-developing
greater Williamsburg area ensures continued residential development
whether or not All gnment A is built. It is the magnitude of new
development which will be impacted. The James City County Board of
Supervisors has made it clear that transportation access is a crucial
consideration in approving rezonings to more intensive uses in this
area. Two large undeveloped tracts of land exist in James City
County between Alignments A and D: the Warhill Tract and vacant
Eastern State Hospital property. The state intends to sell the hospital
property deemed surplus at public auction by 1988. Construction of
Alignment A would facilitate access and, thus, the attractiveness to
residential developers and homebuyers in the area.

Alignment D--The location of Alignment D in the western, less
developed portion of James City County, on the edge of the "Primary
Service Area," is likely to impact the local housing market to a
greater extent than Alignment A. More vacant land exists at 2

5-9

relatively lower cost and, given the bright outlook for housing develop-
ment in James City County, construction of homes would be expected
to immediately follow construction of Route 199. Alignment D would
push new residential sprawl further westward. Perhaps the greatest
impact on residential development will be felt in'the section of the
corridor between Ford's Colony and Route 615, where water and sewer
lines are proposed by the year 2000 in the County's current Land Use
Plan. Lower-density, single-family detached housing would be the
type of housing anticipated in most of this area; however, in the
Warhill Tract vicinity medium density housing, both single and multi-
family, would likely be developed.

Alignment A-2--This Alignment would result in a more rapid transition

of the Route 646 area between Route 60 and 1-64 from residential to

tourist commercial uses. No impact would result on the local housing

market.

No Build Alternative--Without construction of the proposed Route 199
extension, residential construction activity in the corridors would most
likely remain within the current area which has an existing road
network, albeit disjointed and congested. Residential development in
the southwesterly direction would continue to -occur; however, there
are few roads existing except for those located in planned communi-
ties on such as Ford's Colony. It appears certain that the surplus
Eastern State property would still be developed residentially, although
at a much lesser density without the construction of Route 199. The
County Board does not appear supportive of the approval of new
residential communities without roads, specifically Route 199, that
will not adeqU2tely support traffic generated by the growth.

5.3.5 Income

The effect of the proposed action an personal income is directly
related to business growth and development. A substantial business
impact due to Route 199 is expected to occur in the areas of retail and

5-10

tourist commercial growth in the vicinity of Lightfoot, principally in
the Route 646 corridor and on the Warhill Tract. As described earlier,
both York County and James City County have relatively low tax
bases with which to support the high cost associated with rapid
residential growth. The encouragement of growth in nonresidential
tax base is a high priority for these jurisdictions.

Because James City County officials view Route 199 more as a bypass
for residents who live in the central corridor of the County, business
growth along the County's portion of Route 199 would be limited to
community retail situated at points where existing radial arterial
roadways cross the roadway. However, the most recent Warhill Tract
rezoning petition included proposal for development of 90,000 square
feet of commercial and office space within two years and a 600,000
square foot regional shopping mall within five years. Although this
petition was denied by the Board of Supervisors, it does demonstrate
the increasing attractiveness of James City County for large-scale
nonresidential development as the population and income reach the
required market threshold amounts. The increasing size and income of
the market, combined with visibility and accessibility offered by a new
four-lane arterial highway, would make increased business develop-
ment probable in designated "nodal" areas.

Alignments A, A-1 and Revised Line A-The most substantia. I impact
would be felt in the segment between 1-64 and Route 60 where new
business development is anticipated to be extensive. This expectation
is based upon the recent rezoning of the York County portion of the
corridor to tourist commercial and development proposals that have

occurred in that area.

In James City County the Warhill Tract would likely become the site
for considerable business growth by the year 2010 in the form of major
retail, office and light industrial uses developed on a relatively large
scale. This area is considered by many to be the most prime
undeveloped site existing within the County's "Primary Service Area."

5-11

The parcel of land fronting Route 60 between 646 and the U.S. Post
Office building would appear to have business development potential.
At present, sited in this area are: the S&H Home Center, a small
neighborhood market frequented by nearby residents of the Mooretown
Road area, a small rental apartment building and a U.S. Post Office.

These uses are of low value construction and can be considered as

transitional uses. The parcel is owned by one of the Pottery Factory
principals and is being held for commercial development at some
undetermined future date. As in the Case of the Warhill Tract, it is

reasonable to conclude that the construction of Route 199 would be a

major determinant of how and when this site would be developed.

It is not likely that neighborhood -level retail centers will be developed
on vacant parcels near the Longhill Road and Ironbound/Monticello
Avenue intersections with Alignment A and the existing terminus of
Route 199 at Route 5, given the residential growth and high disposal
incomes characteristic of the corridor. An example of the market
attractiveness to retail development is the neighborhood -level retail

center under construction at the intersection of Old Towne and

Longhill Roads.

The James City County Comprehensive Plan shows several areas of
11major commercial" development defined in the plan as "large com-
mercial uses or combinations of uses providing goods and services
primarily to local residents and requiring a support population of
15,000 or more." In the Plan, community-level retail uses are shown
adjacent to Alignment A in three locations: at Lightfoot; between
Eastern State Hospital and Ironbound Road; and near the intersection
of Route 199 and Route 5. According to James City County planners,
retail development can be expected to be built in one of these
locations. At the current time, there is a proposal to construct a
70,000 square foot center in the northwestern quadrant of the Route
5/Strawberry Plains intersection.

5-12

Alignment D--Similar to Alignment A, Alignment D would be expected
to impact business growth and development in the Upper York County
portion of the corridor. Most of the new business development would
be motel, restaurant and outlet retail. As in the case of Alignment A,
and its variations, York County officials view the roadway as the
major catalyst for economic development in the Upper County. James
City County officials, on the other hand, see Route 199 simply as a
bypass which will segregate residential traff ic generated from new
residential developments located in the central County from tourist
and business traffic traveling on Route 60.

Construction of Alignment D, however, would enhance greatly the
accessibility and visibility assets of the Warhill Tract and, thus, will
increase the probability that this large parcel will be developed. It is
likely that, if the Warhill Tract is rezoned to more intensive uses,
nonresidential employment growth would occur on this site.

No Build Alternative--Future business growth and impacts associated
with build alternatives would not be realized should Route 199 not be

constructed.

5.3.6 Employment

Alignments A and A-1--One employer/business, the WBCJ radio
station, would be displaced by Alignment A. This business is
owner-operated and employs an estimated ten persons. Given the
time the station has existed, relocation appears likely and will not
negatively impact the community it serves. No loss in employment
would be expected to occur.

Alignments D and A-2--No businesses would be directly displaced on
Alignment D because the radio station could remain at its present
location. A section of the Cedar Valley Horse Farm's grazing area
appears to be within the alignment. It is likely that construction of a
4-lane primary highway next to the farm would result in conversion to
more employment intensive tourist commercial uses before the year

2000.

5-13

Revised Line A--The radio station is located some 330 feet from the
selected alignment right-of-way; therefore, no businesses will be
displaced by the selected alignment.

No Build Alternative-No businesses would be displaced if Route 199 is

not constructed.

5.3.7 Tourism

Alignments A, A-1, A-2 Revised Line A and D--As stated earlier,
retail commercial establishments concentrated at Lightfoot are unique
in that they cater primarily to tourists, many of whom travel to the
area solely to shop at the discount stores. Construction of the 4-lane
Route 199 between 1-64 and Route 60 is expected to induce additional
retail and motel development which would cater largely to the
discount shopper trade. This new development would be dependent
upon the improved access and visibility afforded by Route 149.

A high degree of cross- visi tati on exists between major study area
tourist attractions; Colonial Williamsburg, 'Busch Gardens and James-
town Festival Park, and the Lightfoot area discount stores. Although
dependent upon traffic loads encountered, it is not likely that tourists
traveling between the Colonial Williamsburg/Busch Gardens areas and
Lightfoot outlets would use Route 199 because neither Alignments A
or D would offer the quickest, most direct travel route between these
two points. Construction of any of the Route 199 alignments would
facilitate tourist travel on Route 60, in particular, by providing a
bypass route f or James City County residential traffic.

Tourists traveling between Lightfoot and Jamestown and from the
numerous campgrounds located near Jamestown in the southwest part
of the County would be expected to use Route 199, however. An
indirect benefit to tourism created by either alignment would be
reduced traffic volumes on the roads in and around Williamsburg and
on Route 60 in particular.

5-14

No Build Alternative --The No-Build Alternative would not reduce

traffic volume around Williamsburg and Route 60. Instead, Route 60
would continue as the prime connector route between the major area
tourist attractions. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative would not
facilitate tourist travel and access to existing as well as newly created

businesses.

5.3.8 Property Tax Impact

The following analysis is based upon a $0.67 real estate tax rate per
$100 of assessed value for James City County and $0.66 real estate
tax rate for York County. Total right-of-way tax estimating costs
were taken from Form A-131A, RW 238, line 1h.

Alignment A--A real estate tax loss of $14,994.'00 would occur with
construction of this alignment. This amount is based upon a "taking"
of a total of 70 parcels of land at a total right-of-way taking
estimated cost of $2,951,935.00.

Minimal depreciation in property values will result from construction
of this alignment. Those properties that would receive negative
effects from the roadway would be the residential properties adjacent
to the road in the Mooretown area at Lightfoot and along Ironbound

Road.

Overall, the depreciation in some residential properties will be more
than compensated for by the dramatic increase in property values that
have already begun to occur in the Route 646 corridor as land is
rezoned to a higher use. The commercial and industrial development
which may occur on the several large areas near Route 60 (Warhill
Tract and Eastern State Hospital property) in the James City County
portion of the Alignment A corridor would significantly contribute to
the County's goal to increase its nonresidential tax base.

5-15

The municipal cost associated with the urban growth included by
Alignment A would be, in the case of York County, the cost of
providing water and sewer extensions to the Route 646 area. In James
City County, the municipal cost would be relatively less for Alignment
A thanAlignment D due to thefact that utilities alreadyserve alarge
portion of the corridor. Certainly the costs (utility, road, schools)
associated with potential large-scale residential development is
higher.

Both James City County and York County could expect to receive a
proportionate gain in revenue from the construction of Alignment A.

Alignment D--A real estate tax loss of $11,509.00 would occur with
construction of Alignment D. This is based upon a "taking" of 69
parcels of land at a total right-of-way taking estimate of
$271737 351.00.

It is not likely that construction of Alignment D will result in
depreciated property values of homes in Windsor Forest, Ford's Colony
or Canterbury Hills, which narallel the roadway. The improved access
to these subdivisions would offset the noise- and aesthetic- related

ne gati ve ef f ects.

As in the case of Alignment A, property values of undeveloped land in
particular would be expected to escalate in the Alignment D corridor,
both in York and James City Counties. Municipal costs for York
County would be roughly the same for A and D. In James City County,
however, municipal costs to service the development induced by
Alignment D would be expected to be significantly higher than costs
associated with Alignment A. While the D corridor falls inside the
County's "Primary Service Area," development would be less concen-
trated than planned and utility expansions to the westernmost edge of
the "Primary Service Area" would be required earlier than planned,
thus possibly creating an economic hardship for the County.

5-16

It is felt that, given the size of Route 199 in each juriscriction, both
York and James City Counties would receive a proportionate share of
revenue gain from construction of Alignment D.

Alignment A-1--An estimated tax loss of $16,905.00 would occur if
this alignment were constructed. This is based upon a "taking" of 73
parcels of land and a total right-of-way taking estimate of
$3,295,890.00.

Characteristics of these takings are similar to those of Alignment A
except.f or the addition of three parcels.

Alignment A-2--A real estate tax loss of $13,652.00 would result with
the construction of Alignment A-2. This is based upon a "taking" of 59
parcels of land and a total right-of-way taking estimate of
$2,731,055.00.

The southern section of A-2 is the same as Alignment A. A-2 diverges
from Alignment A between Route 603 and 1-64.

Revised Line A--Based on a November 1986 estimate of tax loss
conducted by VDOT, the selected @lignment will have an estimated
$13,900 loss of real estate revenue.

No Build Alternative--Depreciations and escalations of land described
for the build alternatives would not be realized should the construction
of Route 199 not take place.

5.4 COMMUNITY FACILITIES

Alignment A and Revised Line A--It is important to note that James City
County has intentionally planned and sited many of its new community
facilities within easy access to Alignment A and Revised Line A (see Figure
5-1). However, in the case of the recently- completed fire station location of
Route 658 (Old Towne Road), direct access to Alignment A via a ramp would
not be provided. Current residential development is concentrated in an

5-17

east-west direction along Longhill Road (from the Williamsburg City line out
to Forcls Colony) and northward to Route 60. Alignment A would not offer the
most direct route to reach these areas from the fire station on Route 658.
Emergency access would be enhanced by Alignment A and Revised Line A for
the residential and commercial growth which would be expected to occur over
the long term in the corridor between Longhill and Ironbound Roads. In order
to access Alignment A or Revised Line A, however, vehicles from this fire
station would have to first travel west on Old Towne Road and then proceed
south on Longhill Road to its intersection with the selected alignment.

Given the above considerations, construction of a special emergency access to
these alignments is proposed at Old Towne Road. Response time to the
Lightfoot area would be significantly reduced with Alignment A or Revised
Line A, which would permit emergency vehicles to bypass the Route 60
corridor. A second fire station in the corridor exists at the present terminus
of Route 199 at Route 5. The County Public Facilities Plan proposed a new
fire station to be built at Lightfoot. Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and Revised
Line A would directly serve this facility.

Alignment A and Revised Line A would improve access County-wide to the
three James City C ounty- Williamsburg public schools that exist currently in
the corridor vicinity: Lafayette High School, James Blair Intermediate School
and Berkeley Elementary School. The high and intermediate schools in
particular would benefit from access to a major thorouqhfare. Students must
be transported county-wide to and from these facilities and it is preferable for
them to be transported along four-lane-grade-separated roadways.

The distance of Lafayette High School from Alignment A, A-1, A-2 and
Revised Line A would increase the benefit in terms of time and access.
Additionally, two sites are planned for schools and may benefit from the
construction of Route 199, one of these is located within the Ford's Colony
development and one south of Route 5 along Centerville Road.

County-wide access to the newly- constructed James City County Human
Service Center on Old Towne Road west of the new fire station and Social
Services building on Towning Road (west of Ironbound Road) will be enhanced
by Alignment A and Revised Line A.

5-18

FIGURE 5-1
EXISTING AND PLANNED COMMUNITY FACILITIES

ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA
LEGEND

. . ...........
Planned Existing

SCHOOL

'4,
+ HOSPITAL

A A FIRE STATION

PARK / COUNTRY CLUB

0 COUNTY / CITY FACILITIES

CHURCH (Rt. 199 Corridor only)

END PROJEC 0 OTHER FACILITIES

00
0
6_ POST OFFICE

S7AT E
POLIC

Private

BUS STATION
lu

uj
- == . I TRA
>=
Lu

:,"4
eG
4,,o 0,

Coll.n. IR
6

BEGIN PROJECT
L

Private POS OFFICE

R I
-::rqfN 0 R @TH

graphic scale in feet
AIRPORT iooo b 2000 4000

Construction o f Alignment A or Revised Line A would not adversely impact
existing active and passive recreational areas. Vehicular access to the York
River State Park and the federal and state parks at Jamestown would be
facilitated by the roadway. In James City County, the school sites described
above are used for public recreation facilities and, thus, access would be
improved to these three sites. A new County park under development on
Ironbound Road west of Route 613 will benefit from Alignment A or Revised
Line A. Since no national, state, or local park properties, historic,
recreational, or wildlife refuge 4(f) lands are located in or immediately
adjacent to the project limits, there will be no usage of 4(f) lands. Therefore,
FHWA has determined that Section 4(f) does not apply to Revised Line A, the
selected alignment.

Several churches exist close to the alignment: Zion Baptist Church located at
the corner of Route 60 and Route 614 (Centerville Road) and the Mount
Pleasant Baptist Church. Both churches serve the older black communities
nearby.

Zion Baptist Church is located on a small parcel between Route 614 and the
selected alignment Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, located on the western
si de of A lignm ent A and R evi sed L ine A, woul d be separated f rom the I nd! go
Terrace and Strawberry Plains community which it serves. In both cases,
construction of a major thoroughfare so close to the buildings could diminish
enjoyment of these facilities. Also, pedestrian access to these churches would
be I imi ted s eve rel y f rom the east by Ali gnm ent A or R evi sed L i ne A.

Zion Baptist Church and Mount Pleasant Baptist Church serve approximately
600-700 persons combined. According to the survey returned by Zion Baptist
Church, a very small part of the church membership, approximately 20-25
persons, walk to the church from their homes (See Appendix A). Vehicular
access will be provided to Mount Pleasant Church off Ironbridge Road (Route
615). Residents west of the Revised Line A must travel east on Monticello
Avenue extended to Ironbridge Road to access Mount Pleasant Baptist Church.
The Revised Line A will not affect the Route 60 or Route 614 access to Zion
Baptist Church.

5-19

Alignment D--Alignment D would greatly facilitate access from the existing
fire station located at the Route 199/Route 5 intersection to the existing
residential developments in the central County and to the additional
development which would be expected to accompany construction of
Alignment D. County plans to construct another fire station at Lightfoot
would also benefit from the access afforded byAligrir-nent D.

Lafayette High School would be provided direct access to the alignment via
the Longhill Road interchange. This improved access would reduce the time
and cost associated with busing students to and from this facility.

Existing recreation areas would not be adversely impacted by Alignment D.
This alignment would provide slightly improved access to the new County park
under construction on Ironbound west of Route 613. Since no national, state,
or local park properties are located in or immediately adjacent to the project
limits, there will be no usage of historic, recreational or wildlife refuge 4(f)
lands. Therefore, FHWA has determined that Section 4(f) does not apply to
Alignment D.

No Build Alternative--Community facilities will not be impacted if Rout e 199

is not constructed.

5.5 CONSERVATION

5.5.1 Agri cul tur al L ands

The major impacts to agricultural lands will be via direct conversion
of existing cultivated fields and pasture acreage for roadway usage.
Depending upon the alignment ultimately selected, direct loss of
agricultural lands is from 22.0 acres for Alignments A, Revised Line A
and D, 27.0 f or Alignment A-2, and 26.0 f or Alignment A-1. Losses to
agricultural lands have been coordinated with the Soil Conservation
Services, in compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The
completed Form AD1006 is included in Appendix C,.

5-20

5.5.2 Forests

The proposed highway construction can be expected to adversely
affect portions of both the existing upland and bottomland forest
communities. Impacts include the direct elimination of forest habitat
as well as indirect impacts associated with changes in moisture
regimes, peripheral changes in light and temperature conditions and
the creation of newly established edge communities.

Alignments A and A-2 would result in the direct loss of 157.4 acres of
forest. Approximately 93 percent of the f orestland reduction would be
upland forest with the remainder being bottomland forest. Alignment
A-1 or Revised Line A would result in the direct loss of 158.4 acres of
forest, with approximately 94 percent of those acres in upland forest.
Alignment D would eliminate a total of 186.8 acres of combined
upland/bottornland f orest community (see Table 5-1).

5.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife/Habitat

Impacts to wildlife resources within the study area will primarily be
due to habitat losses and alterations, especially those of upland and

wetland f orests.

In addition, the highway will serve to potentially alter movements of
the more mobile wildlife species, notably deer. Obviously, the number
of roadkills will increase with the initiation of highway usage.

Impacts to terrestrial resources constitutes the greatest acreage loss
of any habitat type in the study area. While these losses are not given
the high priority usually assigned to other habitats (e.g. wetlands)
measures can be taken to minimize impacts to these resources.
Mitigative alternatives include strict adherence to state erosion and
sedimentation controls, selective clearing and grubbing, selective
seeding of native herb, shrub, and tree species typical of the habitats
impacted, restrictions in the use and time of application of herbicides,

5-21

Table 5-1
Direct Acreage of Terrestrial Habitat Lost
f or
Each Alignment by Habitat

Alignm ent
Habitat A A-I/Revised Line A A-2 D

Forest
Upland 146.8 149.5 146.8 164.5
Bottomland 10.6 8.9 10.6 22.3

Pasture 10.3 10.3 11.2 19.0

Cultivated Field 11.9 11.9 14.7 8.3

Cutover Forest 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0

Transmission Corridor 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.9

Developed
Roadside 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1
Residential/Commercial 13.7 13.7 24.3

204.7 203.3 208.0 246.4

Source: ESE, 1985.

5-22

use of selective mowing to maintain ecotone and habitat diversity, use
of right-of-way fencing, and minimal clearing of the riqht-of-way.

5.5.4 Threat ened/E ndangered Species

A population of the small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), a
federally listed endangered species, presently exists approximately 90
feet from the right-of-way of Alignment A. Highway construction at
such close proximity is expected to alter edaphic conditions such that
negative impacts to the colony will result. Edaphic changes which
may occur include alterations in drainage, temperature and light
changes, increased competition with edge species and inadvertent
effects on essential microrhizal communities.

Impacts cannot be reduced by transplantation as past attempts to
relocate 1. medeoloides have failed. Highway impacts to the
small-whorled pogonia population will be associated with Alignments
A and A-2 only. Based upon coordination with the USFWS, a biological
assessment responding to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 will be required if Alignment A is selected for highway develop-
ment. Official statements to this effect from USFWS dated July 9,
1985 and October 9, 1985 are included in the Water Resources and
Ecology Technical Report.

In response to the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations,
Alignment A-1, which would avoid adverse impacts on Isotria
medeoloides, has been reintroduced. Subsequent to the public hearing,
a further refinement of Alignment A, Revised Line A, was introduced
to minimize the impact on Isotria medeoloides and reduce project
costs. A discussion of this alignment is found in Section-S-5 of this
report. A Section 7 biological assessment was conducted to assess the
effect of Revised Line A on ISOtF12 medeoloides. This assessment is
i ncl uded i n Aope ndi x D.

5-23

5.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.6.1 Architectural Resources

With the exception of the Lane Farm, all sites identified in the general
project area are too far away to be impacted by any of the proposed
alignments. The Lane Farm structure and outbuildings are in a
dilapidated condition and are not on current lists or eligible for
nomination to the National Register. Due to these reasons and in
conjunction with the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks (VDHL),
it was determined that no significant historic sites will be affected by
any of the proposed Route 199 aliqnments (see Appendix C).

5.6.2 Archaeological Resources

Available archaeological evidence for the project area indicates that
the Peninsula was probably populated for at least 12,000 years; but, in
general, its prehistory is poorly understood relative to many other
regions of Virginia.

The number of significant sites potentially impacted by the project are
virtually the same no matter which alternative is chosen, 19 for
Alignment A (including A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A) and 17 for
Alignment D.

The Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey were conducted
within the project area. Recommendations were made to the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for Phase II Significance
Assessment Survey in light of guidelines developed by the U.S.
Department of Interior as part of the National Register nomination
process. Appendix C shows a letter stating VDHL's concurrence with
th! s recom m end ati on.

Phase II archaeological examination of fourteen sites located within
the proposed Route 199 extension corridor (Alternate A, Revised Line
A and A-2), has determined that six sites are eligible to the National

5-24

Register of Historic Places. These six sites will be destroyed by
construction of the Route 199 extension. These sites which are shown

on Figure 4-7 are:

A-3 - 18th-century mill with prehistoric component
A-8 - Prehistoric site

A-12 - Prehistoric site

A-13 - Prehistoric site

A-16 - Prehistoric site

A-17 - Prehistoric site

A Section 106 document is included in Appendix C to document
coordination with the Executive Director of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.

In order to mitigate the adverse effect of the project on these
resources, Phase III archaeological data recovery is required. The
purpose of this final phase of work is to retrieve representative
categories of archaeological data which contribute to the eligibility of
the six sites. I Retri eval of significant information will be
accomplished through a combination of intensive excavation,
documentation, laboratory analysis and report writing. In addition,
intensive paleo- ecological testing will be conducted as part of this
work in order to reconstruct the changing environmental context of
the prehistoric sites within the project area. Further documentary
research to the eligible historic site will also be conducted.

The prehistoric resources within the project corridor afford an
unprecedented opportunity to understand a previously neglected aspect
of the cultural development of the James -York peni nsula and
surrounding region. Phase II site examination has indicated the
presence of stratified deposits, hearth and possibly storage features,
limited organic preservation, and horizontal separation of functional
activities within five prehistoric sites. Preliminary analysis of these
sites indicate that they represent the remains of seasonally- occupied
resource procurement sites with components ranqing from the Late

5-25

Archaic period (2000 - 1200 B.C.) to the Late Woodland period (900
1600 A.D.). The preliminary data also suggest that the interior areas
of this portion of the James-York Peninsula were most intensively
utilized during the Middle Woodland period (500 B.C. - 900 A.D.).

The Phase 11 investigations of the proposed Route 199 corridor also
examined eight historic-period archaeological sites. Only one of these
sites appeared to be eligible to the National Register: Site A-3. The
mill complex consists of an earthen dam 280 f eet in length and 8 f eet
in height, two large borrow nits, and the mill headrace.

The mill site (Site A-3) may provide very important historical and
archaeological information relevant to the milling process as practiced
on large plantations in James City County in the early-- to- - mid- 18th
century. To date, no site of its kind has yet been investigated on the
James-York Peninsula and perhaps the entire Virginia Tidewater area.
Considering the documentary evidence of Indigo cultivation within the
immediate vicinity of the site, the conditions under which the crop is
grown, and the prominence of the grower, a great deal may be learned
about the local cultivation and process Of 2 valued crop during the
colonial period. For these reasons, the site is considered eligible for
nomination to the Register of Historic Places.

In addition, 2 Small prehistoric component at this IOC2tion is
co nsi dere d important due to the deeply buri ed nature of
Archaic-period components. However, much of the area has been
previously disturbed by the 18th century borrow pits. An adequate
sample of these prehistoric resources can be recovered as part of the
data recovery for the historic component at the site.

5.7 AIR QUALITY

An air quality assessment was conducted to analyze potential impacts on air
quality from the proposed Route 199. The years studied in this analysis were
1990 and 2010. The air quality imp2CtS were evaluated for the No Build and

Build Alternatives.

5-26

Emitted pollutants associated with vehicular projects include airborne lead,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, total suspended particulates, sulfur oxides, and
carbon monoxide. The praj ec t area is in attainment for all of the above
pollutants.

Increasingly stringent EPA regulations governing lead concentrations in gaso-
line are resulting in significantly lower airborne lead levels. Therefore, major
vehicle lead emissions due to the project are not expected and any emitted
concentrations will not have a significant impact upon the environment.

Photochemical reactions involving HC and NOx in the air can result in ozone.
Because of the complex reactions and atmospheric transport involved in ozone
formation, no models are available which accurately predict ozone on a

microscale level.

Carbon monoxide (CO), a stable gas, is the predominant pollutant emitted by
motor vehicles. Since CO is relatively nonreactive, its microscale dispersion
from a roadway to adjacent receptors can be accurately predicted with
computer models. Therefore, CO was chosen as a quantifiable indicator to
assess project impacts on the air quality.

5.7.1 M icros cal e A nal ysi s

A microscale analysis was performed to determine CO concentrations
in the immediate vicinity of a street or highway. After a thorough and
comprehensive review of traffic volume data and site plans, five
receptor sites were selected for the analysis. These sites represent
locations where the highest CO levels are expected in association with
the project. The receptor site locations are shown in Figure 5-2.
Receptor I is located on the right-of-way at the proposed signalized
intersection of Route 199 andRoute 646 for Alignment A. The review
of the traffic data for the Alignments A, A-1, A-2 and D indicated
that the projected traffic volumes were highest for Alignment A at
this intersection. Therefore, Alignment A would represent the worst
c ase. Projected CO values would be less for the intersections of
Route 646 and Alignments A-2 and D than for Alignment A. Receptor
2 is located on the right-of-way at the proposed signalized

5-27

intersection at the Route 60/Route 199 interchange. This signalized
intersection is common to alignments A and D and was therefore
analyzed for both alignments. Receptors 3 and 4 represent the
impacts of Alignments A and D respectively, under free flow traffic
condi ti ons. Receptor 5 is located at the existing signalized inter-
section of Route 5 and Route 199. This intersection was analyzed for
both the A @nd D Alignments.

The TEXIN model was used to predict CO concentrations for the
various scenarios at the signalized intersections. MOBILE3 and
CALINE3 were used to predict CO concentrations for the free flow
traffic conditions at Receptors 3 and 4. Both the TEXIN and CALINE3
models estimate CO concentrations based on roadway configuration,
traffic parameters, emission factors, and meteorology of the area. In -
addition, TEXIN allows for signal parameter inputs to account for
deceleration, acceleration and idling of vehicles due to signalization.

Since M2AMUM concentrations from ground-level sources such as
automobiles occur under light winds and stable atmospheric conditiong,
a wind speed of 1 m/sec and stability Class E were used in computing
maximum one-hour concentrations. Because peak-hour data were
used, the model output corresponds to the worst-case 1-hour maxi-
mum concentrations. The average hourly traffic for the peak 8-hour
period was determined to be approximately 90 percent of peak-hour
traffic. Therefore, 8-hour concentrations were calculated by taking
90 percent of peak-hour concentrations. These values were then
multiplied by an 0.6 meteorological persistence factor since it is
unlikely that worst case 1-hour meteorological conditions would
persist for B hours (EPA, 1978). Carbon monoxide concentrations
occurring in the immediate vicinity of the street or highway are the
result of concentrations directly attributable to the nearby roadways
plus a background component that is attributable to other emission
sources including more distant roadways. Since there are no CO
monitors in the project area, the CO background concentrations were
assumed to be 6.0 ppm for 1-hour and 3.0 ppm for 8-hour

5-28

MIMI

FIGURE 5-2

AIR QUALITY RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR

JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

LEGEND

RECEPTOR LOCATION

Source: RS&H 1986

<
3
R
R4

14, a
4"0 0,
4f4,

<
r
BEGIN PROJECT
+p 115

-4fN"O I T @l

gr.phic -.1. 1@ fw
V, 1000 0 2000 40!0

Table 5-2
Maximum I-Hour and 8-Hour Predicted Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (ppm)*

No Build Build
Alignment "A" Alignment "D"
One-Hour Eight-Hour One-Hour Eight-Hour One-Hour E ight-H our
Year Receptor CO Levels CO Levels CO Levels CO Levels CO Levels CO Levels

1980 1 6.1 3.1
2 7.9 4.0
3 6.0 3.0
4 6.0 3.0
5 16.1 8.5

1990 1 6.2 3.1 11.9 6.2
2 7.4 3.8 14.1 7.4 12.4 6.5
3 6.0 3.0 6.3 3.1
4 6.0 3.0 6.3 3.2
5 12.9 6.7 14.0 7.3 11.9 6.2

2010 1 6.2 3.1 12.9 6.5
2 7.8 4.0 14.7 7.7 12.0 6.2
3 6.0 3.0 6.4 3.2
4 6.0 3.0 6.4 3.2
5 13.9 7.3 14.1 7.3 12.0 6.2

*Includes background.

Source: RS&H, 1985

concentrati ons. These Values are considered to be a reasonable
estimate of CO background for rural areas with limited land use
development.

Table 5-2 presents the total CO concentration projections at each
receptor site for the base year (1980), 1990 and 2010 for various

alignments for both the Build and No Build Alternatives. The 1-hour
and 8-hour background levels were added to the computer predictions
to obtain 1-hour and 8-hour total concentrations. The highest
predicted one-hour values are 13.9 ppm for the No Build Alternative
and 14.7 ppm for the Build Alternative. The highest predicted 8-hour
values for the No Build and Build Alternatives are 7.3 opm and 7.7
ppm, respectively. All of these values are well below the State and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 35 ppm for 1-hour and 9
ppm for 8-hour concentrations. Generally, the predicted values are
lower for Alignment D than for Alignment A. This is due to the lower
peak-hour traffic volumes associated with Alignment D.

The largest increases attributable to the project are at Receptors 1
and 2 which are bothlocated at proposed signalized intersections. The
Alignment D alternative would result in an improvement at Receptor 5
due to diversion of some of the traffic. The project is not expected to
interfere with the attainrnent or maintenance of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.

5.7.2 C onf orm ance wi th the 5 tate I mpl em ent ati on P Ian

This project is an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does
not contain any transportation control measures. Therefore, with the
exception of construction requirements, the conformity requirement
of 23CFR770 does not apply.

5.8 ENERGY

An analysis of the energy consumption was performed for the alternatives
studied for Route 199 in Williamsburg, Virginia. The evaluations included an

5-30

assessment of direct and indirect energy requirements for each alternative.
An analysis period from 1990 to 2010 was used in the evaluation.

The energy consumption was estimated using procedures outlined by Messrs.
Apostolos, Shoemaker, and Shirley. The procedure calculates the direct
energy consumed by vehicles, indirect energy consumed in vehicle manu-
facturing and maintenance, and energy consumed in construction and mainte-
nance activities. The Energy Analysis Technical Report, which was prepared
in conjunction with this document, discusses the procedure in detail.

The alternatives analyzed for energy impacts were the No Build Alternative,
Alignment A-1, and Alignment D. As discussed in the Technical Report,
Alignment A-1 is representative of all the "A" Alignments.

The annual energy consumption for each alternative is summarized in Table
5-3. The total consumption represents the average annual consumption over
the 20-year analysis period. As seen in Table 5-3, the build alternatives
require less energy than the No Build Alternative. This is due to the f ree-flow
conditions on Route 199 and the lower level of congestion. It should be noted
that there are a number of capacity deficiencies in the street system in the No
Build Alternative and that a number of roadway improvements would need to
be made to accommodate the projected volumes. The energy consumed in the
construction and maintenance of the improvements have not been included in
this analysis. Thus, the No Build energy requirements are understated.

The Alignment A and D build alternatives will require 6.6 and 8.1 percent less
energy, respectively, than the No Build Alternative. This is a significant
energy savings. Alignment D will require approximately 1.6 percent less than
Alignment A, however, this is not considered to be a significant savings.
Therefore, while the build alternative improves energy consumption, one
alternative is not clearly superior to the other.

5-31

Table 5-3
Annual Energy Consumption

Alternative
Type of Energy No Build Alignment A-1 Alignment D
(Revised Line A)
Direct Vehicle1 2,277.3 2,080.9 2, 069. B
Indirect Vehicle1 1,982.5 1,865.3 1,811.5
Maintenance 1 35.4 42.0 42.6
Construction 1 0.0 22.3 23.0

TOTAL 4,295.2 4,010.5 3,946.9
Barrels of OH/Day 2 2,029 1,894 1,864

1In millions of BTUs-
2One Barrel of Oil is equ@l to 2.117 x 106 BTU.

Source: Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc., 1985.

5-32

5.9 NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

5.9.1 Noise Impact Assessment

Based upon the forecast methodologies discussed in Section 4, sound
levels for ambient and design year (2010) Build and No Build scenarios
were calculated, and the results have been summarized in Tables 5-4
to 5-7. For simplicity, the anticipated impacts upon the receptors will
be discussed and compared by two major alignments: A and D. The
Revised Line A, A-1 and A-2 Alignm ents will be discussed separately.
Since the publication of the DEIS, a more refined analysis was made of
the noise impacts. These changes are reflected in this portion of the

text.

Alignment A--Assessment of Alignment A considered the anticipated
noise impacts upon 16 sites that have been identified as being noise
sensitive. From Table 4-7, it is observed that the sites are either
residential or public, semi-public in nature.

Analysis of the table indicates a substantial increase in noise levels at
nine sites, with noise levels at two of these sites equalling or
exceeding the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) of 67 dBA. The
interior NAC of 52 dBA will not be exceeded at either of two churches
located along this alignment, Mount Pleasant (Site 2A-2) and Zion
Baptist (Site 7A-2). The latter is air-conditioned, allowing closed
window conditions year round. Overall, Alignment A will impact a
total of 129 residential receptors.

Alignment D--The results of the analysis of 21 sites representing this
alignment indicate that a substantial increase in noise levels will occur
at ten sites including Lafayette High School (Site 5D-1). The exterior
NAC of 67 dBA will be equalled or exceeded at two of the ten sites.
The interior NAC will not be exceeded at Lafayette High School,
Mount Pleasant or Zion Baptist Church. A total of 147 residences and

5-33

Table 5-4
Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts
Alignments A and A-1

Site No. Condition Noise dB(A)

1A-2 Existing 4B
No Build 52
Build 64

IA-3 Existing 45
No Build 50
Build 67

2A-1 Existing 45
No Build 50
Build 61

2A-2 Existing 57
No Build 59
Build 60

2A-3 Existing 52
No Build 58
Build 63

2A-4 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 54

2A-5 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 48

3A-2 Existing 45
No Build 53
Build 58

4A-2 Existing 45
No Build 45
Build 53

5A-1 Existing 45
No Build 45
Build 60

5-34

Table 5-4
(Continued)

Site No. Condition Noise dB(A)

7A-1 Existing 56
No Build 65
Build 68

7A-2 Existing 61
No Build 62
Build 63

7A-3 Existing 61
No Build 64
Build 66

8A-1 Existing 61
No Build 62
Build 60

8A-2 Existing 56
No Build 58
Build 66

8A-3 Existing 50
No Build 53
Build 62

(Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, December 1988.)

5-35

Table 5-5
Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts
Alignment D

Site No. Condition Noise dB(A)

1D-1 Existing 57
No Build 59
Build 61

1D-2 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 56

ID-3 Existing 52
No Build 58
Build 52

1 D-4 Existing 45
No Build 50
Build 53

ID-5 Existing 48
No Build 52
Build 59

1D-6 Existing 45
No Build 50
Build 61

2D-1 Existing 45
No Build 45
Build 52

2D-2 Existing 45
No Build 45
Build 54

2D-3 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 57

3D-1 Existing 45
No Build 46
Build 61

3 D-2 Existing 45
No Build 46
Build 60

3D-3 Existing 45
No Build 45
Build 59

5-36

Table 5-5
(Continued)

Site No. Condition Noise dB(A)

3D-4 Existing 45
No Build 45
Build 60

4D-I Existing 51
No Build 58
Build 55

4D-2 Existing 54
No Build 61
Build 61

5D-1 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 57

5D-2 Existing 61
No Build 62
Build 63

5D-3 Existing 56
No Build 65
Build 68

5D-4 Existing 61
No Build 64
Build 67

7 D-I Existing 47
No Build 49
Build 61

7 D-2 Existing 61
No Build 62
Build 60

(Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, December 1988.)

5-37

Table 5-6
Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts
Revised Line A

Site No. Condition Noise dB(A)

1A-3 Existing 45
No Build 50
Build 66

2A-1 Existing 45
No Build 50
Build 58

2A-2 Existing 57
No Build 59
Build 64

2A-3 Existing 52
No Build 58
Build 55

2A-4 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 59

2A-5 Existing 45
No Build 47
Build 53

(Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, December 1988.)

5-38

Table 5-7
Noise Levels and Anticipated Impacts
Alignment A-2

Site No. Condition Noise dB(A)

A2-1 Existing 61
No Build 62
Build 60

A2-2 Existing 56
No Build 59
Build 64

A2-3 Existing 50
No Build 53
Build 66

A2-4 Existing 47
No Build 49
Build 60

A2-5 Existing 51
No Build 53
Build 57

(Source: Virginia Department of Transportation, December 1988).

5-39

the exterior activity area at Lafayette High School will be impacted
by Alignment D.

Revised Line A--This variation of Alignment A occurs at the southern
end of the project (Sites IA-3 and 2A-1 thru 2A-5) and also at the
northern end where it follows Alignment A-2. Revised Line A,
including the portion which follows Alignment A, is represented by 18
sites, nine of which will receive substantial increases in noise levels.
Only one of the nine sites will experience noise levels that exceed
exterior NAC. Mount Pleasant Church will receive interior noise
levels which exceed the NAC of 52 dBA under open window conditions.
Because the church is not air-conditioned, closed window conditions
cannot be maintained year round. Revised Line A will impact a total
of 123 residential receptors and the church.

Alignment A-1--Generally, impacts from the beginning of Alignment
D, from Site 1D-1 to 2D-3, and continuing on Alignment A, from Site
3A-2 to 8A-3, are the same impacts that may be anticipated for
Alignment A-1. There were no separate sites identified for this
alignment, since it proceeds generally through sparsely populated or
unpopulated areas.

Based upon the analysis of the A and D Alignments, nine sites
representing Alignment A-I will receive substantial increases in noise
levels, with one of the nine sites experiencing an exterior NAC
violation. No interior violations will be experienced. Overall, 77
residential receptors will be impacted by Alignment A-1.

Alignment A-2--This alignment varies from Alignment A only at the
northern end of the project, between Route 60 and 1-64. Nine sites
will receive substantial increases in noise levels, with two of the nine
experiencing exterior NAC violations. None of the sites will receive
interior NAC violations. Alignment A-2 will impact a total of 129

residences.

5-40

Comparison of Impacts by Alignment

Alignment Impac ts

A 129 residences
D 147 residences - Lafayette H.S. (exterior)
A Revised 123 residences - Mount Pleasant Church (interior)

A-1 77 residences

A-2 129 Tesidences

Of the five alternatives studied, Alignment D will have the largest
number of impacts, while Alignment A-I will have the least.

5.9.2 Mitigation Measures

Various noise abatement measures have been considered for those

receptors along the selected alternative, Revised Line A, which will
experience substantial noise level increases and/or which will
experience noise levels equalling or exceeding the NAC. A line shift
would not be feasible, as there are noise sensitive rec eptors on both
sides of the project throughout the proposed corridor. A line shift
away from one receptor would only move the roadway closer to
another receptor. Rerouting through trucks would not be practical, as
this facility is designed as a bypass to relieve congestion and remove
trucks from local roadways. The selected alignment has already been
depressed where design opportunities exist. Further roadway
depression is not reasonable. The construction of sound barriers of
varying heights and lengths has been considered as a noise abatement
measure at the impacted locations. Air-conditioning Mount Pleasant

Church is also an abatement consideration. Table 5-8 summarizes the
mitigation measures analyzed for the impacted receptors along

Revised Line A.

Based upon FHWA/VDOT Noise Abatement Feasibility Criteria, a
noise abatement measure is not considered reasonable if the cost per
receptor protected exceeds $20,000. Therefore, the sound barriers at

5-41

Table 5-8
Mitigation of Noise Impacts for Revised Line A

Site No. Impact Mitigation Measure

1A-2 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 1500 feet in length and 10 feet in height
will provide 5 to 7 dBA attenuation to 8 single family
residences at a cost of $240,000 or $30,000 per receptor'
Barrier located west of Rt 199 from station 120 to station
135. Barrier not reasonable due to cost.

1A-3 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 1300 feet in length and 15 feet in height
will provide 5 to 10 dBA attenuation to 73 townhouses at
a cost of $312,000 or $4,274 per receptor. Barrier located
east of Rt 199 from station 132 to station 145. Barrier
appears to be reasonable and feasible.

2A-1 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 2600 feet in length and 15 feet in height
will provide 5 to 6 dBA attenuation to 12 single family
residences at a cost of $624,000 or $52,000 per receptor.
Barrier located east of Rt 199 from station 133 to station
159. Barrier not reasonable due to cost.

The sound barriers protecting sites 1A-3 and 2A-1 could
be combined resulting in a barrier 2700 feet in length and
15,feet in height providing 5 to 10 dBA attenuation to 73
townhouses and 12 single family residences at a cost of
$648,000 or $7,624 per receptor. Barrier located east of
Rt 199 from station 132 to station 159. Barrier not
reasonable due to cost of extending barrier to protect site
2A-1 ($28,000 per receptor).

2A-2 NAC Exceeded Mount Pleasant Church can be air-conditioned allowing
(Interior) closed window conditions year round, providing 10 to 15
dBA attenuation. Measure appears to be reasonable and
f easible.

2A-4 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 2300 feet in length and 9 to 12 feet in
height will provide 5 to 7 dBA attenuation to 20 single
family residences at a cost of $396,000 or $19,800 per
receptor. Barrier located west of Rt 199 and Ramp A
from Rt 199 station 143 to Ramp A station 10. Barrier
appears to be reasonable and feasible.

3A-2 Substantial Increase An effective sound barrier cannot be provided to protect
3 single family residences due to access requirements. An
effective barrier must be continuous and not have
openings for access.

5-42

Table 5-8
(Continued)

5A-1 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 500 feet in length and 10 feet in height
will provide 6 dBA attenuation to 2 single family resi-
dences at a cost of $80,000 or $40,000 per receptor.
Barrier located east of Rt 199 and Ramp B from Ramp B
station 13 to station 18. Barrier not reasonable due to
cost.

7A-1 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 500 feet in Jength and 10 feet in height
and NAC Exceeded will provide 5 dBA attenuation to 2 single family resi-
dences at a cost of $80,000 or $40,000 per receptor.
Barrier located south of Rt 199 from station 418 to
station 423. Barrier not reasonable due to cost.

A2-3 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 400 feet in length and 10 feet in height
will provide 5 dBA attenuation to 1 single family resi-
dence at a cost of $64,000. Barrier located north of Rt
199 from station 449 to station 453. Barrier not reason-
able due to cost.

A2-4 Substantial Increase A sound barrier 800 feet in length and 10 feet in height
will provide 5 dBA attenuation to 1 single family resi-
dence at a cost of $128,000. Barrier located south of Rt
199 from station 450 to station 458. Barrier not reason-
able due to cost.

5-43

sites 1A-2, 2A-1, 5A-1, 7A-1, A2-3 and A2-4 and the extension of the
barrier at site 1A-3 are not reasonable and will not be constructed.
Barriers at sites IA-3 and 2A-4 and the air-conditioning at Mount
Pleasant Church are still under consideration. A final decision will be
made upon completion of a detailed noise abatement analysis, the final
project design and a public involvement process.

5.10 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY

5.10.1 Hydrology

Changes in the hydrologic regimes of the streams in the study area can
be expected due to several factors:

o Changes in watershed contours and vegetative cover;

o, Increased amounts of runoff from highway surfaces;

o Stream crossings serve as points of some impedance to natural
flows and runoff (especially during periods of culvert blockage);
and,

o Alteration of stream bottoms at points of highway crossing.

Short-term impacts will be controlled to a great extent by following
the Department's best management practices during construction.
Potential long-term impacts can be alleviated by using proper cul-
vert/stream crossing design. The existing watershed at the study area
as well as the integrity of Waller Mill Reservoir will not be signifi-
cantly altered by the proposed projec t.

5-44

5.10.2 Groundwater and Mineral Resources

No adverse short-term effects on groundwater supplies are expected
with implementation of any of the alternative alignments. However,
in the event that a well is discovered during construction activity,
appropriate measures will be undertaken to seal the well in accordance
with the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Water Control
Board. Sealing the well will prevent future groundwater pollution.

Potential long-term impacts to the groundwater can be categorized as

follows:

o Changes in recharge to aquifers;
o Pollution of aquifers; and
o Changes in usage of groundwater

Long-term impacts will be contingent upon the amount and type of
development in the study area, due to the project.

Impacts may affect the recharge of the shallow Quaternary aquifer
which obtains its water directly from precipitation. Due to the
extensive area covered by the Quaternary it is expected that
reductions in infiltration due to the impervious areas caused by
development will have a negligable affect on the water level in the
aquifer. Mitigation of this impact will not be required.

The Quaternary aquifer is susceptible to pollution from spills, land
application of chemicals, land based solid and hazardous waste
facilities, etc. Mitigation and minimization of this potential impact
should include an active local spill response program for any spills
occuring during transit, a spill contingency plan for industries on file
with local authorities, and an active land based solid and hazardous
waste siting and permitting protocol tied in with local planning
requirements.

5-45

The- Cretaceous aquifer may be more extensively used after develop-
ment increases in the study area. An increase in pumpage within the
areas expecting development will increase drawdown and may shift
pumping centers farther to the west which could allow saline waters to
enter current zones of freshwater. Prediction and/or early warning of

the movement of saline waters into the freshwater areas of the

aquifer are achieved by monitoring and modeling the Cretaceous
aquif er.

No adverse impacts to mineral resources are anticipated with any
alignment alternative. While some disruption of surficial sedimentary
deposits may be expected, these impacts are not significant due to the

vastness of like resources on the Coastal Plain.

5.10.3 Surface Water

Construction activities have the potential to increase sedimentation
and turbidity levels of surface water resources in proportion to both
their proximity to excavated sites and to the frequency of storm
events during construction. After constructio n, vehicular usage will
result in automobile -related pollutant loading into the surface waters,
however; good traffic flow will reduce the amount. Although various
surface Water resources will be involved depending on alternative
selection, the adverse effects to water quality will be the same.

Long-term impacts to water quality stem from increased pollutant
levels reaching surface waters from motor vehicle traffic as well as
from de-icing salts and herbicides applied for right-of-W2y mainte-
nance. Significant levels of toxic heavy metal, asbestos and slowly
biodegradable petroleum products and rubber are directly deposited
from motor vehicles along with large quantities of particulate
materials contributed indirectly by traffic. Traffic-related lead is
deposited principally through the use of leaded fuels but some deposi-

tion results from the wear of tires in which lead oxide is used as 2

filler material.

5-46

All appropriate permits regarding impacts to surface waters and their
associated floodplains will be applied through the interagency coordi-
nation process.

5.10.4 Aquatic Ecology

Aquatic habitats and their associated biota will be adversely affected
to some degree by highway construction and subsequent usage.
Potential impacts include:

o Water quality changes;

o Physical obstructions to the movement of organisms;

o Changes in substrate characteristics and other physical habitat
features; and,

o Changes in hydrologic parameters, such as current velocity, depth

and flood events.

Although numerous detrimental impacts to the water resource have
been documented, the impact in many cases has been shown to be
temporary (Chisholm and Downs, 1978; Barton, 1977; Reed, 1977).
These studies have indicated that fish and benthic macroinvertebrate

populations recover quickly after construction activities have been
completed. These studies also show that strict erosion control and
construction during dry seasons and after fish spawning, are effective
in reducing impacts.

Various measures will be incorporated into roadway design and mainte-
nance plans to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. While some
impacts are likely to be temporary (changes in aquatic species
composition, disruption of aquatic species), control measures will be
employed that reduce the magnitude and duration of the impact. Such
measures include, but are not limited to, the use of berms, dikes,

5-47

dams, sediment basins, fiber mats, straw silt barriers, netting, mulch,
grasses and other methods. Temporary erosion and siltation control
measures would be applied to areas highly susceptible to erosion such
that silt loading and deposition in streams is minimized.

The use of single bottomless box culverts is planned throughout the
project. These structures effectively reduce the potential for culvert
blockage, provide a natural benthic substrate for organisms, and do not
deter organisms' movements. This is particularly important for
accommodating anadromous fish in the area.

Additional impact reduction measures available include proper
scheduling of construction activities to avoid rainy months and seasons
critical to organism reproductive cycles (fish spawning and insect
emergence), minimizing construction activities in floodplains outside
the designed right-of-way, and minimizing the degree to which
unprotected soil is exposed during construction.

5.10.5 Wetlands

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands,"
this project has been evaluated to determine potential impacts to
wetlands. Department compliance with EO 11990 is detailed in the
Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report and Wetlands
Delineation Appendix F. The selected alternative, Revised Line A was
reviewed to determine if further shifts would be possible to reduce or
minimize the wetlands required for development of the proposed
project. A summary of this review is included in Appendix B.
Assessment of impacts to wetlands was based on areas of direct
effect, namely the area of wetland eliminated by filling and/or
displaced by the highway alignment. Acreage losses for each align-
ment are summarized in Table 5-9. The selected alignment, Revised
Line A, results in a loss of 12.17 acres as described on Table 5-10.
Alignment D results in the greatest area of impact occurring in the

5-48

Table 5-9
Direct Wetiand Losses Incurred by Alignments

Area of Primary
Alignment Wetland Type* impact (acres)

A and A-2 Mill Creek PF01A 2.3
PF01A 0.7

Chisel Run PF01C 1.3
(W. of E. State Hosp.) PFOIC 1.7
Chisel Run PF01C 1.3
(N. of Route 612) PF01E 1.5
Chisel Run (at Longhill Rd.) PFOIE 0.5
Long Hill Swamp PF01A -1.5

TOTAL 10.6

A-1 Mill Creek PF01A 1.1

A/A-1
A/A-1/A-2 Chisel Run PF01C 1.3
(W. of E. State Hosp.) PFOIC 1.7
Chisel Run PF01C 1.3
(N. of Route 612) PFOIE 1.5
Chisel Run (at Longhill Rd.) PF01E 0.5
Long Hill Swamp PF01A -1.5

TOTAL 8.9

D Mill Creek PFOIA 1.1
Powhatan Creek Tributary 1 PF01A 0.6
(N. of Route 615)
Powhatan Creek Tributary 2 PFOIA 0.6
(N. of Tributary 1)
Long Hill Swamp PF01E 1.2
(S. of 612)
Long Hill Swamp PF01E 16.8
(S. of 612)
Long Hill Swamp PF01E 1.5
(N. of 612)
Long Hill Swamp PF01E 0.5
(at Longhilt Rd.)

TOTAL 22.3
*PF-OlA---Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous Broad-leaved, Temporary7 Non-Tidal
PF01C--Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous Broad-leaved, Seasonal, Non-Tidal
PF01E--Palustrine, Forested, Deciduous Broad-leaved, Seasonally Saturated,
Non-Tidal

Source: ESE, 1985.
5-49

Table 5-10

Selected Alignment (Revised Line A) Wetland Losses

Acres
Site Wetland Type_ on ROW Stream Watershed Comments

1 PF01A 0.45 Mill Creek Mill Greek alluvial flat adj. to stream, small portion is filled

3 PF01A 1.47 unnamed trib. Chisel Run alluvial flat adj. to stream

5 PF01A 1.16 unnamed trib. Chisel Run alluvial terrace adj. to stream
PF01C 0.15 inundated alluvial terrace adj. to stream

8 PF01A 0.60 unnamed trib. Chisel Run possibly old pond

9 PF01C 4.32 unnamed trib. Chisel Run floodplain terrace
Ul
CD
11 PF01 C 1.46 Chisel Run Chisel Run floodplain

12 PF01A 0.89 unnamed trib. Long Hill Swamp alluvial terrace and seepage slopes adj. to stream

13 PF01 Hb 1.08 Long Hill Swamp Long Hill Swamp beaver impounded alluvial terrace

14 PSSI C 0.31 unnamed trib. Long Hill Swamp swampy, young woodland adj. to stream

19 PFOIA 0.28 unnamed trib. Chisel Run seepage slope above stream, perched o n sandy clay loam

Total= 12-17

PFO= 11.86
PSS= 0.31
The following wetlands are located alonq a proposed interchange spur. The were delineated, but are not considered in the current project.
15 IPF01A 1 0.34 unnamed trib. Chisel Run not currently involved, Monticello Ave. extension
17 PF01A 0.50 unnamed trib. Chisel Run not currently involved, Monticello Ave. extension
@
were de ''ne
T
n not
u n nol
Total= 0.84

(Source: WAPORA, Inc. August 1988)

wetland of Long Hill Swamp (22.3 acres). In comparison, Alignments A
and A-2 result in a total direct loss of 10.6 acres, Alignment A-1

results in a total loss of 8.9 acres.

The extent of wetland loss by wetland type is given in Table 5-9 and
5-10. Functional values were derived for wetlands on each alignment
using the FHWA method (Adamus, 1983). Results of this analysis are
presented in Table 5-11.

Unquantified secondary physical and biological impacts may result
depending on the method of wetland crossing utilized. Potential
physical impacts include increased turbidity, sedimentation, chemical
pollution, alteration of local water tables, changes in periodicity, and
changes in water retention. Resulting impacts to biological communi-
ties may include a change in wetland size, plant species composition,
class composition and productivity, a mortality to aquatic species, a
barrier to faunal movement, and an effect on rare, threatened, and
endangered species (Shuldiner, et al. 1979a, b).

Potential adverse impacts to the existing wetlands can be minimized
by utilizing techniques such as soil erosion control measures along the
edge of wetland systems and utilizing the single bottomless box
culverts where feasible. Potential impacts from mudwaves may be
eliminated by the removal of unsuitable material in wetlands prior to
fill placement. Existing drainage patterns can be maintained by
placing culverts at all crossings of tributaries to wetlands. This will
minimize secondary impacts to wetlands resulting from hydrologic

disturbance.

k--rossing by pile supported roadway or by bridging is the method having
the least physical and biological impact. This may be an alternative
for the Route 612 interchange since a portion of the proposed
interchange is located within the Chisel Run wetland floodplain.

5-51

Table 5-11
FUNCTIONAL VALUES FOR WETLANDS IN THE STUDY AREAS

Powhatan Creek Mill Creek (2) Long Hill Long Hill Long Hill Chisel Run (6) Chisel Run (7) Scotrs Pond (8) Model Emergent
Weiland Function Tributary (1) Swamp (3) Swamp (4) Swamp (5) Welland (Chisel Run)

Ground Water Recharge
(Effectiveness) L L L L L L L L L
(Opportunity) L L L L L L L L L

Ground Water Discharge
(Effectiveness) L L L L L L L L L
(Opportunity) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A

Flood Storage
(Effectiveness) H M H H H H H H H
(Opportunity) M M H M M M M M M

Shoreline Anchoring
(Effectiveness) M M H H M H M H H
(Opportunity) L L L L L L M L L

Sediment Trapping
(Effectiveness) M L H H M H H M H
(Opportunity) M M M M L M M M M
,,,n
\-n Nutrient Retention/Renrioval
Long Term Retention
(Effectiveness) M M H H M H H M H
(Opportunity) H M M M M
Seasonal Retention
(Effectiveness) H H M H H
(Opportunity) H M M M M

Food Chain Support
Downstream Transport
(Effectiveness) M L M M M M M L M
In-basin Cycling
(Effectiveness) M M M M M

Fisheries Habitat (WanTywate*
(Effectiveness) M L M M L M L L M

General Wildlife Habitat
(Effectiveness) M L H H M M L M H

Recreation4ioritage
(Effectiveness) L M M L L L L L L

(1) Wetlands within Line D Corridor
(2) Wetlands within Line D and welland #1 within Revised Line A Corridor (selected alignment) (7) Wetland #8, #19 within Revised Line A Corridor (selected alignment)
(3) Wetlands within Line D Corridor (8) Welland on Scotts Pond off of Revised Line A (selected alignment)
(4) Wetlands #13, #14 within Revised Line A Corridor (selected alignment) N/A Notapplicable
(5) Welland #12 within Revised Line A Corridor (selected alignment) Low (L), Moderate (M), and High (H) values were determined using the FHWA method (Adamus, 1983)
(6) Wetlands #3, #5, Big, #11 within Revised Line A Corridor (selected alignment)

Rt.199:Tab 5-11
10/7/88 WAPORA

= M M = M M -, = M M

While crossing of wetlands by pile supported roadway or bridging is the
least disruptive, it is the most expensive. In March of 1987 a cost
comparison of crossing wetlands by bridging versus crossing using
culverts and mitigation measures was conducted. This comparison
showed the cost of bridging to be approximately eleven times the cost
of the culverts and creation of mitigation sites.

Some construction -related impacts may be rectified after the com-
pletion of the major construction phases. Possible mitigative
measures include the regrading of areas to natural contours and the
seeding, planting, and fertilization of disturbed areas. These activities
would effectively restore areas peripheral to the right-of-way to
pre -construction condition.

Based upon the above wetlands findings and considerations, it is
determined that there is not praticable alternative to the proposed
new construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes, all
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result

from such use.

A replacement plan is necessary to mitigate these wetland losses.
Wetlands will be replaced on a one to one, in kind basis. A 6 acre
parcel along Mill Creek (site M-6A) has been identified as the primary
mitigation site, and additional sites will be chosen to replace the
remaining acreage. At site M-6A the creation of mitigation wetlands
will be accomplished by the excavation of uplands and construction of
berms and weirs adjacent to an existing forested wetland. A variety
of hydrophytic native herbs, shrubs, and trees will be planted, and the
hydrology will initially be closely monitored and controlled until the
optimum hydrologic regime is established. It is expected that, in time,
replacement wetlands will maintain themselves with minimal artificial
manipulation and will effectively replace the acreage and functional
values of the filled wetlands.

Several potential mitigation sites will be identified. Based on study
and analysis of these sites, one or more sites will be selected for

5-53

wetlands mitigation. Several coordination meetings have already
occurred regarding the M-6A mitigation site and other potential
mitigation sites. An interagency coordination meeting was held on
January 28, 1988 with a subsequent field review of site M-6A on
February 12, 1988. The meeting notes and attendance roster from the
January 28, 1988 meeting are included in Appendix B as is the
subsequent mitigation report which followed recommendations made
during the February 12, 1988 interagency field review. Final mitiga-
tion of the wetland impacts will continue to be coordinated with
federal, state and local regulating and advisory agencies.

5.10.6 Floodplains

The floodplains associated with all of the creek systems located within
the study area will be affected by the proposed alignments. All
proposed alignments would result in the six stream crossings of Mill
Creek, Chisel Run, Upper Long Hill Swamp Creek, Lower L ong Hill
Swamp Creek and two unnamed tributaries of Powhatan Creek.

Floodplain impacts would include decreases in natural and beneficial
floodplain values such as the reduction of floodplain habitat and
storage capacity. Indirect impacts would include slight changes in
hydrologic regimes, with resultant changes in the extent and/or
duration of flood events. Department compliance with ED 11988 is
described in detail in the Water Resources and Ecology Technical
Report.

All of the primary build alternatives require modification of streams
and their associated floodplains. The physical modification of the
floodplains will require the following amounts of fill to create the
various highway crossings: Alignment A--70,000 cubic yards;
Alignment A-1 and Revised Line A--70,000 cubic yards; Alignment
A-2--70,000 cubic yards; and Alignment D--140,000 cubic yards (see
Table 4-3). Once construction activities are completed at

5-54

this location and structures are in place, no interference with the
flood retention capacity of this area is anticipated.

As identified in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of
Williamsburg, James City and York Counties developed by the
National Flood Insurance Program, most of the project area has the
status of minimal flood hazard. Areas given the status of special flood
hazard or moderate flood hazard are confined to stream floodplains.
The regulatory floodways involved for each crossing are given detailed
consideration in the Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report.
For each involvement within a regulatory floodway coordination with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be performed.

Agency compliance with Executive Order 11988, regarding floodplain
management, will be required for the proposed roadway. A reduction
of risk for flood-related loss to human life and property will be
accomplished by following standards and criteria for the construction
and design of culverts and bridges under the National Flood Insurance
Program. Additionally, culverts and bridges will be designed such that
the base flood elevation will not be increased by more than I foot.

5.11 VISUAL EFFECTS

The aesthetic and visual impacts of the proposed project relate primarily to
how the roadway alignment will affect views from adjacent neighborhood
communities. Principal visual impacts from the proposed roadway include
both short-term (construction activity and traffic congestion) and long-term
effects (the project's physical structure and associated traffic movements).

Alignment A, A-1, A-2 and Revised Line A--Alignment A lies adjacent to two
communities and crosses through the edge of several others. At its southern
end, where Alternatives A and D converge, the roadway comes within 100 feet
of the northern end of Ferncliff Drive in the Canterbury Hills Subdivision, a
subdivision comprised of approximately 50 single-family detached homes in
the middle to upper price range. There would be a visual intrusion on the

5-55

homes situated at the end of Ferncliff Drive. However, the view from four of
the houses located closest to the alignment would not be affected due to
existing visual barriers (i.e., the land drops away and densely forested area
exists between houses and alignment).

Farther northward, at its intersection with Route 615, Alignment A traverses
the western edge of the Strawberry Plains Road area. Alignment A separates
Indigo Terra ce/Brookhaven Drive on the east from Indigo Dam Road on the
west. Indigo Terrace/Brookhaven Drive is a middle-income community with a
high percentage of mobile homes and deteriorating structures.

Mount Pleasant Baptist Church serves as a focal point of the Indigo
Terrace/Brookhaven Drive community. Alignment A would create a physical
barrier between the church and the community it serves. This physical barrier
would disrupt the visual environment of the community.

The proximity of the Alignment A roadway and the off ramps planned near
Longhill Road Apartments and British Woods Townhouses, could result in
short-term visual impacts (e.g. disruption of traffic along Longhill Road,
roadway construction activities).

Alignment A crosses the northernmost edge of the Mooretown Road com-
munity in the area between Route 60 and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad
tracks. Two sections of the community would be severely disrupted by
construction of Alignment A: 1) a group of homes fronting Route 60 and
extending back to the railroad tracks; 2) a group of lower-income structures
on the northern edge of Mooretown Road. The core of the Mooretown Road
community, which extends southward from Williams Circle, would not be
disrupted by construction of the roadway. The proximity of the facility to the
neighborhood would be disruptive in terms of the visual environment of the
community.

Alignment D--At Ironbound Road, Alignment D crosses between Mount
Pleasant Baptist Church and Indigo Dam Road, retaining the church on the

5-56

same side of the roadway to the Indigo Terrace, reducing the divisive
physical/visual impact of the roadway upon this community.

Alignment D parallels the periphery of both of the upper-income developments
of Windsor Forest and Ford's Colony and is particularly close to Ford's Colony.
The visual impacts would be intrusive to homes in Ford's Colony in particular.
The alignment is sufficiently removed from Hempsted Avenue in the Windsor
Forest community and shielded by heavy vegetation in summer months. One
house at 116 John Potts in Ford's Colony appears to be 200 to 300 feet from
the alignment. Although the land drops away and summer vegetation is dense
behind this house, the roadway would be within clear sight of this home and
any other homes to be constructed at the end of this court.

No Build Alternative--The visual impacts associated with the different build
alternatives would not be realized, if Route 199 is not built.

5.12 COSTS

Anticipated costs associated with each build alternative are shown in Table
5-12. The cost of the roadway improvements which would be required to
accommodate projected traffic demands if the No Build Alternative is chosen
are difficult to calculate due to number of possible combinations. It has,
however, been determined that any of the A alignments would require 35
percent less lane-miles to accomplish an acceptable level of service than the
improvements required with the No Build Alternative. Alignment D would
require 40 percent less lane-miles than the No Build Alternative. Therefore,
it can be seen that the No Build Alternative may actually be the more
expensive Alternative.

5.13 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Although some of the impacts associated with construction activity result in
long-term effects, many of the construction -related impacts are very tempo-
rary. Some fish and benthic M2croninvertebr2te communities recover to
pre-project conditions in a short time period. However, depending on the

5-57

Table 5-12
Comparison of Build Alternative Costs (Dollars)

Alignment Right-of-Way Construction Total

Revised Line A 3,573,000 23,427,000 27,000,000

A 3,7B4,000 23,149,000 26,933,000

A-1 4,153,500 24,380,000 28Y533y500

A-2 3,513,000 23,297,000 26,810,000

D 3,139,000 25,148,000 2812871000

Source: Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc., 1985 and Virginia Department of
Transportation, November 1986.

5-58

community affected and the magnitude of impact, some populations may never
recover to pre-project conditions of species diversity and abundance. The
Utilization of best management practices such as erosion control devices and
scheduling of construction during dry seasons and after fish spawning, will
further reduce construction -related impacts. Roadway construction activities
that will result in long-term impacts, such as alteration of the substrate by
filling, must be minimized with the utilization of mitigation techniques as

described in Section 5.16.

Construction activities are likely to cause local traffic to be affected on a
short-term basis. However, since Route 199 is a proposed new roadway,
impacts to existing roadways and traffic patterns will be limited only to
periods when interchange construction is underway.

5.13.1 Water Quality

Potential effects of the proposed Route 199 construction include
turbidity and sedimentation at each of the stream/wetland crossings.
Construction -related spills can be prevented by prohibiting the dis-
charge of harmful wastes into or alongside floodplains, preventing
placement of excavated material into floodplains, and restricting the
frequent fording of streams and floodplains by equipment. Water
quality impacts will further be minimized by strict adherence to the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Impacts, avoidance,
minimization and mitigation measures are addressed in detail in the
Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report.

5.13.2 Noise

During construction there is the potential for noise impacts signifi-
cantly greater than those which will result from the normal traffic
operations of the proposed roadway. These impacts should be of short
duration, however, occurring only when construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the noise-sensitive sites occur.

5-59

A method of controlling construction noise is to establish the maxi-
mum level of noise that construction operations can generate. In view
of this, the Department has developed and FHWA has approved a
specification which establishes construction noise limits. The con-
tractor will be required to conform to this specification to reduce the
impact of construction noise on the surrounding community. This
specification is included as Appendix E.

5.13.3 Air

Construction procedures are governed by VDOT under the Road and
Bridge specifications. The specifications which are standard for all
contracts awarded by the Department require the builder to observe
and comply with all applicable 12WS, ordinances, regulations, orders, or
decrees. The specifications incorporate provisions for minimizing air
quality impact during construction and have been reviewed by the

State Air Pollution Control Board and were found to be in conform-
ance with the State Implementation Plan.

Measures will be taken to reduce fugitive dust and other emissions
generated during construction. Emissions from construction equip-
ment will be controlled in accordance with emission standards pre-
scribed under state and federal regulations. Materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations, except
materials to be retained, must be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning, when per-
mitted, will be conducted in accordance with applicable local laws and
state and federal regulations.

5-60

5.14 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Although some of the potential adverse impacts can be reduced or prevented@
certain impacts cannot be avoided during highway construction. Such impacts

include:

0 Indirect impacts to habitats due to changes in soil moisture, shading and
other related parameters;

o Displacement or loss of wildlife habitat;

o Changes in aquatic biotic communities;

o Obstruction to and/or changes in movement patterns of aquatic and
terrestrial fauna;

o Alteration of existing hydrologic regimes and floodplain dynamics; and

o Increased sedimentation and turbidity as well as other water quality
changes.

To the extent possible and feasible these impacts will be minimized utilizing
appropriate construction and design techniques and mitigation measures.
Ecological impacts will be mitigated as detailed in the Water Resources and
Ecology Technical Report.

5.15 SHORT-TERM USE OF ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Although the short-term impacts associated with construction activity are
likely to be reduced once the roadway is completed, some of the other more
permanent impacts, such as wetland elimination and habitat loss, will occur on
2 long-term basis. Careful planning and proper use of known mitigation
techniques should greatly reduce long-term impacts. The proposed roadway is
expected to provide an overall net benefit in the area as to negate any of the
remaining environmental consequences.

5-61

5.16 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS

In the immediate sense, the loss of mature forested uplands and wetlands
cannot be avoided by the proposed roadway construction. Newly created
mitigation areas are planned to replace the wetlands to be eliminated by the
project. Elimination of forested areas will consequently eliminate existing
habitats. The direct conversion of existing agricultural land will also be an
irreversible consequence of the Route 199 corridor.

Regardless of the alignment selected, energy will be expended during the
construction of Route 199. The Energy Analysis Technical Report details and
compares the direct and indirect consumption of energy for each alignment
alternative. Overall, less energy will be consumed by any of the build
alternatives than by the No Build Alternative.

5.17 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION COMMITMENTS

To minimize the short-term wetland and/or floodplain impacts associated with
construction activity at the various creek crossings and their associated
wetland and/or floodplains, best management practices will be utilized during
all phases of construction. These measures include, but are not limited to, the
use of berms, dikes, dams, sediment basins, fiber mats, straw silt barriers,
netting, mulch, and grasses. Work shall be scheduled during dry months, if
practical, using erosion control methods and installation of bottomless culvert
structures or countersinking of culverts. Wetland fringe areas and areas
impacted by mud waves which become disturbed by the roadway construction
are to be restored once construction activity has ceased by regrading followed
by seeding, planting and fertilization. The remaining portion of wetl2nd area
which cannot be avoided and for which every effort has been made to
minimize impacts will be compensated for by the artificial creation of in-kind
replacement systems at a 1:1 ratio to those wetlands. Monitoring of
mitigation sites will be conducted to ensure successful vegetation establish-
ment of proper wetland function. Failure of these objectives will necessitate
reestablishment of the selected site(s). Mitigation measures include elevating
structures to avoid wetland impacts, narrowing of right-of-ways and line
shifts wherever practical. Detailed mitigation measures are included in the
Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report.

5-62

6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

6.1 GOVERNMENTAL ACENCY RESPONSES

In accordance with the U.S. Office of Manaqement and Budget Circular A-95,
comments concerning this project have been solicited from the followinq
governmental agencies and individuals:

o York County Administrator
o James City County Administrator
0 James City County Director of Planninq
o York County Director Of P12nninq*
o Williamsburq City Manager
o James City County Health Department
a York County Superintendent of Schools*
o James City County Superintendent of 9chools*
o Virginia Institute of Marine Science*
o Virginia Marine Resources Commission* 0
o State Air Pollution Control Board*

o State Water Control Board*

o Council on the Environment

a Office of Emerqency and Eneroy Services
o Department of Conservation and Historic Resources*
o Peninsula Planning District Commission*
o Metropolitan Planninq Organization*
o Virqinia Department of Health*
o Department of the Army, Coros of Engineers* 0
o U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and ',,11ildlife Service0
0 U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the rDeputv Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Affairs

o Department of Health and Hurnan Services
o U.S. Environmental Protection Aciency*
o U.S. Deoartment of 'lousinal and Urban F)eveloDment*
o U.S. Deoartment of the Interior, Office of Environmental Project Review
o Urban M2Ss Tr2nsDortation Administration

6-i

The agencies which responded to the notice prior to the publication of the
DEIS are indicated by an asterisk (*). Agencies designated as cooperatino
agencies are indicated by a zero (o). Out of the 13 agencies that responded,
seven merely identified the appropriate contact person for future
coordi nati on. The following specific comments were received prior to
publication of the Draf t Environmental Impact Statement:

1. Comment: York County's Director of Planning requested a tentative
schedule of events with respect to the on-qoinq environmental study.

Disposition: A schedule W2S subsecuently supplied by VDOT.

2. Comment: The Virginia Institute of Marine Science pointed out that
Alignment D appeared to cross the upper end of Powhatan Creek. They
expressed a concern over the possible impacts that the proposed crossing
may have on the wetlands in that area.

Disposition: The potential impacts of Alignment 0 on the wetlands
associated with Powhatan Creek have been carefully evaluated and
documented in the Route 199 W2ter QU21ity and Ecology Technical
Report. The results of this study are summarized in Sections 4.9 and 5.10.

3. Comment: The Virginia Marine Resources Commission stated that since
their primary responsibility is to Process permit applications, their ability
to provide assistance in the review of technical data is very limited. They
anticipate hecoming involved when a General Permit application is
submitted for proposed encroachment to state-owned subaqueous land;
however, they encourage early agency coordination.

Disposition: VDOT will continue to keep the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission notified during the project's development. All appropriate
permits will be acq uired before construction commences.

4. Comment: The Virginia Department of Health stated that there are no
public water supply reservoirs in the immediate vicinity of the subject
project; however, there are Public water supply reservoirs or watersheds
for public water supplies within five to ten miles of the Droposed

6-2

alignments. They requested that the draft EIS provide inf ornl2tion on how
the project Will affect these adjacent Watersheds or reservoirs.

D isposi t! on: The potential impacts of the proposed alignments on
adjacent watersheds and reservoirs have been evaluated and documented
in the Route 199 Water Ouality and Ecology Technical Report. The
results of this analysis are summarized in Sections 4.9 and 5.10.

5. C om m ent: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
stated that, in keeping with Departmental procedures, a copy of the draft
EIS should be f orW2rded to the Philadelphia Regional Office.

Disposition: A copy of the approved draft EIS will be forwarded to the
Philadelphia Regional Office as requested.

6. Comment: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requested that
they be notified of any anticipated disturbances in wetland areas or
aquatic or terrestrial habitats so that a joint inspection of these sites
could be arranged.

Disposition: An Environmental Protection Aciency representative partici-
pated in an inter-agency field review of the project corridor on August
23, 1985. This agency has been included in the list of agencies,
organizations and persons to whom copies of the draft EIS and final EIS
will be sent for review.

A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on
March 18, 1985 to notify all agencies, organizations and individuals who May
not have been included in the original VDOT list of interested and involved
parties.

A pre-coordination meeting interagency field review Was held on August 23,
1985. The following agencies were represented:

o U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
o U.S. Department of Commerce, i'\12tional Marine Fisheries Service

6-3

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
o College of William and Mary

The purpose of the meeting was to familiarize the agencies with the project
study area and to obtain their preliminary comments and observations. Topics
which were highlighted included the functional values of the wetlands, the use
of the area by anadromous fish species, and the proximity of Alignment A to
the small-whorled poqonia (Isotria medeoloides) colony.

The Fish and Wildlife Service commented that since in-kind replacement of
palustrine forested wetlands is impossible, mitigation of wetland loss would
involve replacement with emergent wetland by functional value. They went on
to say, and were supported by the Environmental Protection @Agency, that
unavoidable wetland crossings should retain at least: 1) a natural stream
bottom, and 2) a natural stream meander. They stated that Section 7
procedures for endangered species involvement will be required if Alignment A
is selected. The National Marine Fisheries Service commented that most
streams in the study area are likely to be used by spawning alewives during
peak spawning years.

Route 199 was discussed at the September 26, 1985 interagency coordination
,meeting. The following aqencies were represented:

� Virginia Water Control Board
� Virginia Marine Resources Commission
� Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation
� Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
� Virginia Division of Soil and @12ter Conservation
� U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
� U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
� U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
� U.S. Department of Army, Corps of Enqlneers

6-4

A preliminary determination of impacts and mitigation Plans were Presented
for discussion and comment. The following specific comments were received:

1. Comment: The Marine Resources Commission prefers Alignment A-! and
concurs with the comments made by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Corps of Engineers and Commission of Game and Inland

Fisheries.

Disposition: None required.

2. Comment: The Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries requested
adequate drainage under fill to minimize wetland impacts. Culverts
should be lined up with stre2MS and strict silt and erosion controls must
he adhered to. In addition, they requested that proper coordination with
the Fish Wildlife Service be implemented regarding endangered species

involvement.

Disposition: Best management practices, as described in the State's
Hydrologic Modifications Handbook, will be utilized durinq the develop-
ment.@Qf -drainage and construction plans 1'n order to minimize vetlands
impacts. Environmental aqencies will have the opportunity to review and
comment on permit applications for dredge and fill activities. Erosion
and siltation wil be minimized by strict adherence to the methods
described in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control H2ndbook. VDOT
will continue to coordinate informally with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
If formal consultation is deemed necessary by that agency, it will be
initiated at the appropriate time.

3. Comment: The Division of Soils and Water Conservation stated that
strict silt and erosion controls should be applied in accordance with the
Virqinia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.

Disposition: The Virainia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook will be
strictly ahdered to durinq clearing, qrubbinq and construction activities.

6-5

4. Comment: The Fish and Wildl if e Service ref ere nced their letter of July 9,

1985 to VDOT and stated that additional comments would be transmitted

via letter as soon as possible. An October 9, 19B5 letter from the USFWS
provides comments and recommendations. In these letters, the Fish and
Wildlife Service recommended the reintroduction of Alignment A-1 to
avoid endangered species involvement while minimizing wetland stream
crossings. The Service prefers that stream crossings be accomplished by
construction of bridges, where feasible. Where not feasible, bottomless
box culverts are preferred; otherwise the box should be countersunk to
provide for low flow/aquatic organism passage and natural streambed
development. Since the proposed interchange at Route 612 on Alignment
A is expected to adversely impact a significant amount of bottomland
hardwood swamp within the Chisel Run drainage, the draft EIS should
discuss the need for this interchange as well as measures to avoid the
wetland or to significantly minimize encroachment. They stressed that
every effort to avoid and minimize impacts must be thoroughly
investigated before replacement will be considered as mitigation by the

Service.

Disposition: The dePartment has developed Revised Line A in response to
this request.

This alternative alignment will not impact the small-whorled pagonia
(Isotria medeoloides). This alternative will be given appropriate con-
sideration in addition to Alignments A, A-2 and D.

All measures to avoid, minimize, rectify and compensate impacts are
detailed in the Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report.

5. Comment: The National Marine Fisheries Service favors Aliqnment A-1;
however they would like to see alignment changes to minimize wetland
impacts, a value assessment of the wetlands, and an opportunity to review
the methodology. They prefer that floodplains be bridged on open piles.
If culverts must be used, their design should accommodate anadromous
fish. Wetland mitigation should be accomplished downstream of the
impoundment in order to optimize estuarine values.

6-6

Disposition: The purpose of the review process is to select the best
alignment. Your preference for A-1 will be considered.

The current set of proposed alignments minimize wetland encroachment
to the greatest extent possible. All encroachment on Alignments A and
A-1 are perpendicular crossings that limit impact to smallest acreage
possible. Most wetlands encroachment on Alignment D are 21SO perpen-
diCU12r crossings which minimize wetland losses. Additionally, one of the
proposed crossinqs will be bridged. The one parallel encroachment has
been moved out of the flOOdpl2ins wetland as far as possible.

Wetlands were assessed on 2 value basis using the Adamus method and
detailed in the Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report.

Floodplain bridging using open-pileS at all locations is not economically
practical. Properly designed culverts will minimize any increase in
velocity or scouring. Culverts on Long Hill Swamp Creek and Chisel Run
can be designed to accommodate anadromous fish by providing for low
flow conditions using sills, berms, countersinking and/or bottomless pi pe

arches.

Potential areas for mitigation are detailed in the Water Resources and
Ecology Technical Report. Most of these areas are downstream of the
Chisel Run impoundment.

6. Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency concurred with Fish and
Wildlife Service comments.

DiSDOSi -tion: None required.

7. Comment: The Army Corps of Engineers stated a preference for
Alignment A-1 but they want to see significant reductions in adverse
wetland impacts. They prefer that wetlands be spanned on open pile
structures. All mud waves should be removed, and all wetland loss be
mitigated on a one for one basis.

0-7

Disposition: Impact minimization to wetlands has been accomplished
through design changes to the extent practical. Mitigation r1lans are
detailed in the Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report. Open-pile
structures or spanning 211 wetlands is not economically practical. Cul-
verts can be designed to minimize impact and provide for low
flow/aquatic organism passage and natural streamland development.

Written comments received on the IDEIS are included in sections 6.1.1

6.1.3. These comments are included in their entirity and are separated
according to Federal, state or local agencies.

6.1.1 Federal Agencies

6-8

Advisory
Council On
1-fistoric
Preservation

The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NNY, #809
Washington. DC 20004

MAR 1 8 1.986

Mr. James M. Tumlin
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
400 North Eighth Street
P.O. Box 10045
Richmond, VA 23240

Dear Mr. Tualin:

On FeDruary 3, 1986, the Council received the draft Environmental Imapct
Statement/4(f) Statement and your request for comments on the Route 199
extension in James City and York Counties, Virginia. Since that time we
have received a copy of the Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
report for the project.

We have reviewed these documents, which include correspondence with the
Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Because no final
decision has been reached on the route of the extension, we have no
substantive comments to make at: this time. We concur, however, with the
Virginia SHPO's comments and the recommendations in the Survey report, that
once a preferred alternative is selected, Phase II investigations should
proceed in order to determine which archaeological sites may be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places.

We appreciate your involving the Council at this stage in the planning
process, and look forward to working with you on the final mitigation plans.
If you have any questioas about: our comments, please call Tom McCulloch at
202-786-05U5 (a n FTS number).

Ly ,
i"OLO

Dcn I ima.
C @e stern Division
cr_
f r ecc Review :r
C-J MAR 2 0 IPBG

E 1`4 v 1 i-4 J.M E N TA L
VA. QUALI-rY DIV.

Di s posi tion:

Revised Line A has been selected. Phase II Archaeological Investigations
have been conducted and included in this report.
Y,

6-9

Fcderal Emcrgciacy Managcmciit Agcncy
Region Ill IOS South 70% Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

February 18, 1986
RECEIVED

F E B 2. :' 1286

EINIV:RONNIENTAL
R. L. Hundley QUALITY DIV.
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23319

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Rt 199, James City York Counties

Dear Mr. Hundley:

This is a response to your transmittal of January 29, 1986. In Section
5.10.6 of the subject Environmental Impact Statement, it states that
"culverts and bridges will be designed such that the base flood elevation
will not be increased by more than one (1) foot". For the most part,
there is no increase allowed in the 100 year flood elevation. It appears
'@- e -quoted statement misinterprets the objective of Executive
that the bo7
Order 11988.

We recommend that your office contact one of our engineers to discuss
this project and the requirements of Executive Order 11988 in more
detail. Sincerely,

Pier-on
Chief,
Natural and Technological
Hazards Division

TTY FOR DFAF 215-597-0850

Disposition:

The project will be designed i n compliance with E.O. 11988

6-10

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region 111 105 South 7th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

March 12, 1986

RECEIVED

MAR 17 1986

Mr. Vincent J. Valenti ENVIRONMENTAL
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation QUALITY DIV.
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Route 199
Project 0199-965-101-PE-100
James City & York Counties

Dear Mr. Valenti:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the referenced project.
To that end we would like to request a copy of the Water Resources
and Ecology Technical Report for review. We did note in the Draft
EIS that the "action" complies with Executive Order 11988. By viewing
the Technical Report we would like to determine if the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways & Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration
and FEMA, Region III review process and criteria are compatable. We
are particularly interested in the impact to the designated floodway
when applicable.

Please forward the Technical Report to Thomas M. Majusiak, P.E. of my
staff.

Sincerely,

Walter P. Pierson
Chief,
Natural and Technological
Hazards Division

TTY FOR DEAF 215-597-0850

Disposition:

The Technical Report was forwarded to Mr. Pierson.

6-11

Managcmcnt Agcncy
7 Federal Emergcncy I
Izegion @11 105 South 71h Strcct Philadclphia, Pennsylvania 19106

APR April 14, 1986
Er.;
QUALifY DIV.

R. L. Hundley
Virginia Department of Highways Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re: Route 199
Project: 0199-965-101, PE-100
Dear Mr. Hundley: James City & York County, Va.

We have reviewed the Final Technical Report "Water Resources and Ecology"
for the referenced project. It had been noted in the EIS that the Technical
Report would detail the findings in regard to Executive Order 11988.

Overall we have found very little discussion in the Technical Report
concerning E.O. 11988 and no calculations concerning the impact on the 100-
year elevation. As a minimum we would require the following information in
order to make an adequate review.

1. Identification of all stream crossings in relation to status of NFIP
mapping, ie., floodway, floodfringe, approximate study, no study.

2. Increase or decrease in 100-year profile or floodway profile.

3. Length of stream affected upstream of project.

4. Methodology used to calculate floodway impacts.

If you have any questions regarding our concerns, please contact Thomas M.
Majusiak, P.E. in our office.

Sincerely,
MLo 0(1
%

Walter P. Pierson
Chief
Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
D, VA.

TTY FOR DEAF 215-597-ns.5o

D i s po s i ti on:

According to the Department's policy, culverts and/or bridges will be designed
to accommodate the 100 year stream flow. Proper engineering methods will be
employed by the Department to ensure that no upstream impacts will result to the
floodway or floodfringe. Environmental agencies will have the opportunity to
review and comment on permit applications for all dredge and fill activities.

6-12

United States Soil 3127 Forge Road
Department of Conservation Toano, Virginia 23168
Agriculture Service

RECEIVED February 24, 1986
FEB 24 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL Route 199
QUALITY DIV. Project: 0199-965-101, PE-100

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Department of Highways & Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

The "Draft Enviromental Impact Statement" for Route 199 has been reviewed.

1. Enclosed is a "Flood Hazard Analyses - Powhatan Creek and Tributaries"
which may be of help in your decision making process.

2. We do not have any additional comments inasmuch as it appears areas
of concern have been adequately addressed.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Lester L. Seglin
District Conservationist

The Soil Conservation Service SCS AS 1
is an agency of the 10-79
Department of Agriculture

Disposition:

No response required.

6-13

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Habitat Conservation Branch
State Fish Pier
Gloucester, MA 01930-3097

March 20, 1986

Mr. R.L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Water Resources
and Ecology Technical Report (WRETR) for the proposed Route 199
project in James City and York Counties and provides the
following comments.

General Comments

The NMFS maintains its position that bridges should be utilized
in roadway construction to minimize adverse impacts to wetland
habitats. The DEIS states that bridges would be cost-
prohibitive, however, no data are provided to substantiate that
bridges are not economically feasible alternatives. The document
should include the estimated costs of bridge and single and
multiple bottomless box culvert construction for each alternative
alignment. The DEIS should also discuss all alternatives that
minimize direct and indirect wetland impacts, allow passage of
anadromous resources, maintain circulation, natural stream
meandering, and detritral export, particularly during minimum
flows.

The NMFS remains concerned that the proposed project will
adversely impact anadromous fish species. Davis et al. (1970)
confirmed Powhatan Creek as a spawning site of alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), although
the upstream limit of spawning was uncertain. Based on the known
life history and ecological requirements of these species, and
considering the habitat found within the project site, it is our
opinion that these locations are suitable spawning sites for the
alosids previously mentioned, particularly the alewife. The
WRETR noted that fish sampling was conducted in May and August to
identify endemic juvenile and adult fish species in each of the
creeks and associated shallow water habitats. Sampling conducted
at these times likely missed alosid spawning, and therefore, the
NMFS recommends that additional sampling be conducted in Powhatan
Creek and its tributaries from mid-March through May to confirm
whether these streams are utilized as alosid spawning sites. The
sampling should be designed to document the presence of alosid
eggs and larvae and the extent to which these streams are
utilized as alosid spawning and nursery habitat.

6-14

The NMFS prefers an alignment, that will eliminate or minimize
adverse impacts to wetlands, and anadromous fish, while avoiding
the small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), an endangered
species, located within the path of proposed alignment A. It
appears alignment A-1 is a feasible alternative that would
eliminate adverse impacts to the I. medeoloides population, while
minimizing the impacts to palustrine wetland and bottomland
hardwood habitats.

The DEIS should discuss in greater detail specific wetland
impacts and proposed mitigation plans. Although the WRETR
identifies impacts and mitigation plans in detail, additional
information should be supplied in the DEIS rather than cross-
referencing the WRETR document. The NMFS recognizes the need and
mandate to limit the extent of discussion in the DEIS. However,
key information such as site-specific direct wetland impacts and
mitigation sites with detailed plans should not be omitted from
the document. Results of the impact analyses (Adamus method) and
descriptions of the specific mitigation plans and costs should be
discussed fully and concisely in the DEIS.

Specific Comments

Section 4.9.4, pg. 4-50, par. 3. The second sentence should
read: "Anadromous species having the greatest potential for
utilizing these creeks are alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)." The NMFS recommends that
the following sentences supplement this section: "Lower Powhatan
Creek has been confirmed as an alosid spawning site (Davis et al.
1970), and spawning is known to occur at least as far upstream
as mile 8.7 (mudre et al. 1985). However, based on the known
life histories of these species, and their habitat requirements,
the entire project area represents potential habitat, especially
for A. pseudoharengus."

Section 5.10.5, pg. 5-47, par. 1. The sixth sentence should
read: "In comparison, Alignments A and A-2 result in a total
direct loss of 10.6 acres, whereas Alignment A-1 results in a
total loss of 8.9 acres."

Section 5.10.5, pg. 5-50, par. 2. The section identifies
mitigation procedures for direct loss of palustrine emergent
wetlands. The importance and direct loss of bottomland hardwood
habitats should also be discussed and related to proposed
mitigation measures. All unavoidable losses of irreplaceable
bottomland hardwood habitats should be specifically identified.

Section 5.13, pg. 5-55, par. 1. The second sentence leads one to
believe that impacts to ecological comunities are typically
minor and short in duration. The NMFS recommends that the
statement be rephrased to eliminate misinterpretation. We
suggest that the following sentences be substituted: "Some fish
and benthic macroinvertebrate communities recover to pre-project

6-15

conditions in a short time period . However , depenJing on the
community affected and the magnitude of impact, some populations
may never recover to the pre-projecL conditions of species
diversity and abundance."

Section 5.17, eq. 5-59_, par. 1. The DEIS states that all wetland
fringe are-as disturbed by roadway construction shall be restored
by regrading, seeding, planting, and fertilization, while direct
wetland losses will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The document
should state that each restoration or mitigation site will be
created with species endemic to the. wetlands located within the
project site. Any wetlands habitat impacted by construction
related mudwaves should be noted in the document and included as
.breas to be fully restored. Monitoring of restoration and
mitigation sites should be conducted to determine success or
failure. The DEIS should furthet state that if such monitoring
demonstrates that restoration and/or mitigation have proven
unsatisfactory, then any unsuccessful sit& will be physically
altered or replanted until the objectives of in-kind replacement
have been achieved'.

Should there be questions concerning our comments, please contact
either James Turek or Ed-Christoffecs, at (301) 226-5771.

sincerely,

Thomas 13. 13i9ford
Bi:anch Chief

6-16

LITERATURE CITED

Davis, J., J.P. Miller, and W.L. Wilson. 1970. Biology and
utilization of anadromous alosids. Completion Report,
Anadromous Fish Project Virginia AFC-1.

Mudre, J.M., J.J. Ney, and R.J. Neves. 1985. Analysis of
impediments to spawning migrations of anadromous fish in
Virginia rivers: Phase II. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife
Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.

6-17

1. Section 4.9.4., p. 4-50, par 3

The spelling was corrected for Alosa psudoharengus and Alosa.aestivalis.

2. Section 5.10.5, p. 5-47, par I

The sixth sentence in this paragraph was corrected.

3. Section 5.10.5, p. 5-50, par 2

Comments addressed in Section 5.10.5.

4. Section 5.13, p. 5-55, par 1

The wording was changed as suggested.

5. Section 5.17, p. 5-59, par I

Comments addressed in Section 5.17.

General Comments

Disposition:

In response to this and similar agency comments, a detailed cost comparison of two
methods of wetland crossing was prepared: 1) crossing wetlands using bridges versus
2) crossing wetlands on culverted fill. Costs of the latter method o-f -crossing included
the establishment and monitoring of a mitigation site.

The breakdown of mitigation costs was based on a generalized estimate to be used for
comparative analyses only. The total cost of crossing wetlands on fill by bridging is
approximately eleven times the cost of crossing of wetlands on fill with culverts.

6-18

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Philadelphia Regional Office, Region III
Liberty Square Building
105 South Seventh Street
ji_
Philadelpl a, Pennsylvania 19106-3392

2 4 MAR 1986

Mr. Robert L. Ilundley
Environmental Quality Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
1401 East Broad Street, Room 114 Annex
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. flundley:

We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Route 199 James City and York Counties. In general, we consider the
document to have been well done, thorough and comprenhensive. We do feel,
however, that it would be enhanced by the incLusion of a future land use map
for this study corridor. Also, we recommend that certain of the maps, such as
that of wetlands, should indicate the source of the information.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We would appreciate a copy of
the Final statement when it is compleLed.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Levine
Regional Environmental Officer

V L
MAR 2 7 1,280
EINVIrCT-ImE-@j rAL
QUAI-I I Y [)IV.

N s,os !on:

A Planned Land Use exhibit (Figure 4). is included in the Socioeconomic
Technical Report which is available a, the lir,inia le,arlment of li,hways
and Transportation. The source of information has been added to the
exhibits in this report.

6-19

r0,1
United States Departinent of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
1825B VIRGINIA STREET
ANNAPOLIS, ikIARYLAND 21,10Ir

M(-CEIVED'
February 14, 1986

FEB 2 4 1286

Mr. R. L. Hundley ENVIRONMENTAL
Environmental Engineer QUALITY DIV.
Virginia Department of Ilighways
and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA. 23219

Re: Draft environmental impact
statement for Rt. 199, James City
and York Counties, Virginia

Dear Mr. Hundley:

We have received a copy of the draft environmental impact statement for the
referenced project. In order for us to make a thorough review of potential
impacts upon fish and wildlife resources, please forward a copy of the
"Water Resources and Ecology Technical Report" to the attention of Diane
Eckles.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on the draft
statement. Our comments will be incorporated into the Department of the
Interior's respons.e on the environmental document.

Sincerely yours,

Glenn Kinser
@@Supervisor
Annapolis Field Office

Di s pos i ti on:

The Technical Report was sent as requbs,ted.

6-20

United States Department ofthe Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DIVISION OF ECOWGICAL SERVICES
1825B VIRGINIA STREET
ANNAPOLIS.,',IARN'L-%ND 21401

March 18, 1986

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: Route 199, James City and
York Counties -- Draft
Dear Mr. Hundley: Environmental Impact Statement

This responds to your request of January 29, 1986, for Service comments on
the referenced project. As a normal procedure, our comments are
incorporated into one Department of the Interior letter and fowarded to the
Federal Highway Administration. They will provide you with those comments.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to provide comments on the
proposed project.

Sincerely yours,

t-@ Glenn Kinser
Supervisor
Annapolis Field Office

MAR 2 1 1196 6

QUALI I DIV.

Disposition:

No response required.

6-21

A,e
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NilaATLANTIC REGION
Custoni House, Rooin 502
Second and Chestnut Streets
ER 86/159
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
March 21, 1986
V E D
James M. Tumlin MAR 2 7 112120
E 14 V I F%'O 1\1 M E NTA L
Division Administrator QUALITY DIV.
Federal Highway Administration
P.O. Box 10045
Richmond, Virginia 23240

Dear Mr. Tumlin:

This is in response to the request for the Department of the Interior's
comments on the draft environmental statement for SR-199 (SR-5 to 1-64),
James City and York Counties, Virginia.

PRELIMINARY SECTION 4(f) STATEMENT COMMENTS

The draft environmental statement acknowledges that construction, no
matter which of the two build alternatives is selected, could have
considerable impact on a number of significant. prehistoric and historic
archeological resources. Recommendations for a Phase II Significant
Assessment Survey were made to the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO).

With regard to the first proviso of Section 4(f), we would be willing
to concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to use of
archeological resources; however, with regard to the second proviso of
Section 4(f), we recommend the continued coordination and consultation
with the SHPO for the protection and preservation of any identified
archeological resources. Documentation of concurrence with tile project
planning for the cultural resources should be incorporated into the final
document.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT COMMENTS

Mineral Resources

The affect of the proposed project on minerals was not addressed in the
draft statement, but owing to the urban nature of the area to be affected,
project impacts on mineral resources would probably be insignificant. For
completeness, future versions of the document should include a statement
regarding impacts on mineral resources as a result of project implementa-
tion.

6-22

Mr. James M. Tumlin 2

Fish and Wildlife Resources

With regard to project impacts upon fish and wildlife resources, the
draft environmental statement is adequate, but there are several areas
where further comment is appropriate.

Section 3.3, Build Alternatives - We commend the U.S. Department of
Transportation and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
for including the additional alternative, A-1, as recommended by the
Fish and Wildlife Service. We support utilization of this alternative
route to avoid impacts on the endangered small-whorled pogonia.

Section 4.9.5, Wetlands - The hydroperiod modifiers should read,
"seasonal ly-f looded, seasonal ly-saturated, and temporarily flooded."

Section 5.5.3., Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat - We are pleased with the
mitigation measures included in this section and hope that not only will
future documents incorporate similar measures to mitigate impacts upon our
dwindling terrestrial resources, but that such measures will be included
in the final design plans. Additionally, we recommend that deer fencing,
wildlife underpasses, and minimal clearing of existing vegetation within
the right-of-way be included in the final design plans.

Section 5.5.4, Threatened /Endangered Species - We recommend adding the
following sentences to the end of this s-ection:

"In response to Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, Alignment
A-1, which would avoid adverse impacts on I. medeoloides, has been
reintroduced. For further discussion of this issue see Section 6,
comments and coordination, page 6-6."

Section 5.10.5, Wetlands - Table 5-9 should be revised for Alignments
A/A-l and A/A-2 at the Chisel Run wetland located west of the state
hospital. Both of these sites impact 1.3 acres of PFOIC not PFOIA
wetland.

The envirormiental document and the "Water Resources and Ecology Technical
Report" are vague on the total amount of wetlands to be impacted at Chisel
Run by Alignments A, A/A-1, and A/A-2 in the vicinity of Long Hill Road.
It is not clear how much acreage will be impacted at Chisel Run by the
proposed interchange and roadway crossing. It would be helpful to show
the station numbers, referenced in Table 4.2 of the technical report, on
Figure 4-11 of the draft statement.

In accordance with the Department's mitigation policy, the wetland habi-
tats to be crossed by Alignments A, A/A-1, and A/A-2 are categorized as
Resource Category 2. Due to the type and amount of wetlands involved in
Alignment D, we object to its selection. It is the Department's position

6-23

Mr. James M. Tumlin 3

that replacement of Resource Category 2 habitat values be in-kind,
wherever possible. Unfortunately, forested wetlands cannot be r eplaced
immediately, but inGtead must begin at an earlier successional stage.
Therefore, in order to compensate for forested wetland losses, we
recommend that a scrub/shrub dominated wetlands on a greater than 1:1
acreage basis be developed. By creating a scrub/shrub dominated wetland,
eventual succession to a forested wetland will occur. By increasing the
acreage involved, the time need for establishment of a forested wetland
and its associated values is somewhat compensated. Therefore, it is
our recommendation that the coinpensation plan be revised to include a
dominance of shrubs in lieu. of emergent plants and that the wetland
creation site be increased in size, so that a minimum of a 2: 1 acreage
ratio be achieved. Although we are cognizant of the Federal Highway
Administration's policy regarding wetland replacement, we are not aware
of any similar policy preventing the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation from providing greater than 1:1 replacement.

As previously requested at the September 26, 1985 highway coordination
meeting and by letter dated October 9, 1985, any wetland compensation plan
should be coordinated with the Fish and Wildlife Service before inclusion
in the draft environmental document. This coordination has not occurred
and as a result, the proposed wetland replacement plan is not acceptable.
It is suggested that, before the mitigation proposal is included in the
final environmental impact statement, the Federal Highway Administration
contact the Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve this issue.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT COMMENTS

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) comments on a Department of the
Army permit application for the project as presently proposed would be
to recommend (1) selection of alignment A/A-1; (2) further reduction of
wetland encroachments, particularly in the vicinity of Long Hill Road,
where bridging of the wetlands is recommend-ed; (3) incorporation of
culverts within the wetland; (4) all crossings that have been identified
as potential mud wave areas be demucked; (5) inclusion of bottomless
culverts, where feasible; (6) where bottomless culverts are not feasible
due to substrate, then the culverts should be countersunk 12" to facil-
itate low flow conditions and passage of aquatic organisms; (7) all
unavoidable wetland losses be replaced in-kind; and, (8) incorporation
of the FWS sediment and erosion control measures. Should the wetland
compensation plan as presented in the draft environmental document be
included in an application for a Corps permit, the FWS will recommend
denial of the permit.

StWfARY CMIENTS

The Department of the Interior favors the selection of Alignment A/A-l
which would have the least impact on environmental resources. Provided

6-24

Mr. James M. Tumlin 4

the measures mentioned above are included and documented in the final
statement, the Department would offer no objection to Section 4(f)
approval.
Sincerely,
-a-16J
Anita J.
RegionalVnvironmental Officer

cc:
Robert L. Hundley
Environmental Quality Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Room 114 Annex
Richmond, Virginia 23219

H. Bryan Mitchell, Director
Division of Historic Landmarks
Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

6-25

1. Preliminary Section 4(4) Statement Concerns

A Phase H archaeological study has been conducted and included in this report.

2. Mineral Resources

A discussion of Mineral Resources has been included in sections 4.9.2 and 5.10.2.

3. Section 3.3, Build Alternatives

No response required.

4. Section 4.9.5, Wetlands

The wording was changed as suggested.

5. Section 5.5.3, Terrestrial WildlifeHabitat

Mitigation measures including right-of-way fencing and minimal clearing within
the right-of-way have been incorporated in the document. Wildlife underpassess
are not incorporated as a part of this project due to the lack of large mignatory
species in the project area.

6. Section 5.5.4, Threat ened/E ndangered Species

An additional paragraph was included in this section as follows: 'In response to
the Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, Alignment A-1, which would
avoid adverse impacts on Isotria medeoloides, has been reintroduced."
Subsequent to the public hearing, a further refinement of Alignment A, Revised
Line A, was introduced to minimize the impact on Isotria medeolides and reduce
project costs. A discussion of this alignment is fould in the summary of this
report (Section 5.5.4).

7. Section 5.10.5, Wetlands

The wetland designation at Chisel Run has been changed to PFOIC. Regarding
the extent of wetland impact at Long Hill Road reference Appendix F in the
FEIS. The M-6A mitigation plan is included in Appendix B of this document.

In response to agency comments about mitigation, the wetland compensation
plan will be based on 2 1 to I in kind replacement of wetland resources. The
M-6A mitigation Plan is included in Appendix B of this document.

In response to comments regarding the wetland replacement ratio, it is currently
Departmental policy to mitigate wetland losses on a 1 to 1 ratio.

8. Fish and Wildlif e Coordination Act Comments

Coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service has continued throughout the
project. Appendix B documents this coordination and provides a mitigation plan
f or Site M-6A which Was requested during an interagency field review.

6-26

-87- ------
Uniteci States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERII]Cc
DV,ISION OF ECOLOGICAL SE10,1CES
1,1RGUNIA ST REET
ANNAPOLIS. NIARYUND 2t,01
March 28, 1986 w.

C
Mr. S. A. Nash, Jr.
District Engineer
Department of Righways and Transportation
P.O. Box 1070
Suffolk, Virginia. 23434

Dear Mr. Nash:

This letter is written in response to your call for comments on the
alternative proposals for Route 199 in James City.Couaty and York County,
Virginia. We request that it be made a part of your record for the April 3
public hearing.

As you know, the Fish and Wildlif e Service has recommended a modification
of Alternative A, know,, as A-1, to eliminate impacts on the small-whorled
pogonia, a Federal and state listed endangered plant occurring adjacent to,
the Alternative A right-of-way. Transplantation of the pogonia is not a
desirable alternative, because, to date, transplantation of this species
has not been successful.

We were pleased to see that the recent draft EIS for the project included a
description of A.1ternative A-1 and an explanation of the need for it. In
our review of the EIS, we commended both your department and the Federal
Highways Administration for giving this alternative full consideration. It
was our understanding that this alternative was being given very careful
con:ideration and was rather likely to be selected. For this reason, no
for al Endangered Species Act consultation has been conducted with Federal
Highways on Alternative A.

However, should the original Alternative A be selected, highway
construction would definitely impact the pogonia and therefore the
Endangered Species Act would riquire the responsible Federal agency to
enter formal consultation with us concerning these Impacts, before any
irretrievable commitments of resources to this project were made.

In conclusion, we continue to support Alternative A-1 to avoid impacts on
the endangered small-whorled pogonia.
Sincer,-I,;,

,41enn Kinser
Supervisor
Annapolis Field Office

Disposition:

A revised Line A has been sel ected The impact to. the pogonia (Isotria Medeoloides)
is discussed in the Section 7 w*'hi 'ch is, i'ncl uded as an appendix to this report and
summarized in the Summary Section.'

6-27

U.S.Department REGION III 434 Walnut Steet
of Transportation Pennsylvania. D.C. Suite 1010
Delaware Maryland, Philadelphia, Pennsylania 19106
Urban Mass West Virginia, Virginia
Transportation
Administration
February 5, 1986

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23215

RE: Route 199
Dear Mr. Hundley: Draft EIS/4(f) Statement

Thank you for your January 29, 1986 letter requesting our comments on the
draft Environmental Impact/4 (f) Statement.

There appears to be no impact on mass transit as a result of this project
and since no UMTA funds will be used in the development of this project,
we have no comments to offer.

We appreciate your thinking of mass transit and please let us know if we
can be of any assistance to you in the future.

Sincerely,

Devendra M. Soni
Director, Office of Management and
Technical Assistance

RECEIVED
FEB 10 1986

ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY DIV.

Disposition:

No response required.

6-28

Memorandum

US Department of
Transportation
Office of the Secretary
of Transportation

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Subject: Route 199 - James City and York Counties Date: FEB 11
FHWA-VA-EIS-86-01-D

Joseph Canny Reply to
Director, Office of Transportaiton Attn of
From: Regulatory Affairs

To: Eugene W. Cleckley
Chief, Environmental Operations Division, HEV-11

We have reviewed the subject DEIS and recommend that a phase II
Archaeological Study for the purpose of identifying and evaluating
potential resources precede the selection of a preferred build
alternative and issuance of the Final EIS.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DEIS and look
forward to receiving the final EIS.

Disposition:

A Phase II Archaeoligical Study has been conducted and incorporated in
Section 5 of this report.

6- 29

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

'86

Mr. Robert L. Hundley
Environmental Quality Engineer'
Virginia Department of Highways
& Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Room 114 Annex
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS);
Route 199, Route 5 in James City County to Interstate 64
in York County (D.F11W.D402l6.VA)

Dear Mr. Itundley:

This letter will serve as a confirmation of our conversation of
21 March 1986 regarding the request for extension for the filing
of EPA Region III comments to the referenced project. The original
filing date of 24 March, 1986 has been extended to 4 April 1986.
We do not anticipate further delays in our comment letter.

Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact Mr. Jelfrey Alper
(215/597-7828) for project specific issues.

Sincerely,

Richard V. Vepino, Chief
NEPA Compliance Section

2 7
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUAI-Ily DIV.

Di sposi ti on:

No response required.

6-30

VW3 to hf

9
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR i9w
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
@Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
PROA

F-
LD 0 '86
APR 14 1286
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY DIV.

Robert Hundley
Virginia Department of Highways
& Tranqportaltion
1401 E. Broad Street
Room 114 Annex
Richmond, VA 23219

Re: Route 199
DF11W D40216-VA

Dear @Ir. Hundley:

In accordance with the authority delegated to EPA under Section 309
of the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
EPA has reviewed the DEIS for the above referenced project. We are
concerned over the issues noted below, which should be clarified in the
FEIS. Consequently, we have assigned tlie project an EC-2 rating on EPA's
reference scale, a copy of which is attached for your reference.

The following suggestions are offered for your consideration. We
feel that their inclusion in the HIS would enhance the clarity and
quality of the final document.

GROUND 14ATER

Although the DEIS touches upon ground water issues in Secrions
4.9.2 and 5.10.2, EPA is concerned over the lack of details presented
with regard to the impact that the project could have on the aquifers
in the area. The document notes that the Cretaceous is the most
productive of the four aquifers present, yet does not define the
hydrogeologic or production capabilities of this or the other three
systems. The HIS should consider this shortcoming and t1ioroughly
describe the physical locations, depths, withdrawal capacity and
susceptibility of each of these aquifers to disturbances created
by the project. In addition, the role that these factors inight play
in the future development of the area should be explored, since it
is inevitable that it will occur.

6-31

Regarding drinking water, the FEIS should also include information on
the location and production of wells that could be affected by the
construction and operation of each of the alignments. Sec tio n 5. 10. 2
mentions that any well discovered during construction will be scaled
to prevent future pollution. While we appreciate this plan, EPA is
concerned with the overall quality of ground water and feels that the
discussion should be expanded to encompass more than just the disturbance
to existing wells. The broader implications of contamination of the
aquifers, regardless of the presence of wells should be considered
in the FEIS, with measures planned to' mitigate for any damages.

NOISE

The HIS should include a stipulation which would limit maintenance
of construction equipment to the same hours that heavy equipment is
permitted to be in use. In addition to the requirements that only factory
recommended exhaust mufflers be used, there should be a requirement that
those mufflers be in proper working order.

Based on the information presented, EPA wishes to reiterate its
preference for Alignment A-1, as it appears to cause the least
environmental disturbance. We thank you for including EPA in the early
coordination process and appreciate your consideration of our input. We
look forward to working with you in the future, especially in the area of
wetland mitigation, as final design plans develop. Feel free to contact
Jeffrey Alper of my staff at (215) 597-7817 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
4@iQA--j V.

Richard V. Pepino
Chief, NEPA Compliance Section

Attachments

6-32

Disposition:

1. Comments have been noted and appropriate revisions made to
the document in sections 4.9.2 and 5.10.2.

2. Section 5.13.2. Noise. The third paragraph in this section
was changed to read: " A method of controlling construction
noise is to establish the maximum level of noise that
construction operations can generate. In view of this, the
Department has developed and FHWA has approved, a
specification which establishes construction noise limits.
The contractor will be required to conform to, this
specification to reduce the impact of construction noise an
the surrounding community. This specification is included
as Appendix E.11

6-33

S. MASON CARDAUGH RAYMOND D. VAUCHAN
COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
P.O. Box 1163, Riclunond, Virginia 23209

February 5, 1986

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

My staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement relating to Route 199 in James City
and York Counties. The needs for the project tend to
outweigh the loss of 20+ acres of farmland.

I appreciate the opportunity to review this project
from an agricultural standpoint.

Sincerely,

S./Mason Carbaugb
Commissioner
bmc

FED 712N

F,*:t 1.

Di sposi ti on:

No response requi red.

6-35

ELIZABETH H. HASKELL, CHAIRMAN
MARTINSVILLE

CARL C. REDINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN
ALEXANDRIA

EDGAR B. BOYNTON
RICHMOND COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
TIMOTHY E. BARROW
VIRGINIA BEACH State Air Pollution Control Board W. R. MEYER
Post Office Box 10049 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WALLACE E. REED RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23240
CHARLOTTESVILLE TELEPHONE: (804) 386-2378

February 7, 1986

RECEIVED

Mr. R. L. Hundley FEB 1 1 1986
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation ENVIRONMENTAL
1221 East Broad Street QUALITY DIV.
Richmond, Virgingia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

Please reference your January 29, 1986 letter concerning the proposed Route
199-James City and York County Project 0199-965-101-PE-100.

The Board's concern, temporary effects due to construction (fugitive dust
and open burning of landclearing debris), are adequately addressed since they
are to be performed in accordance with the VDH&T Road and Bridge Specifications
as stated on page 5-57, 5.13.1.

The dispersion modeling data for CO concentrations shown in Table 5-2, Page
5-26, predicts levels well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The project, as proposed, will conform to the Virignia State Implementation Plan
(SIP).

Sincerely,

W. W. Parks
Acting Assistant Executive Director
Air Quality Programs

WWP /KMM: evb

"An Equal Opportunity Employer"

Disposition:
No response required. 6-36

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
KENNETH A. ROWE Department of Aviation P.O. Box 7716
Director RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23231
FEB 2 4508 South Laburnum Avenue 804 786 1364
February 20, 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY DIV.

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re: Route 199, James City and York Counties, 0199-047-102,103

Dear Mr. Hundley:

We have reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
have the following comments:

1. The operational activity at Williamsburg-Jamestown Airport would not appear
to be directly affected by the proposed project.

2. The proposed project would provide better access to the Williamsburg-
Jamestown Airport for those approaching from the West on 1-64.

I hope these comments will be helpful to you and should you have any further
comments, please feel free to call upon me.

Sincerely,

Ted I. Alman
Airport Engineer
Airport Services Division

TIA/map

Disposition:

No response required.

6-37

-82-

RECEIVED
M A R 3 1 'C-S 6
14- W, CQ:4CE
COMMONWEALTH of VIRQRNIA

COLONIAL SOIL ANO WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
3127 Forge Road - Toano, Virginia 23168

March 27, 1986

Mr F. N. Hall
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
Po St Office Box HD
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187

FLE: Proposed Route 199 - York County
Between 1-64 Lightfoot Interchange
and Route 60

Dear Mr. Hall:

On March i3, 1986, the Directors of this District voted unanimously to
strongly oppose selection of Route D. This route poses environmental
hazards in that it crosses streams, springs, ravines and steep land in
the Waller Mill Reservoir watershed and is the closest of the three
alternatives to this public water source.

Alternative A, which crosses high, level ground, much of which drains
away from Waller Mill is our preferred route.

Alternativ-e A-2, which is also high and level and further from the
reservoir than D would be much preferable to D.

I
sh uld b noted that both the York County Board of Supervisors and
t Woilliam:burg City Council (for this section of 199) also oppose
the
Line D.

Sincerely-yours,

Ryland C. Hazelwood
Secretary

Disposition:

A revised Line A has been selected.
ECEIVID"
31
@MAR @6
CC_

6-38

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
COMMISSION MEMBERS Commission for the Arts PEGGY J. BAGGETT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MRS. ANDREW P. MILLER JAMES MONROE BUILDING
CHAIRMAN 401 N. 14 ST-17th FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
TELEPHONE (804) 225-3132
MRS. ROBERT L. BURRUS, JR
VICE CHAIRMAN
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA February 3, 1986

MRS. MARY W. LAWSON
RICHLANDS, VIRGINIA

MR. GEORGE KEITHMARTIN
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Mr. R. L. Hundley
MR DINGWALL LEARY Environmental Engineer
MCLEAN, VIRGINIA
Department of Highways and Transportation
MR. DAVID R. GOODE 1221 East Broad Street
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Richmond, VA 23219
MS SUSAN S. HOFFMAN
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Dear Mr. Hundley:
MR. PAUL T. MATTOX
MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental

COL. ARTHUR RITCHINGS impact statement of James City and York Counties.
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA
I have no comments.
MRS JACQUELINE J. SEGALOFF
NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA
Sincerely,
MRS. CARL W. SMITH
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA

MRS. MARGARETTE M. SMITH
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Peggy J. Baggett
Executive Director
MRS. TRACY SPENO
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA

FEB 6 1986

ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY DIV.

Disposition:

No response required.

6-39

Forestry Divisions
Historic Landmarks
Litter Control
Parks and Recreation
Soil and Water Conservation COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources
RECEIVED Division of Historic Landmarks Research center for advisoring
Route 238. P.O. Box 360
H. Bryan Mitchell, Director Yorktown VIrginia
FEB 2 4 1986 Telephone (801) 253-1836
ENVIRONMENTAL February 20, 1986
QUALITY DIV.

R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Dept. of Highways & Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: 0199-965-101, PE-100
James City & York Counties

Dear Mr. Hundley,

Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the draft environ-
mental impact statement for the above project.

Tile sections of tile EIS on cultural resources adequately addresses
our agencys concerns regarding the need for Phase Il significance evaluations
for archaeological sites,and that there will be no impact to significant
architectural resources.

Should you have any questions on the above comments please do not
hesitate to contact this office.

Sincere

Bruce rson
Review & Compliance CoordinaLor

cc: Calder Loth

Disposition:

Also see letters of November 19, 1985 and August 1, 1985 in
appendix C of this document.
6-40

FORESTRY DIVISIONS
HISTORIC LANDMARKS
LITTER CONTROL
B. C. LEYNES. JR. PARKS AND RECREATION
Director
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND HISI'ORIC RESOURCES

DIVISION 0F FORESTRY
509 E. Nine Mile Road
P. 0. Box 635. Sandstone Virginia 23150

(804) 737-4791
Gene W. Augsburger, Regional Forester
March 20, 1986

FOREST INFLUENCES
Environmental Impact Statement
Route 199 Project #0199-965-101,PE-100
James City/York Counties Mar 24 1986

Environmental

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Department of Highways & Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

As per your request, I have reviewed the Draf t Environmental Impact
Statement for Route 199, Project #0199-965-101,PE-100 and made an on
site review.

My reaction is to recommend line "A" and A-1 around the endangered
species (begonias). It is my opinion that line D encompasses too much
marsh which serves as the headwaters for Powhatan Creek. Such a
disturbance in this area is apt to produce a great sedimentation problem
which can easily reach the James River. Also, mitigating efforts to
construct ewergent wetlands to replace forested wetlands is apt to
disturb the area more. Replacement of these sensitive areas are nearly
impossible and constructing wetlands could potentially do more harm than
good.

On line A, A-1, I would recommend Best Management Practices such as
crossing streams and wetlands at right angles and on pilings to maintain
the integrity of the area, leave filter strips alongside streams and

6-41
Mission: A Forest Resource to meet the need of the Commonwealth

FOREST INFLUENCES
Environmental Impact Statement
Route 199 Project #0199-965-101,PE-100
Charles City/James City

-2-

revegetate denuded areas as fast as possible. The Division of Forestry
can assist in establishing stands of trees at larger areas such as
interchanges or open fields if necessary.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on the proposed
Rt. 199 project.

Sincerely,

Dennis Gaston
Area Forester

mr
c: Phil Grim

Di sposi tion:

A revised Line A has been selected which minimizes the wetland impacted.
Mitigation measures for wetlands are discussed in Section 5.10.5.

6-42

11@1'11Z
IS
rORESTR DIVISIONS
y
1IKTORIC LANDMARKS
D. C LEYNES, JR. Ll 1 -1 ER CON FROL
PARKS AND RECREA*IION
SOIL AND WA'I UR CONSER VA'I ION
COXMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA

AI@TI@IENT OF CONSERVATIO iN AND HIS'FORIC 1USOURCES
RECEIVE15 1100 Washington Building, Capitol Square
Ridurrond, Virginia 2 3219 (804) 786 - 2121
MAR 3 11980

ENVIRONMENTAL March 27, 1986
QUALITY. DIV.

MEMORANDU`M

TO: Mr. R. L. Hundley, Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation

FROM: Bonnie S. Greenwood, Administrative Staff Specialist

SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact/Section 4(f) Statement on Route
199; Project 0199-965-101, PE-100; James City and York
Counties

This project was reviewed by our department, and comments are as
follows:

We recommend line "A" and A-1 around the endaitgered species
(begonias). It is our opinion that line D encompasses too much marsh
which serves as the headwaters for Powhatan Creek. Such a disturbance
in this area is apt to produce a great sedimentation problem which can
easily reach the James River. Also, mitigating efforts to construct
emergent wetJands to replace forested wetlands is apt to disturb the
area more. Replacement of these sensitive areas are nearly inspossible
and constructing wetlands could potentially do more harm than good. On
line A, A-1, we recommend Best Management Practices such as crossing
streams and wetlands at right angles and on pilings to maintain the
integrity of the area, leave filter strips alongside streams and
revegetate denuded areas as fast as possible. Our Division of Forestry
can assist in establishing stands of trees at larger areas such as
interchanges or open fields if necessary.

When we receive our Division of Historic Landmarks' VA Research
Center for Archaeology's comments, we will forward them to you.

If you need any further Information, please let us know.

ptc
cc: Phil Grimm, Forestry
Bruce Larson, HL-VRCA
Scott Crafton, S&WC

Di spos i tion:

A Revised Line A has been selected which minimizes the wetlands
impacted. Mitigation measures for wetlands are discussed in Section 5.10.5.

6-43

COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA
Deparin2ew of Ecoizomic Development
1000 Washington Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-3791

February 7, 1986

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Department of Highways and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Reference: Route 199
Project: 0199-965-101,PE-100
James--City and York Counties
Environmental Impact/
Section 4(f) Statement

Dear Mr. Hundley:

The above referenced Draft Environmental Impact/Section
4(f) Statement has been reviewed in this Department.

In as much as the-proposed project would have no effect
on major industrial development activities and there being no
manufacturing facilities within the primary area of concern,
the Department of Economic Development will make no comments
on this transportation facility.

Since ly,

Ott u nks
Director

/jam

r FEU I
p
FE-3 pno C,-)
Q)
QUALI i), DIV

Disposition:

No response required.

6-44

COMMONWEALTH of VIR(31NIA
JAMES B. KENLEY. M.D. Dep a), t iize)i tof HeWth
CO-ISSIONER
16(hmoml, I@i).qiiiia 23219
March 27, 1986

SUBJECT: JAMES CITY and YORK COUNTIES
Route 199
Project 0199-965-101, PE-101

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

This Department has reviewed the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the subject project. This is to advise you that Alternative
No. 1 (AI) crosses part of the watershed for Waller Mill Reservoir. Since Waller
Mill Reservoir is a raw water source for the City of Williamsburg's water system,
consideration should be made to eliminate this alternative or special care be
taken during construction to prevent erosion and runoff to the reservoir.

By copy of this letter, we are advising the other state and federal permit-
ting agenci,es of our comment on this project.

Sincerely,

Eric H. Bartsch, P. E., Director
Division of Water Programs

EHB/ecr
cc: SWCB - Tidewater
James City County Department of Utilities 4
York County Department of Utilities RECEIVED
MAR 3 1 1986
Et4VIRONMENTAL
QUALITY OIV.

Disposition:

As discussed in the document in Section 5.13.1 appropriate erosion and
sedimentation controls will be employed to minimize erosion and runoff
during the construction period.

6-45

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
MAiling address
Department of P.O. Box 1797
JOSEPH J. BEVILACQUA. Ph. D. RICHMOND, VA. 23211
COMMISSIONER Mental Health and Mental Retardation

February 25, 1986

R.L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
DepartmenT of Highways and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Hundley:

I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact/Section 4(f) Statement on
Route 199, Project: 0199-965-101. PE-100 James City and York Counties. The
draft statement was reviewed by Eastern State Hospital administration because
the proposed Route 199 alternatives have implications for patients and employees
of the hospital. The hospital administration reviewed alternative Al which crosses
back acreage of the hospital grounds and determined that this alternative route be
at sufficient distance so as not to cause concern for patient safety or disturbance
due to noise.

After review, I concur with Eastern State Hospital administration, that the
proposed project: 0199-965-101. PE-100 James City and York Counties will yield
positive benefits for the hospital and local mental health programs as well as tile
community at large.

sincerely

Howard M. Cullum
Acting Commissioner

HMC/agh

cc: David Pribble, Eastern State Hospital
Rubyjean Gould

RECEIVED
feb 27 ___
Environmental
quality div.

Disposition:

No response required.

6-46

THE COLLEGE OF WILLIA,,i AND rAARY
VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MIARINE SCI8NCE
SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE !F
March 21, 1986 N1

L
L
i V.
Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Department of Highways & Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

RE: Route 199 Draft Environmental/Section 4(f) Statement

Dear Mr. Hundley:

We have reviewed the above referenced document from an environmental
perspective and our comments are presented below. The Virginia Institute
of Marine Science is fully aware of the myriad of other factors which the
VDH&T must consider in their deliberations. Environmental concerns are
but one facet of the overall decision-making process.

Generally speaking, we would recommend the "A-l" alignment
-alternative as the best from our viewpoint. Alignment alternative "D"
involves major alteration of aquatic habitat potentially impacting marine
migratory fishes as well as palustrine native species and general water
quality within the watershed. If alignment "D" is chosen, the mitigative
measures proposed will be of minimal value because of the major stream-
bottom and wetland manipulation which will be required for construction.

Because of the many questions remaining with regard to the
ecological effectiveness of compensating for wetland loss by establishing
new wetland areas elsewhere, we would recommend avoiding the loss or mini-
mizing it in the initial design phases whenever possible rather than rely-
ing on compensation alone as a mitigative tool. This may also have signi-
ficant economic benefits as well.

We concur with the proposal to create emergent palustrine wetlands
c'
as compensation for unavoidable wetlands losses, but it is with the under-
standing that this is not being done on a value basis vs. palustrine
riparian forest. It is most likely that the values of these forested
areas simply cannot be replaced. Thus the recommendations to avoid the
loss initially where feasible.

6-47
Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 (804) 642-7000

Mr. R. L. Hundley March 21, 1986
-2-

If I may answer any questions regarding these comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.
TAB/jh Associate Marine Scientist

Disposition:

A Revised Line A has been selected. In response to comments regarding
the wetland replacement ratio, it is currently Departmental policy to
mitigate wetland losses on a 1 to 1 ratio.

6-48

THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY DEPARTMENT'OF KOLOGY
(804) 253-4Z40
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA 23185

IG93

9@
April 14, 1986

Mr. C.,;A. Nash, Jr.
District Engineer
Department of Highways and Transportation
P. 0. Box 1070
Suffolk, Virginia 23434

Dear Mr. Nash:

Seven years ago, as part of the previous public hearing
on the location of Route 199. 1 notified the VDH&T of the
historical occurrence of a rare native orchid, the small
whorled pagonia, on Chisel Run in the vicinity of proposed
line A. I indicated then that I was actively trying to
locate the population that had been monitored there over a
period of sixty yea.rs by various members of the Biology
Department of the College., '(Upon the death of Dr. J. T.
Baldwin in 1974, knowledge of the exact location of the
colony had apparently been lost.] After several seasons
spent searching the area, in 1982 we located a large colony
(127 plants in 1985]. just 95 feet downslope from the
surveyed right-of-way. This colony is by far the largest
south of New England and is among the ten largest anywhere
in the range of the species. It particularly merits study
because of its size, geographic location, and population
structure. I have,been monitoring it on a plant-by-plant
basis for the past two years and will be initiating further
studies of its population ecology and habitat this season,
under the sponsorship of the Virginia Bureau of Plant
Protection.

In view of the fact that placement of a roadway an the
slopes directly above the location of these plants would
severely alter the habitat, I appreciate that the VDH&T has
responded to the dilemma with' the positive action of
offering the alternative variation Line A-1. This
variation, which is 0.4 longer than Line A, moves the
roadway westward into the watershed of the adjacent
tributary and thereby prevents radical changes in the
drainage,. humidity, and insolation of the habitat of the
orchid. After studying the placement of line A-1 in
relation to topographic contours, it appears that it may be
1@ @,

6-49

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
April 14, 1986
Page 2

possible to reduce the magnitude of this bypass arc and
still adequately protect the colony. Such a reduction would
reduce the negative effects on an adjacent landowner and
would also reduce the overail roadbuilding costs. I
encourage efforts in this direction.

Thank you very much for'vour concern and cooperation in
this matter.

Sincerely yours

Donna M. E. Ware
Curator, Herbarium

DMEW:cas

Disposition:

A Revised Line A has been selected. A biological assessment (Section 7) of this
alignment is included in the appendix of this document.

6-50

I
1 6.1.3 Local Agencies and Organizations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 6-51

CITY OF NVILLIAIISBURG

NVILLIA.NISBURG, VIRGIINIA

231as

April 23, 1986 L

APR
Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr. S[J
District Engineer PF04
Department of Highways and Transportation
Suffolk, Virginia 23434

RE: Proposed R
oute 199

Dear Mr. Nash:

The Williamsburg City Council has discussed the above project
and makes the following comments on behalf of the City of Williamsburg.

1. This proposed road is urgently needed by the entire Williams-
burg area and should be funded and commenced without further delay.
The Project should run from Route 5 to Interstate 64.

2. The section of proposed Route 199 between Route 5 and Route
60 lies entirely within James City County and it is our recommendation
that you follow the Route chosen by James City County.

3. On the section of proposed Route 199 from Route 60 to
Interstate 64, we recommend that alternate A-2 be used. We are opposed
to the southernmost alternate because it appears to be located so it
may have an adverse effect on the primary springs and streams that
flow into our City Reservoir. The northern limit of the Reservoir
appears to be very close to the proposed southern alternate.
Thank you for your consideration of the points made in thi-s.,
letter.

V t Uly urs,

Robert C. Walker
Mayor
RCW/ao

Di sposi ti on:

A revised Line A with the A-2 5
egment has been selected.

6-52

1A
&nIC1123187 C@j

March 31, 1986

Mr,iFrank Hall
Re dent Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation'
Jr. nbound Road
Williamsburg, VA 23185

Dear Mr. Hall:

Colonial Williamsburg strongly endorses the
construction to complete Route 199 in James City County
and York County at the earliest possible date.

As a leading travel attraction in Virginia and
a major local employer, Colonial Williamsburg has been
an enthusiastic proponent of Route 199 since the
beginning of the project as evidence by our donation of
right of way for a portion of the roadway now completed.
A: Traffic studies completed over the years by the
Department of Highways and Transportation, local
governments, and others, including us, consistently
indicate this circumferential loop is increasingly vital
to the movement of local traffic and the efficient
accommodation of millions of tourists each year.

We urge expeditious completion of Route 199 as
a means of overcoming growing traffic congestion in the
greater Williamsburg area and the resulting impediment
to tourism and its benefits to the citizens of Virginia.

Thank you for including this correspondence in
the testimony presented at the public hearing on April
3, 1986 at Lafayette.High School.

Sii)cerely,

Norman G. Beatty
Media and Government
Relations

Disposition:

None required.

6-53

Mailing Address: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPtvtTNT
P.O. Box JC
Williamsburg, Va. COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 101 MOONTS BAY ROAD
23187-3627
Tel. 253-6685 z

April 7, 1986

Mr. C. A. Hash, Jr.
District Engineer
VOH&T
P.O. Box 1070
Suffolk, VA 23434

Dear Mr. Nlash:

I have several questions and conwPents about specific stateirpelits. in
the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Route 199. They are as
follows:
Do the costs given on page S-4 i*nclude expected costs for
environmental mitigation (e.g., noise barriers, wetlands
re-creation)? If not, can a more realistic total cost es.Limate
be prepared for each alternative? Can costs for the York County
and James City County segments be presented separately?
@2 Page 1-1 indicates there is to be an at-grade- intersection on
the Warhill Tract. This intersection is nowhe.re shown onu maps
or mentioned elsewhere in the EIS. Please explain.

Page 2-1 mentions that the Board of Supervisors of James City
County passed resolutions in support of' Route 199 in 19-t& and
1978. The Board of Supervisors has passel resolutiams in
support of Route 199 in the past four years as well.

4. Page 3-2 mentions no access is proposed at Olde Towne Rd. (Route
658). The Board of Supervisors has gone on record in the- past
supporting a connection at that location.

%-5. Page 3-3 states service roads will be constructed along
Alignment A in York County. As a note, the Board of Super-visors
has gone on record supporting the controlled access nature of
Route 199 on its entire length.

-6. Figure 4-3 shows traffic on Longhill Rd. west of Eastern St@te
Hospital dropping precipitously under Alignment D, far belrw the
A or A-1 alignments. Is this a realistic expectation given the
'k-

anticipated development of Ford's, Colony (1 976 dwelling units)
Longhill Gate (146 units) arid the expansion of Windsor Foresi
and Ford's Colony (east)?
6-54

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
April 7, 1986
Page 2

7. Page 4-9 indicates that there are no trafric signals outside the
City of Williamsburg. Actually, there are several in James City
County. Does this inaccuracy affect the conclusions regarding
traffic volumes or Intersection improvements?
8. Page 4-24 refers to the "new municipal center.' This apparently
refers to the County goverment (not municipal) complex, which
is approaching 10 years old. It is no longer considered "new"

Page 4-25 states the majority of County recreation facilities
are located near the City. The County now operates two major
parks, one on Ironbound, Road and one on Leisure Read. The EIS
statement is no longer true.

10. Page 4-48 refers to Dow-Badische Company. The correct name is
BASF Fibers.

11. Page 5-6 states that James City County permits mobile homes On
industrial lots. This is incorrect. Mobile homes are.
permitted, with a special use* permit, on individual lots in the
General Agricultural zone.
12. Page 5-7 states Indigo Terrace is a middle-income area with a
high percentage of mobile homes and deteriorating structures.
The first half of the statement is true; the second half is not.

13. Page 5-17 contradicts page 3-2 by stating that emergency access
is proposed at Olde Towne Road.

14. Page 5-18. The correct spelling is Tewning Road.

15. Page 5-30. It would be helpful ror the EIS to explain what a
"NAC" is.

16. Please provide a breakdown of noise mitigation costs by
alternative by County, based upon VDH&Ts policy oF constructing
noise barriers if the cost is under-- $25,000 per receptor.

17. Would construction of Alignment 0 affect the County's flood
insurance eligibility or rating?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS for Route
199. If there are any questions about my comments, please call me.

Sincerely,

Victoria Gussman
Director of Planning

VG/mfr 6-55
1206a

Disposition:

1. The costs listed in Table S-1 on page S-4 of the DEIS do not
include the costs for environmental mitigation. The
separation of costs for James City and York Counties will
not be prepared as part of the Corridor Study. Costs for the
required environmental mitigation are calculated during the
final design stage.

2. The Virginia Department of Transportation has included
possible access to Route 199 from Warhill Tract to
accommodate the probable intense development in the area.
The Traffic and Transportation Technical Report under the
section entitled Route 199 Operations on page 64 explains
this intersection and will be incorporated in section 4.1.2
of the FEIS.

3. No response.

4. As outlined in Mr. H. M. Shaver's letter of May 2, 1986, the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation support
the original recommendations submitted to the Highway
Commission in April 1979. These recommendations conclude
that an interchange at Old Towne Road would be undesirable
due to the close proximity of the interchange at Route 612.

5. No response.

6. Presuming this comment compares Figure 4-3 for Alignments A
and A-1 with Figure 4-4 for Alignment D, there should be a
decrease in traffic on Longhill Road west of Eastern State
Hospital for the D Alignment. Alignment D directly serves
the residential developments mentioned and therefore takes
traffic off of Longhill Road. Using Alignments A and A-1,
however, the occupants of these residential developments
must continue to use Longhill Road which increases the
traffic volumes on Longhill Road as well as other local
roads. The traffic forecasts shown on Figures 4-3 and 4-4
considered future land development in the area based on the
information available prior to October 1985.

7. The statement on page 4-9 of the DEIS has been changed to
read: "Other than along Route 60, there are not traffic
signals located on the street system outside Williamsburg."

Route 60 was 2n2lyzed as an urban arterial. Results from
the capacity analysis are shown on Tables 4-2 and 4-3. On
page 71, the Traffic Technical Report gives a full
description of the street system evaluation.

6-56

S. The statement on page 4-24 of the DEIS has been changed to
it
read: "The municipal center lies adjacent to Kingsmill.....

9. The statement an page 4-25 of the DEIS has been changed to
read: "James City County community recreational facilities lie
in the more densely populated Williamsburg area and two major
parks are located on Ironbound Road and Leisure Road."

10. Dow Badische Company has been changed to BASF Fibers.

11 . The sentence stating that "James City County is the only
regional jurisdiction that permits placement of mobile homes
on industrial lots, "has been changed to read: "Mobile homes
are permitted with a special use permit on individual lots in
the General Agricultural zone."

12. This statement has been changed to read Ind ig 0
Terr ace/ Brookhaven Drive is a middle-income area, with a high
percentage of mobile homes.

13. The statement on page 3-2 of the DEIS has been changed to
read: "Access to Route 658 is limited to an emergency access
for recently-completed fire station, direct access to
Alignment A via a ramp would not be provided.

14. The spelling of Towning Road is corrected.

15. A definition of NAC has been included in pages 4-45 and 4-46.

16. A computer analysis of projected noise levels has been
completed and included. in Section 5.9 of this document. Those
sites which cost under $20,000 per receptor are discussed in
Section 5.9.2.

17. The Virginia Department of Transportation is required to
design and construct the facility so that it conforms to all
floodplain regulations. Therefore, the D alignment would not
affect Janes City County's flood insurance eligibility or
rating.

6-57

-106

Mailing Address: BOARD OF SUPERVISOFS
P.O. Box JC
Williamsburg, Va. COUNTY GOVERNMFNT CENTER,- I 01.-MO UNTS BAY RRAD
23187-3627
Tel. 253-66 09

Board o(Super@isors
WILLIAM F. BROWN
PERRY M. DEPUE
JACK 0. EDWARDS
THOMAS D. MAHONE
STEWART U. TAYLOR
April 11, 1986

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
VDH&T
Suffolk, VA. 23434

I did not speak at the Location Public Hearing conducted
for Route 199 (RTE 5 to 164) because many of my ideas were expressed
by others.

I would like to add a..couple thoughts at this time. This
is a terrib ly important project:'to our community. We are working to
control our accelerated growth but we are not empowered to stop it.
The highway system is already overloaded at rush hours to the extent
that life and safety are threatened. (Free passage of emergency
vehicies). This road will greatly enhance commercial interests by
way of relieving Route 60 Williamsburg of commuter traffic.

The Board of Supervisors and County Planning Department are
seeing developmental pressure in the proposed Route 199 area growing
at an exponential rate. The earlier adopted corriaor ' has elapsed
and we don't have the power to stop intense development along Longhill
Road. As an example Longhill Gate multi-family development in corridor
'D" has been designed,approved, recorded and will break ground in the
weeks ahead. For this and environmental reasons alternate 'D" does
not warrant further consideration. . I think you can see the need for
re-establishing the corridor as promptly as possible. We have recorded
one developer intent to donate Right-of-Way to the project and are
considering one across the Warhill Tract now (about a mile). The time
is right to not only re-establish the corridor but to get on with
following phases of establishing the road.

Disposition:

Revised Line A has been selected..
.Cal

6-58

-107-

Mailing Addr
P.0'Box JC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Williamsburg, Va. COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 101 MOUNTS BAY ROAD
23187-3627
Tel. 253-6609

Board ct Supervisors
WILLIAM F. BROWN
PERRY M. DEPUE
)ACK D. EDWARDS
THOMAS D. MAHONE
STEWART U. TAYLOR

TO: Mr. Nash April 11, 1986

In closing I would add that I have lived in Kingspoint
Subdivision for fiteen years, my home being less than 1000 feet
from-the existing leg or Route 199. The coming of 199 to my area
has improved the quality of my life as well as for thousands of
others. For examplepI no longer have to creep through Williamsburg
At 6'in the morning and wade through tourist traffic in the afternoon
to commute to my Newport News job.

I would like to thank you and the Department of Highways
staff for your efforts on behalf of establishment of Route 199-.

Cordinally,

Thomas D. Mahone

TDM:bdw

cc
F. N. Hall
BOS
J. B. Oliver

Di spos iti on:

No response required.

6-59

_90-

R E S 0 L U T 1 0 N

Recommended Corridor - Route 199

WHEREAS, the James City County Comprehensive Plan, the Peninsula Planning
District's Major Thoroughfare Plan, and the State Transportation
Plan conclude that the extension of Route 199 to Interstate 64 is
essential to permit the safe and efficient movement of traffic in
the James City County-Williamsburg area; and

WHEREAS, At ignment "A" Is in agreement with the James City County
Comprehensive Plan and has been rel led upon by citizens and
pub] ic officials since Its endorsement by the Highway Commission
THEREFOR .E, in 1979.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of James City County
Virginia, that alignment "All or an environmentally acceptable
variation of that af ignment be designated as the Route 199
corridor In James City County by the State Highway and
Transportation Board.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County,
Virginia unanimously endorses that:

1. Route 199 be constructed along its entire length as a
controlled access facility, and
2. Corridor alignment, design, an'd construction be carried out
as quickly as possible.

-'William F. Brown, Chairman
ATTEST: Board of Supervisors

Ja s 8 Oliver, Jr. r
Cie the Board

Adopted by. the Board of Supervisors, James City County, Virginia, this
7th day of April, 1986.

VG/pdc
BOSOI
SUPERVISOR VOTE
BROWN AYE
DEFUE AYE
EDWARDS AYE
MMONE AYE
TAYLOR AYE

Disposition:.

No response required.

6-60

103
The Nature Conservancy
Virginia Chapter 619-B East High Street Charlottesville, Virginia.22901
(804) 295-6106
George H. Fenwick
Virginia Director

April 10, 1986
VIRGINIA CHAPTER OFFICERS
Chairman Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
MICHAEL W. MAUPIN
Richmond District Engineer
Vice Chairman Virginia Department of Highways
CHARLES S. McCANOLISH
Winchester and Transportation
Secretay P.O. Box 1070
THEODORE G. SCOTT. Jr. Suffolk, VA 23434
orange
Treasurer
KEITH A. ARGOW Re: Proposed route of Rt. 199 James City
Vidruta County, Virginia
Immediate Past Chairman
JOHN W. HANES, Jr.
Alexandria Dear Mr. Nash:

BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND
COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN The Nature Conservancy is a national
ELEANOR ADAMS conservation organization. We are committed
Leesburg I to the preservation of natural diversity by
FITZGERALD BEMISS protecting lands and waters supporting the
Richmond best examples
BENJAMIN H. BOLEN -of all elements of our naturai
Martinsville world. The Virginia Chapter, based in.
WALTER W. CRAIGIE, Jr. Charlottesville, has protected over 115,000
Richmond acres in the Commonwealth since 1956. We
DOROTHY B. DUFFY
Newport News currently have a membership of 8,500 in
PAUL G. EDWARDS Virginia. Our goal is to identify and
Richmond protect the best remaining natural areas in
DONALD.M. FAULKNER
Richmond Virginia. This is done by locating the
TYSON GILPIN, Jr. occurrences of endangered, threatened and
Boyce rare plants, animals and natural communities,
JOSEPH F. JOHNSTON, Jr.
Alexandria and then arranging for their.protection.
JAMES a. MURRAY Protection may be provided in a variety of
Eartysville ways ranging from purchasing critical lands,
PHILIP 0. PASCHALL to arranging for voluntary protection with
washington D.C.
DON RICHARDSON individual landowners.
Boyce
PAUL SAUNIER. Jr. We would like to express our concern
Charlotsville over the proposed routing of Route 199.in
DAVID A. TICE
Afton James City County. Our concerns relate to
BETH B. VALENTINE Alternative-A which would severely impact
Accomac Virginia's best population of the small
JOHN B. VAUGHAN
Galax whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides).

LAND CONSERVATION THROUGH PRIVATE ACTION
National Office 1800 North Kent Street Suite 800 - Arlington, Virginia 22209
6-61.

-104-

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
April 10, 1986
Page Two

This plant is one of the rarest species in Virginia with a
total state population of fewer than 150 individual plants in
three known locations. It is listed as an endangered species by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is one of only three
plant species listed by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.

The Nature Conservancy recognizes the area along Alternative
A.as one of the most significant natural areas in Virginia.
Therefore, in order to achieve some protection for this area, we
entered into a protection lease agreement with the landowner in
1984 to*cover the most critical 20 acres of habitat. This
agreement demonstrates a commitment by both parties to help.ensure
the preservation of the small whorled pogonia. We consider this
one of our most important preserves in Virginia. We have worked
with Dr. Donna Ware-of the College of William and Mary to help
monitor and conddct reseqrch at the site.
Alternative A will bisect these 20 acres that we have sought
to preserve and would severely impact the plant's habitat.
However, if Alternative A is chosen with the implementation of
the A-1-or similar alternativer the area of concern will remain
undisturbed. Therefore, The Nature Conservancy supports the A-1
alternative as the most viable means to meet both the protection
of an endangered species and the construction of Rt. 199. We
would be glad to provide any additional information regarding the
status of the small whorled pogonia as well as the importance
of the habitat in question.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

George H. Fenwick
Virginia Director

Disposition:

Revised Line A which does not impact the e ndangered species (Isotria Medeoloides)
has been selected..

6-62

R E 5 0 L U T 1 0 N

Recommended Corridor - Route 199

WHEREAS, the James City County Czmprehensive Plan, the Peninsula Planning
District's Major Thoroughfare Plan, and the State Transportation
Plan conclude that the extension of Route 199 to Interstate 64 is
essential to permit the safe and efficient movement of traffic in
the James City County-Williamsburg area; and

WHEREAS, Al ignment "N' is In agreement with the James City Count)
Comprehensive Plan and has been relied upon by citizens anc
public officials since its endorsement by the Highway Commi3sior
in 1979.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of James City County,
Virginia, that alignment "All or an environmentally acceptable
variation of that alignment be designated as the Route 159
corridor In James City County by the State Highway and
Transportation Board.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County,
Virginia unanimously endorses that:

1. Route 199 be constructed along its entire length as
controlled access facility, and

2. Corridor alignment, design, and construction be carried out
as quickly as possible.

William F. Brown, Chairman
Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

Ja 3 Oliver, Jr.
Cie , the Board

Adopted by. the Board of Supervisarsp James City County, Virginia, this
7th day of April, 19116.

SUPERVISOR VOTE
BROWN __iYE_
DEPUE AYE
EDWARDS AYE
MAHONE AYE
TAYLOR AYE

Disposition:

A revised Line A has been selected.

6-63

R.- E S 0 LU T 1 0.14

Route 199 Location

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of James Cl ty County has evaluated the
proposed locations for the extension of Route 199 in James City
County and found alignment "A" or "A-I" in combination with "N'
to be superior to alignment "0" for reasons of environmental and
residential impacts; and

WHEREAS, in 1979 the Planning Commission of James City County resolved to
support the location of Route 199 In alignment "A"; and

WHEREAS, In the same year the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation selected alternative "A" as the location for Route
199 In James City County; and

WHEREAS, on June 28, 1982 the Board of Supervisors of James City County
adopted a Comprehensive Plan establishing the location of Route
199 on alignment "A", and since then that a 'I ignment has been
recognized in long-range planning efforts and used as a basis for
zoning decisions, subdivision and si te plan approvals, and the
placement of public buildings.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of James City County
does hereby request Route 199 In James City County follow
al ignment "A" or "A-1" in combination wi th "A" In James Ci ty
County, and further, that Route 199 in James City County be
expeditiously designed and constructed.

Fred Belden, Chairman
Planning Commission

ATTEST:

Victoria Gussman
Secretary

Adopted by the Planning Commission, James City County, Virginia, this
25th day of March, 1986.

VG/js
BOSOl

Disposition:

A reyisgd Line A has been selected.

6-64

-72-

M E M 0 R A N 0 U M

DATE: March 26, 1986

TO:. Frank N. Hall, Resident Highway Engineer

FROM: The James City County Historical Commission Task Force on Rt. 199

SUBJECT: A Recommendation Concerning Alternative Routes of Rt. 199

The James City County Historical C ommission Task Force has reviewed the impact
the proposed routes of Highway 199 will have on the County's hiTtorical and
cultural resources and makes the following report and recommendation.
Alternative route A 'and A-1 will destroy or endanger fourteen archaeological
sites and six potential sites. Eight of the fourteen are those of prehistoric
Native Americans with the majority dating to the Middle Woodland period, 500
B.C. to 900 A.D. Most of these sites are associated with Chisel Run and its
branches. Five of the archaeological sites are thought to be the locations of
mid- to late-nineteenth gntury and early twentieth century farm houses. One
is an early to mid-nin teenth century mill site. Alternative A will also
destroy one standing mid-nineteenth century farm house.

Alternative D will destroy or endanger eighteen archaeological sites, as well
as two potential ones. one of the eighteen is the location of a
mid-nineteenth century farm house, another is an early twentieth century
cemetery, and the remaining sixteen are prehistoric sites. Again, the
majority date to the Middle Woodland period and almost all are located near
Powhatan Creek and along Longhill Swamp.

The number of prehistoric sites so far discovered in James City County is very
small. In fact, most of the known ones are those endangered by the proposed
routes of Highway 199. These endangered sites are part of a Middle Woodland
settlement system that saw main camps on the edge of the James River and a
number of large and small procurement camps stretching inland along Powhatan
Creek and its branches, especially Longhill Swamp. This is an important point
because it means that the environmental and cultural context of these sites is
still largely intact. -One reason the Historical Commission supports the
Powhatan Creek and Longhill Swamp Wetland Acquisition Capital Improvements
Program is that it protects this context. In fact, these sites appear
interesting enough to warrant even further protection. The Historic
Commission may wish to explore the possibility of nominating them to the
National Register as an Archaeological District. Also, the authors of Towards
a Resource Protection Process recommend that prehistoric sites such as those
along Powhatan Creek and Longhill Swamp be preserved in place, unexcavated.
This needs to be done until more prehistori.c sites are located in the County,
at which time it will be possible to better measure their significance.

6-65

-73-

Memo to Frank N. Hall
March 26, 1986
Page 2

Although o6r knowledge of the nineteenth century is far greater than that of
the Middle Woodland period, the sites of nineteenth century farl". houses -ire
also important historic resources. This is especially true of those of small
farmers who, in the nineteenth century, continued the agricultural heritage of
the County and who have received little historical attention. Often sites
such as these are destroyed without hesitation. Instead, it would be better
if they must be destroyed that the Information they can convey be preserved
through careful archaeological excavation. The one standing structure
endangered, the Lane House, was the subject of an architectural survey several
years ago and was thought then not to meet National Register criteria.
However, this issue should'be reexamined. In any case, the Highway Department
should explore the possibility of adjusting the alignment of Alternative A to
avoid destroying the house, 'This would spare it so that It, may be
appropriately preserved in the future.

In a County as rich as this one In historically important locations, It is
difficult to decide which Alternative poses the least damage to the County's
cultural resources. However, on balance. the lack of. comparative knowledge
about the County's prehistoric sites makes it more imperative that known ones
be preserved in situ and since Alternative A and A-1 endanger fewer
prehistoric sites (as well as fewer sites overall) the James City County
Historical Commission Task Force on 199 recommends to the State Highway
Commission that it accept Route 199 Alternative A or A-1 and reject
Alternative 0.

0424f

cc: James B. Oliver, Jr.
James City County 8oard of Supervisors
James City County Historical Commission Members

Di sposi ti on:

The Lane Farm House was re-examined and the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks
agree that there was no significant impact on architectural structures. A Phase II
archaeological survey has been conducted and included in this report.
Recommendations for Phase III investigation are'also made in Section 5 of this report.

6-66

-89-

WILLIAMS-JAMES CITY counTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OFFICE OF OPERATIONS
JOHN E. ALLEN, S.uperintendent paul C 0gg, Director

STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED

ROUTE 199 HIGHWAY PROJECT
LAFAYETTE HIGH SCHOOL, JAMES CITY COUNTY VIRGINIA

APRIL 3, 1986

I am Paul C. Ogg, Director of Operations of the Williamsburg-
James City County School Division. My purpose this evening is to remind
you that Longhill Road is a major road between Lafayette High School and'
James Blair Intermediate School. We have 50 school buses that, twice a
day, provide transporation for students between these two schools.
Therefore, I am asking that in your planning and design of the 199 exten-
sion that you carefully consider and plan for the Longhill Road crossing
of Route 199. If at grade level, that is, there is no overpasslunderpass
at this crossing, then the design of this intersection must consider the
safe passage of these 50 school buses between Lafayette and James BLair
schools. Thank you.

305 First Street a Williamsburg. Virginia 23185 A Telephone (804) 229-1993

DISPOSITION:
Interchanges are: proposed.at al1 major crossings of Route 199
Including Longhill Road
.(Route 612) Since., there. is an interchange proposed -at Longhill, Road to control traffic,
at grade conflicts are not anticipated with the school buses prov i d i ng transportation to
'Lafayette- and Jame s Blair Sc.hools.

-66-
no. R36-98 13

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA

Resolution

At a regular meeting of the York County of Supervi-
sors held in the courts oand Board room, York county Courts and
Office center. Yorktown, Virginia, on the 20th day of March.

Present vote
Benjamin M Rush, Jr. chairman yes
Julia A. Jensen, Vice Chairman yes
E. S. Bingley, Jr. yes
Rodgers A. SMith yes
E. Tabb Smith yes

On motion of Mr. T Smith, which carried s.c the following
resolutin was adopted:

A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THE POSTITION NEW YORK COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH RESPECT TO THE CORRIDOR LOCATION
ALTERNATIVES FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 199.

WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transport
tion is considering corridor location alternatives for the pro-
posed extension of Route 199 from Route 5 in James city County
northward to the Interstate Route 64 interchange at Route 644
(Exit 55) in york county; and

Whereas the department has identified three (3) corridor
alternatives for the portion of the project located in York
county between Route 60 and interstate 64; and
Whereas, the york county Board of supervisors has consists
ly supported the construction of proposed Route 199 recognizing
capacity and safety problems along existing Route 646 between
interstate 64 and Route 60; and

Whereas, in its support of procosed Route 199 the Board has
Consistently requested that consideration be given to providing
two (2) Appropriate points of access from the proposed limited
access highway to the Route 646 corridor; and

Whereas, after careful evelution of the alternative corri-
dor locations the Board has concluded that Alignment A-2 is most
consistent with and supportive of the County's development objec-
tives for the corridor between Interstate 64 and Route 60;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the york county Board of
Supervisors, this the 20th day of March, 1966, that the Board
does hereby indicate its support of corridor alignment A-2 for
proposed Route 199 between interstate 64 and Route _0;

Be it furthur resolved that the BOard does hereby _aiterate
its previous request that consideration be given to the estab-
lishment of three (3) access points along this segment of pro-
posed Route 100 to include specifically the relection of the
intersection of Rochanbeau Drive as close to its current posi-
tion as safe design practices will allow.

Be it still further resolved that the Board strongly endors
ses the construction of an intersection of Route 600 with the
proposed Route 199 and respectfully insists its inclusion is the
project in furtherance not only of saim and efficient traffic
flows by reducing the congestion and turning movements at the
proposed Route 60 intersection. but also in premeting the
health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of our commu-
nity.

Be it still furthur assolved that in endorsing the Line A-1
alternativ, the Board is particularly concerned with its pre-
cise alignment and configuration at the _________ Drive\inter-
state 64 terminus and is requesting that the dinal design pro-
vide a solution which is most equitable to residents, property
owners, and proposed commercial developments.

A copy Test
JOn M alandrason
county administrator

Disposition:

REvised Line a has been selected. this alignment incorporated the A-2 segment
discussed in the document. The distance of thsi segment precludes the possibility
of haveing 3 access points. Connections are provided with Route 646 and 168.

6-68

PENN I N S U L A
PDC R L A N N I N G DISTRICT. COMMISSION
2017 CUNNINGHAM DRIVE HAMPTON, V A 23866

A.C. 804-8 3 8 4 2 3 8

March 1, 1985

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and-Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Re:' Route 199 Environmental
Study

Attention: Vincent J. Valenti

Dear Mr. Hundley:

I am in receipt of your letter of February 25, 1985 to Mr. Frank Force
regarding the development of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for-- --- -- ......
Route 199. This is to inform you that I have designated Mr. Joseph 0. Paulus
as the Commi ssi on's contact person for future coordination- on this study.

Sincerely yours,

Henry M. Cochran
Executive Director

/lW

cc: Joseph.D. Paulus

Disposition: No response required.
d

6-69

Hampton Newport NEWS WILLINGTON PODUCSON JAMES CITY COUNTY YORK COUNTY

6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement process being implemented with this study is in
accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality and Federal Highway
Administration regulations. It was designed to inform governmental agencies,
public organizations, and the public at large of the progress of the project and
to solicit comments during the conceptual stage. Methods to be employed to
accomplish this include personal contacts, mailings, legal advertisements, a
public information workshop and a location public hearing.

During the week of March 11, 1985, a meeting was held with representatives
of the jurisdictions of James City County, City of Williamsburg, York County
and the Peninsula Planning District Commission to discuss public perceptions
of the R oute 199 proj ect i n order to det ermi ne the need f or publ ic i nvol vem ent
meetings. It was the opinion of each jurisdiction that while the citizens of the
area generally support the project, specific questions and limited objections
had been expressed in the past. Based on these discussions, it was determined
that at least one public information meeting should be held. These meetings
were held on April 2 and 3, 1988, subsequent to approval of the draft EIS for
public availability by FHWA and prior to the location public hearing which was
held April 3, 1986.

6.2.2 Public Hearing & Informational Meet! ng/C omments & Responses

Comments were received at the public hearing on April 3, 1986 and during the
official comment period which was extended to April 17, 1986. The comments
made during the public hearing and official comment period stated and
addressed with an appropriate disposition in this section of this Fial
Environmental Impact Statement.

The following list summarizes the verbal comments and questions received
from citizens, organizations, businesses, local governments and other groups at
the public hearing held on April 3, 1986 at 7:00pm at the Lafayette High
School in Williamsburg, Virginia. This list indicates the name of the
commentor, a summary of their remarks and a response to their comments.
The comments are written in their entirity in the transcript of the Location

6-70

School. A complete transcript of the Public Hearing is held in the Virginia
Department of Transportation Route 199 project files.

1. William Gallimore (York County Resident)

Comment
Supports an alignment that would follow Route 60 tr ack west to 607 and 1-64
or Alignment D.
Disposition
Support Letter - no response.

2. Carolyn Lowe (Williamsburg Area League of Women Voters)

C omm ent
Concerned with the wetlands potentially impacted by Alternate D. Questioned
the finding of no impact on groundwater resources and soils information for all
of the alternates. Supports Alignment A-1 because it protects the
small-whorled pogonia.
Disposition
Potential long-term impacts to groundwater resources are discussed in section
5.10.2 of the FEIS. Revised Line A which protects the small-whorled pogonia
has been selected.

3. John Benninghove (York County Resident)

C omm ent
Support Alignment D.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

4. MaryGallimore (York County Resident)

C omm ent
Supports a widening of Route 646 instead of construction of Route 199.
Disposition
The construction of Route 199 is a part of the regional transportation plan.

6-71

5. George Grayson (York County Resident)

Comment
Support Alignments A and A-1.
Disposition
Support Letter - no response.

6. Bob Ripley (Attorney respresenting Mr. Horsworthy)
Comment
Supports Alignment A based on the 1979 approved by the York County Board
of Supervisors.
Disposition
This is a restudy of all alternatives for Route 199.

7. Dan D e Y oun q (Engi neer f or M r. Norsworthy)

Comment

Expressed concern with the location of Alignment A-2. Support Alignment D.
Submitted a map.
Disposition
Displacements and future development were considered for each alignment.
Support letter - no response.

B. Jack Cary (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)

Comment
Concerns were expressed to wetlands and archaeological sites located along
Alignment D. Supports Alignment A.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

9. Virginia Car (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)

Comment
Supports Alignment A.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

6-72

10. Anne Kelly (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)

Comment
Supports Alignment A.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

11. Jim Yankovich (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)
Comment
Supports Alignment A.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

12. Wally Smith (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)
Comment
Supports Alignment A.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

13. William D. Johnson, Jr. (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)
Comment
Supports Alignment A.
DIMosition
Support letter - no response.

14. Bobby Hornsby (Windsor Forest Resident - James City County)
Comment
Supports Alignment A.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

6-73

15. Donna M. E. Ware (Department of Biology, College of William and Mary)

Comment
Opposes Alignment A due to the presence of the endangered species
(small-whorled pogonias) on the slopes of Chisel Run. Supports the reduction
in magnitude of the arc of the bypass, while still protecting the colony of
endangered plants.
Disposition
A Section 7 - Biological Assessment was conducted on this suggested
alternative and Revised Line A, the selected alternatives.

16. Steve Croy (Virginia Chapter of the Nature Conservancy)

Comment

Opposes Alignment A due to the presence of the small whorled pogonia.
Disposition
Revised Line A was selected to protect the small whorled pogonia.

17. V. M. Geddy, Jr. (Attorney representing Ford's Colony)

Comment
Supports Alignment A-1 with the reduction in the magnitude of the arc of the
bypass.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

18. John Matthews (York County Board of Supervisors)

Comment
Supports two intersections between 1-64 and Route 60 because of a planned
fire station and other emergency facilities in York County.
Disposition
Intersections were studied in this area; however, the distance between Route
60 and 1-64 is insufficient f or construction of two access points.

6-74

19. Thomas Powers (James City County Resident)

Comment
Expressed concern that the Strawberry Plains Road, Route 616, would be
terminated as a cul-de-sac.

Dispositon
Route 199 does not terminate at Route 616, but is terminated at Route 5. The
project description in the summary section of the FEIS clarifies this point.

20. G. A. Moser (Endangered Species Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service)

Comment
Supports Alignment A-I or a similiar alternative which would avoid impacting
the endangered species, the small whorled pogonia.
Dispositon
Revised Line A which avoids such impacts has been selected.

21. Howard F. Berry (York County Resident)

C omm ent
Opposes Alignment A.
Disposi ton
Support letter - no response.

22. Elizabeth C. Rooers (Soil and Water Conservation District)

Comment

Opposes Alignment D.
Dispositon
Support letter - no response.

23. Verna J. Dickerson (York County Resident)

Comment

Opposes Alignme nt A-2.
Dispositon
Support letter - no response.

6-75

24. Robert F. Sherman (York County Resident)

Comment
Opposes Construction of Route 199.
Dispositon
Support letter - no response.

25. Junius H. Moody (York County Resident)

Comment
Opposes the porti on of R oute 199 f rom R oute 60 to 1 -64.
Dispositon
Support letter - no response.

26. Fred Belden (Chairman, James City County Planning Commission)

Comment

Supports Alignment A or A -1.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

27. Hugh DeSamper (James City County Historical Commission)

C omm ent
Supports Alignment A or A-1.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

28. Gilbert L. Granger (Williamsburg City Council)

Comment
Supports the construction of Route 199.
Dispostion
Support letter - no response.

29. Perry De Pue (Member of James City County Board of Supervisors)

Comment
Opposes Alignment D as the James City County comprehensive plan has been
based on Alignment A. Supports Alignment A.
Dispositon
Support letter - no response.

6-76

30. Preston C. Smith (Williamsburg Pottery Representative)

Comment

Supports Alignment A-2.
Disposition
Support letter - no response.

Written Comments received from citizens following the Location Public Hearing are

included in this section.

0-77

-79-
geed& geed, %ic
"Home & Garden-Hardware-Greenhowe"

U.S. R1. 60, P.O. Box 6d
lVorge, Yirginia23127 [8041564-8528
24 March 1986

Mr* Frank Hall
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
P 0 Box HD
W 1 is u
I msb rg, Virginia 23187-3608

Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199 through James
City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend adoption as follows:

A. Support of Corridor A-2 through York County as presently
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, with 199 through York County being a
limited access road, interchange only at intersection
with Rt 60 and 1-64, with controlled entrance/exit to
Williamsburg Pottery.

B. Support of Corridor A-1 through James City County.

C. Support the Re-signing of 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at
Exit 53-to include at least the following;

1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlets Mall :-@ Next three exits.

2. Toano.

The westerly end of Rt 60 in James City County:,js an important economic
base which can be preserved and stimulated by the adoption of the routes
recommended above.

Please consider my recommendation as you present the options to be
considered at the Corridor Hearin g at Lifayette High School on April 3rd,
1986. With kind regards, I am
R tfull yours R@elflj)t
E
f-A'A' R' 3
r y C. Ainsworth
r sid nt
/ITS.
CC. William F. Brown Victoria Gussman
100 Kingsmill Road Director of Planning James City County
Williamsburg, Va. 23185 P. 0. Box JC
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187

Di spos i ti o n:
Revised Line A which inc.l.udes L' A
ine -2, has been selected as the
preferred alternative.
p

C
@r 71 @d n

6-78

Page 80

JAMES M. ANDERSON ANDERSON'S CORNER SERVICENTER

March 24, 1986

Mr. Frank Hall
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P B x HD
Wiloliamosburg, Va. 23187-3608
RE: Routes under consideration
for the extension of 199
through James City and
York Counties
Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199
through James City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend
adoption as foll&ws:

A. Suppor@ of Corridor A-2 through York County as
presently recommended by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, wit@ 199 through York
County being a limited access road, interchange only
at intersection with@ Rt 60 and 1-64, with controlled
entrance/exit to Williamsburg pottery.

B. Support of Corridor A-1 through James City County.

C. Support of Re-si;ning 1-64 for Eastbound traffic
at Exit 53 to include at least the following:
1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlet Malls Next three
8xits
2. Toano:

The westerly end of Rt 60 in James City County is an important
economic base which can be preserved and stimulated by the
adoption of the routes recommended above.
?lease consider m3r recommendation as iou present the options to
be considered at the Corridor Hearing at Lafayettb High School
on April 3, 1986.

Very truly yours,

acr: William F. Brown James M. Anderson
Victoria Gussman Owner & Operator
Anderson's Exxon & t-
Anderson's Motel 466

!C
8554 RICHMOND ROAD T
(804) 566-0032 0A NO, VA 23168

Di sposi tion:

Revised Line A which.includes L i: n.e A-2 has been selected as the preferred
al ternative.

6-79

-78-

March 24, 1986

Mr Frank Hall
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P. 0. Box HD
Williamsburg, Va. 23187-3608

RE: Routes under consideration
for the extension of 199
through James City and
York Counties

Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199 through James
City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend adoption as follows:

A. Support of Corridor A-2 through York County as presently
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, with 199 through YoKk County being a
limited access road, interchange only at intersection
with Rt 60 and 1-64, with controlled entrance/exit to
Williamsburg pottery.

B. Support of Corridor A-1 through James City County.

C. Support of Re-si8ning 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at
Exit 53 to include at least the following:
1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlet Malls - Next three
exits.
2. Toano.

The westerly end of Rt 60 in James City County is an important economic
base which can be preserved and stimulated by the adoption of the routes
recommended above.

Please consider my recommendation as you present the options to be
considered at the Corridor Hearing at Lafayette High School on April 3,
1986.

Very truly yours,

A'V e --7

cc: William F. Brown Victoria &ssman
100 Kingsmill Road Director of Planning - James City County
Williamsburg, Va. 23185 P. 0. Box ic
Williamsburg, Va. 23187

Disposition:

Revised Line A includes L i ne A-2 has been selected as the preferred
alternative.

6-80

DELMARVA

PROPERTIES INCORPORATED
RECEIVED
March 25, 1986 MAR 2 6 1988

Mr. Frank Hall
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P. 0 Box HD
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-3608

Re: 199 Connector
James City/York County

Dear Mr. Hall:

I will be unable to attend the public hearing at Lafayette
High School on April 3. 1, however, offer the following rec-
ommendations:

A. Support Corridor A-2 as the favored route between 164
and Route 60. Said extension be limited access with interchanges
only at 164 and Route 60 with controlled ingress/egress for
Williamsburg Pottery.

B. Support alternate A-1 from Route 60 to Route 5.

Support 164 signing for Exit 53 to indicate Williamsburg,
Williamsburg Pottery and the outlet Mall.
Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, I remain,

Sincerely
Rober F Brake

RFB/jbv

Box 1700 Wmt Point virgina 2318L 604/843-5300

Disposition:

Revised Line A which includes Line A-2 has been selected as the
preferred alternative.

6-81

-77-

1986

March 24,
fax
Mr. Frank Hall k9 '/ '@
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P. 0. Box HD
Williamsburg, Va. 23187-3608

RE: Routes under onsideration
for the extencion of 199
through James Cityand
York Counties

Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of .199 through James
City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend adoption as follows:

B. Support of Corridor A-1 through James City County.

C. Support of Re-signing 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at
Exit 53 to include at least the following:
1. -'Williamsburg Pottery, Outlet Malls - Next three
exits.
2. Toano.

The westerly end of Rt 60 in James City County is an important economic
base which can be preserved and stimulated by the adoption of the routes
recommended above.

Please consider my recommendation as you present the options to be
considered at the Corridor Hearing at Lafayette High School on April 3,
1986. Very truly yours,

cc: William F. Brown Victoria Gus-man
100 Kingsmill Road Direccor of Planning - James City County
Williamsburg, Va. 23185 P. 0. Box JC
Williamsburg, Va. 23187

Di spositi on:

Revised Line A which i ncl udes Li ne, A-2. has been selected as the
preferred alternative.

6-82

-76-

March 24, 1986

4@
Mr. Frank Hall
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P 0. Box HD
Williamsburg, Va. 23187-3608

RE: Routes under consideration
for the extension of 199
through James City and
York Counties

Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199 through James
City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend adoption as follows:

A. Support of Corridor A-2 through York County as presently
recommended'by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, with 199 through York County being a
limited access road, interchanae only at intersection
with Rt 60 and 1-64, with controlled entrance/exit to
Williamsburg pottery.-

B. Support of Corridor A-1 through James City County.

C. Support of Re-signing 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at
Exit 53 to include at least the following:
1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlet Malls Next three.
exits.
2. Toano.

The westerly end of Rt 60 in James City County is.an important economic
base which can be preserved and stimulated by the.adoption of the routes
recommended above.

Please consider my recommendation as you present the options to be
considered at the Corridor Hearing at Lafayette High School on April 3,
1986.

Very truly yours,

cc: William F. Brown Victoria Gussnan
100 Kingsmill Road Director of Planning - James City County
Williamsburg, Va. 23185 P. 0. Box JC
Williamsburg, Va. 23187

Disposition:
Revised Line A A ich i ncl udes I i ne. A-2 has been selected as the.preferred
alternative.

6-83

-74-
CLAYTON AGENCY LAGRANGE FARM

March 24, 1986

Mr. Frank Hall
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P. 0. Box HD
Williamsburg, Va. 23187-3608

RE: Rouges under consideration
for the extension of 199
through James City and
York
Counties-

Dear Mr. Hall

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199 through James.
City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend adoption as follows;

A. Support of Corridor A-2 through York County as presently
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, with 199 through York County being a
limited access road interchange only at intersection
with Rt. 60 and I64, with Controlled entrance/exit 'to'
williamsburg pottery.

B. support of Corridor A-1 through.James City County.

C. Support of Re-signing 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at
Exit 53 to include at least the following:
1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlet Malls Next three
exits.
2. Toano.
,The westerly end of Rt 60 in James city County is an important economic
base.which can be preserved. and stimulated by the adoption of the routes

recommended above.

'Please consider my reccomindation as you present the options to be
considered at the corridor Hearing at Lafayette High School on April 3
1986.

Very truly yours,

Howard V. Claycon

HVC/mwa

cc: William F. Brown Victoria Gussman
100 Kingsmill Road Director of Planning - James City County
Williamsburg, Va. 23185 P. 0. Box JC
Williamsburg, Va. 23187

1-804-564-8400 po box 447 TOANO,V1RG1NlA 23168
Dispostion

Revised Line A which includes Line A-2 has been selected as the preferred
al ternative.
6-84

-99-

To: Mr. C.A. Nash, Jr. , District Engineer, Va. Dept of Hwys.

From: Donald W. Cuthrell, Jr., General Manager, WQSF-AM/FM

Subject: Proposed Route 199 Project
State Project 0199-965-101, PE100

II. wish to record my opposition'to the proposed Line A route of
this project, as this corridor would run directi-y-tn-rough our
broadcast studios.

Unlike other businesses, the relocation of our radio studios
require technical considerations above and beyond the general
scope of selecting an alternative site.

We are licensed to operate our' radio stations by the Federal
Communications Commission within certain technical guidelines.
erations * rrent operation would require prior
Any alt in our cu
approval, which is a time consuming, costly process. Not only
would we be required to move physically, we would be required
to select the microwave routing essential to broadcasting our
signal. While our studios are impacted by this move, so is
our very ability to broadcast, since the link between our studios
and our transmitting facility in New Kent County is essential.
Let me also make the point that such FCC approval in NOT
guaranteed.

In addition to our studios and general business offices, we
would be required to relocate and possibly re-license:

1. Our main microwave relay to the New Kent site.

2. Our satellite downlink for AP news.
3. our satellite downlink for computer weather.
4. Our satellite downlink for special programming.
5. Our Marti receiving link.
6. Our transmission link to the AM tower.

At the least, this move would cost $100,000 in equipment licensing
and necessary alterations. The possibility exists that we would
not be able to broadcast at all, because a new site capable of
meeting ours and the FCC criteria could not be located. Because
of our microwave, we must be located within a certain fairly
narrow corridor with relation to our transmitter.

6-85

_100-

Page 2

In summary, the Line A.corridor places our facilities in a
most serious situation, where simple relocation may not be
possible. I don't see it in the best interests of the com-t
munities to place in je6pardy the radio stations licensed-,
to serve them.

I therefore support Line A-1, Line A-2rj or Line D.

Respectfully submitted,

W. rell, Jr.
General Manager

Dispos'ition:

The selected alignment, 'Revised Line A, will not :result in the loss of. any
businesses.
rell, @Jr .

6-96

H. Jackson Darst
P. 0. Box 913
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187

Mr. Frank N. Hall
Virginia Dept. of Highways
P. 0. Box RD
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187

Dear Mr. Hall:

This pertains to the proposed Route 199 alternatives in
York County between Lightfoot 1 64 X interchange and Route 60.
I desire that it be incorporated with the oral comments made at
the public hearing on April 3, 1986.

This Committee is elected by the farmers and land-
owners of York County, and in the only organized voice of agri-
culture in the County.

Proposed Alernative D is opposed--which is the same stand
taken by the supervisors of this County. In support of them
alternative A R is endorsed.
jr
D cuts through at least four tracts which are now used
for agricultural and/oF forestry--none of which have been rezoned
for business. Any ur@6cessary conversion of this land to a highway
is opposed. Line A 2 will disyrupt agricutlure to tho least
degree.

Agriculture and forestry in York County is faced with
enormousz pressure from development. We do not need any unnecessary
augmentation of that by highway rights of way.

Sincerely,

H Jackson Darst
airman, York Committee,
Agricultural Stabilization &
Conservation Service, VSDA

RE
CE'v
@PR 1 4 W 6

FFICE
tc

Disposition:

Revised Line A which includes @'.the Alignment A-2 segment has been
selected..
Ja
ir
@Pa

6-87

-84-
Chesapeake

J. Carter Fox
President and
chief executive officer

March 26. 1986

Mr. Frank Hall
Virginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
p.o. box HD
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-3608

Dear Mr. Hall-

As a representative of a corporate property owner and tax paying
entity in James City County, I feel it is critical that the correct decisions
be made for the 1-64-199 Connector through James City and York Counties.
I therefore recommend and support the following:

1. Support of Corridor A-2 through York County as presently
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion with said route being a limited access road with interchanges
at 1-64 and Route 60 with controlled ingress/egress to Williamsburg
Pottery:

2. Support Corridor A-1, the easternmost route, through James
City County.

3. 1 also support signing changes on 1-64 to indicate Exit 53
as the gateway to Williamsburg, Williamsburg Pottery and the Outlet
Mall.

The northern end of James City County is an important commercial
area that can be enhanced by the above recommended actions.

I will be unable to attend the scheduled public hearing at Lafayette
High School on April 3, 1986; but I would like my recommendations considered.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

JCF:Jcg

19th &Main Streets. Box 311. West Point VIrginia. 23181 804-843-5000 Telex 82-7308/7452

Disposition:

Revised Line A has been selected.

6-88

03
&44 W. REALTOWD REALTOR

April 3, 1986

Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation
ATTN: Mr. Frank N. Hall
Resident Engineer
P'0. Box HD
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

RE: Route 199 Extension

Dear Mr. Hall:

I am writtng you regarding the proposed extension of Route 199 from
U.S. Route 5 to 1-64, Having been recently involved in the develop-
ment of several commercial tracts, located on U.S. Route 60 between
the Williamsburg Pottery entrance and Lightfoot Road, it is my opinion
that the commercial development of land on the U.S. Route 60 corridor
would be best served by the proposed Route 199 A-1 alignment in James
City County and the A-2 alignment in York County. This design would
permit easy access for the local residents to major road arteries,
thus relieving the road congestion for tourist frequenting the U.S.
Route 60 commercial corridor.

In the event the VDHT pursues the aforementioned alignment, I would
recommend the eastbound 1-64 road signage be modified to denote the
two interchanges west of the proposed 199 interchange as well as the
199 interchange, as exits for the Outlet Mall and Williamsburg Pottery.
This would allow the existing commercial developments on U.S. Route 60
between Toano and Lightfoot Road continued exposure to the tourist
frequenting the Outlet Mall and Williamsburg Pottery which has been a
major attribute in the past for the commercial development of this
corridor.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration of my viewpoint, I remain,

Relpectively yours
@v ;VA@
Earle W. Greene
WMSBGRR Associates

EWG/rs

cc: E.S. Bingley, Jr.
William.F-.-Brown

P. 0. BOX 3746 234 E. CHURCH STREET MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA 24115 PHONE 703 - 632-6461

noun=

Dilsposi tion:

No response required.

6_S9

-68-

April 3, 1986

To: State Highway and Transportation Board of Virginia:

From: Representatives of Mt.Pleasant Professional Center

we the undersigned wish to go on record as unanimously supporting the completion
to Route 199. However, we are very concerned about the proposed plan to termin-
ate Strawberry Plains Road (Rcute 616) as a cul- de-sac, as it would adversely
affect the public health and safety and would have a significantly negative
long-term effect on the area currently served by Strawberry Plains Road (Route
616).

We respectfully request that the Highway Department consider continuing Straw-
berry Plains Road to Route 5 for the reasons listed below and we have included
a map of how this could be done.

1) There are currently five physicians and a dentist in the medical complex on
Strawberry Plains Road (Route 616). There is currently easy access to emergency
medical facilities. If Strawberry Plains Road becomes a cul-de-sac we believe
this will create a hazard for critically ill patients as emergency vehicles will
travel a more circuitous mute to these patients. Time is of the essence in
medical emergencies.

2) in addition to our regular patients, accident victims from Busch Gardens,
Anheuser Busch, and B.A.S.F. (formerly Badisch) are sent to this medical can-
plex. All of these patients wi11 be coming from the east side of 199. Also a
large number of patients require laboratory and X-ray services and terminating
Strawberry Plains Road will greatly increase the travel time for patients who
are ill or injured as these services are located at the intersection of Route
5 and 199.

3) we also feel that under the current proposal there will be a significant
delay in response from fire fighter vehicles. In 1982 we had a fire that re-
sulted in $125,000 worth of damage. If there had been a slightly longer de-
lay in response, the building could have been completely destroyed with damage
of $300,000.

4) This medical complex (Mt. Pleasant Professional Center) is located in the
largest piece of undeveloped land in the City of williamburg. The College of
William G Mary currently owned this land and has recently sold some of its other
property and could possibly sell some or all of the adjacent land at a later
time. Continuing Strawberry Plains -Road to Route 5 will provide access to this
property-

We are in agreement with the position of the City of Williamsburg and James
City County that Strawberry Plains Road (Route 616) can and should be contin-
ued as a thoroughfare when the proposed extension of Route 199 is started.

Clifford E. Henderson, M.D.

Thomas J. Powers, Jr., M.D.

Richard B. Theis, M.D.

Scott Y. Pharr, M.D.

Anthony J. Taylor, 'M.D.

Peter-D. Wendell, D.D.S.
6-90

-I@A QE -?0.

Oki
C7.,

L A

;,071i

Di sposi tion:

Through access for Strawberry Plains Road (Route 616) has been provided.

@-K

210 Thomas Nelson Lane
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
April 10, 1986

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
District Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
Post Offici Box 1070
Suffolk, Virginia 2M34

Dear Mr. Nash:

We, as property owners on Route 646, favor the
improvement of Route 646 and oppose the extension of Route
199 into our area.

Sincerely yours,

AspeK P. Lee

Blanche B. Lee

Disposition:

No response required.

5-92

-lol-

M1CG,unaE,1V00DS & BATTLE
137 YORK STREET

ONE: JAMES CENTER P. 0. BOX 3-79 SOVRAN CENTER
Ricm MONO. VIRGINIA 23219 NORFOLK, VI RGI NIA 23510
CABLE MCW06AT WIL.LIAMS BURG, VIRG 23187 TELE.,-oNr (804) 627-7677
TELEX 82-741A
TrLFPMONr 111041 65@4-4131 TELEPHONE (804) 229-2393 JEFFERSON COURT
WAsHiNGToN. 0. C. 20007
COURT SOUARc Sumoima April 9, 1986 TeLEPmoNc (202) 337-1337
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRaiN IA 22901
TELEPHONE (804) 977-2500

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
District Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
Post Office Box 1070
Suffolk, Virginia 23434

Re: Route 199 - James City County
Ford's Colony at Williamsburg, Inc.

Dear Mr. Nash:

I write on behalf of Ford's Colony at Williamsburg, Inc. to
reiterate and amplify the remarks which I made orally at the
hearing which you conducted on'April 3, 1986, at Lafayette High
School.

in reliance on the James City County Land Use Plan and the
decision made by the Virginia Department of Highways in 1979, to
adopt Line A as the corridor for the unfinished portion of Route
199 through James City County, Ford's Colony at Williamsburg,
Inc. has invested millions of dollars in the acquisition and
development of two tracts of land known locally-as Ford's Colony
(1,410 acres) and Williamsburg West (700 acres) .

Ford's Colony has approval for the development on the Ford's
Colony tract of 1150 single-family residences and 826
multi-family residences, and also plans a resort hotel, a golf
country club, a private wellness center, a property owners'
community club, three golf courses and related maintenance and
sales centers. One of the three golf courses is planned for nine
holes on the Ford's Colony tract and a connected nine holes on
the Williamsburg West tract. The Williamsburg West tract is
separated from Ford's Colony by Longhill Swamp, a marshy area
within the 100 year floodplain. Your proposed-Line D for the
Route 199 corridor traverses Longhill Swamp from north to south,
separating the Ford's Colony property from the adjoining
Williamsburg West property.

Ford's Colony wishes to register the strongest possible
protest to this alignment of Route 199. It has made its
investments and will make its future investments in reliance on

6-93

_102-

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
April 9, .1986
Page 2 @ I
your-prior approval of Corridor A. Corridor D will have a
devastating effect on the present and future development of the
two tracts of land owned by Ford's Colony at Williamsburg, Inc.,
will degrade the environment in Longhill Swamp and will seriously
effect the value of the residential lots and amenities now being
developed and proposed for the two tracts of land described
above.
Ford's Colony at Williamsburg, Inc. is! also concerned about
proposed Line A-1, although it realizes that some alteration in
Line A is required to avoid environmental d@mage to an endangered
species of plant. Nevertheless, Ford's Colony at Williamsburg_
Inc. urges that Line A-1 be realigned to run just west of the
1001 contour marking a north-south ridge on the west side of the
Soft 96 radio tower. This would avoid the large sweeping curve
of Line A-1 shown on your schematic drawings. The line shown on
your drawings would sever a large parcel of land from the
southeast corner of the Williamsburg West property. This land
would have no access to either Route 199 or to any other @public
road and would be unusable by the owners. Other testimony at
your April 3 hearing indicates that this line can be adjusted
without environmental danger to the endangered species which you
seek to protect.

Ford's Colony at Williamsburg,
For the foregoing reasons*
Inc. will use every means at its disposal to object to and defeat
the alignment of Route 199 along proposed Line D and the proposed
Line A-1, unless the latter.can be adjusted to avoid damage to
its property.

I appreciated the opportunity to speak at your publ4c
hearing and I trust that the position of my clients, which is in
line with that adopted by the James City County Board of
Supervisors, will convince the Virginia Department of Highways to
adopt Line A and a less damaging alignment of Line A-1 through
James City County as the corridor for this new road.

Very tr ly yours,
VMG/jls V. M. Ge@ddy, Jr

Disposition:

Revised Line A has been selected.

6-94

HAND-CARVED COBALT
SALT GLAZE
CIRCA-1750
WILLIAMSBURG POTTERY FACTORY, INC.
JAMES E. MALONEY Lightfoot, Virginia 23090
Chairman of Board 5 MILES WEST OF WILLIAMSBURG, ROUTE 60
GLORIA F. NIALONEY 804-564-3326 SALT:NG THE KILN
Vice-Chairman of Board TELEX 823459
FREDERICK C, MALONEY CABLE ADDRESS POTSHOP
President
CHARLES F. CRONE
Vice President
KENNETH F. JOHNSON
Vice President
JOAN M. JOHNSON April 16 1986
Vice President
ALICE M. HAWKINS
Vice President

Mr. C. A. Nash,-Jr.
District Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
P.O. Box 1070
Suffolk, VA 23434

RE: Proposed Route 199, York County

Dear Mr. Nash:

The Williamsburg Pottery Factory, Inc. (i.e., The Pottery) is very appreciative
of the fact that the Department expanded its environmental study of Route 199
locational alternatives to include Alignment A-2 in the Route 646 corridor.
That was clearly indicative of the Department's commitment to cooperative State
transportation and private industry planning. The Pottery hereby reaffirms its
support of Alignment A-2 and respectfully urges State Highway and Transportation
Board adoption of the same.

The Pottery submits that the Department's Draft Environmental Impact Statement
clearly presents Alignment A-2 as not just a viable alternative but in fact the
best alternative for the Route 646 corridor. Following are some specific com-
ments relative to this conclusion.

Alignment A - York County

Alignment A would virtually destroy a large section of Route 646, a road believed
to have both historic and sentimental value to that a rea of York County. Simi-
larly, Alignment A would cause a relatively large tract of land owned and held
by The Pottery for future commercial development to be basically unsuitable for
such development. Furthermore, Alignment A is more costly, more disruptive, and
would be much less effective in providing'for coordinated transportation and
land use planning as envisioned by York County's plans, goals and objectives for
that area.

Alignment D - York County

Within the context of York County's planning and economic development goals,
Alignment D would be of little value. Yes, it would place the new highway fur-'
ther from a few existing housing units. However, the Route 646 corridor is a

** Plan Sheet attached to this correspondence
forwarded to Central Office with transcript.
Attachment No. 4
6-95

land-in-transition. Largely attributable to York County's planning and zoning
changes in that corridor, the transition from residential to commercial lan6 use
has already begun, clearly evidenced by both recent land sales and properties
currently being advertised for sale. Alignment D would do litti.e to preserve
the already enhanced property values along Route 646 and, consequently, would
not be in the best interest of,existing property owners. Implementation of
Alignment D would require either immediate or concurrent investment of signifi-
cant additional state resources in the upgrading of Route 646, an investment
deemed neither necessary nor prudent in view of the attributes of alternative
Alignment A-2.

Alignment A-2

Alignment A-2 offers the Department an excellent opportunity to be a key par-
ticipant in cooperative governmental (state and local) and private industry
land use/transporcacion/economic development planning. The York County Board
of Supervisors has unanimously endorsed Alignment A-2 as being in the County's
best interests. The Pottery supports Alignment A-2 as being the only alterna-
tive that will effectively meet its access needs for both existing Pottery
operations and the development of other owned properties in the Route 646 corri-
dor. These latter properties are both adjacent to and removed from existing.
Pottery operations. The Pottery reemphasized its belief that Alignment A-2 is
also in the best interest of virtually all property owners in the Route 646 cor-
ridor, and that it offers the best opportunity for providing transportation
facilities supportive of corridor development. Implementation of Alignment A-2
should preclude the need for significant investment in upgrading Route 646, at
least for some time in the future. With corridor access provided as currently
planned, with an intersection placed approximately mid-corridor, Alignment A-2
should provide access neces.sary for ultimate full corridor development.

Pottery Operations & Development Plans

The Pottery is one of several primary tourist attractions in the Williamsburg
area, conceivably the destination for more annual vehicular trips than any
other single destination in the area. The Pottery is naturally interested in
seeing that access for its visitors/patrons is afforded in the most convenient
fashion, which is logically the most direct route. Accordingly, The Pottery
has for some time been pursuing planning alternatives that would facilitate the
reorientation of its ma 'in entrance to the Route 646 corridor, contingent upon
improved access from Interstate 64. The alignment A-2 alternative for Route 199
is the only alternative studied which will provide for accomplishment of that
objective. Furthermore, Alignment A-2 will effectively support The Pottery's
plans for development of other properties in the Route 646 corridor, initiatives
the Pottery believes will provide the stimulus needed for the ultimate well plan-
ned development of the entire corridor.

Enclosed herewith is a copy of The Pottery's current development plan. Please
note that this current plan has been coordinated effectively with Alignment A-2,
You will also note that development priorities are slightly different from an
earlier plan rendering shared with Department personnel. Given Alignment A-2,
The Pottery believes it will be in its best interest, as well as the interest of
overall corridor land use and transportation development, to phase new develop-,
ment with initial activity planned around the new entrance to existing Pottery

6-96

operations. Future development activity will consequently proceed up and down
Route 646 as'sound planning and economic conditions dictate. As noted earlier,
such development phasing should preclude the need for significant financial
investments in improving Route 646 for some time in the future.
0

The Pottery appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments for the Depart-
ment and Board's consideration. Finally, the Pottery pledges its commitment to
this opportunity for cooperative governmental - private industry pursuit of what
appear to be mutually supportive, as well as compatible transportation/land use/
economic development planning goals and objectives.

Respectfully submitted,

THE WILLIAMSBURG POTTERY FACTORY, INC.

Frederick-C. Maloney
President

cc: Mr. H. M. Shaver, Jr.

Disposition:

Revised Line A which uses the Alignment A-2 Segment has been Selected.

6-97

_98-

5087 Longhill Road
Williamsburg, Virginia
April 7, 1986

Mr. C. A. Nash
P.0 .Box 1070
Suffolk , Virginia 23434

Dear Mr. Nash:
I am a life-long resident 'of 5087 Longhill Road, in James
City County", and would like to voice my opinion in regards
to the Rt. 199 extension.

I attended the meeting at Lafayette High School on April 4th
and was amazed to find that the majority of the people there
felt the same as I do. It was obvious that the residents of
James City County were opposed to Rt. 199 Corridor Line D.
I heard several reasons why this route would not be fair to
the residents that this proposed route effects, as well as
to the tax payers of James City County. These reasons included
cost, environment, etc. I felt that Line A, or Al, seemed
to satisfy almost all of the James City County residents.

1 York County residents speak and
I also listened to severa
the majority of them spoke in favor of Corridor Li@ie D & A
in York County. I heard of several residences and businesses
that would be destroyed because of these proposals for Rt. 199.

It was obvious to me that there is a solution to both residents
of James City and York counties. I feel that Rt. 199 Corridor
Line A, or Al, could be followed through James City County,
and where line D meets with A in York County follow either of
these through York County. I feel that you will make the same
decision that the majority of James City and York County
residents have already made.

Sincerely,

S ,e Minor
Janet J.

SEM:wsm
APP,

SUFFOL'-" DiSTRICT

Disposition:,

No response required.

6-9 6

_91-
YS COZO

4k_

April 4, 1986 .7.3,ALsc

APR 1986
d 1e RECENED
Director of Planning C T
James City County BERMW
P. 0. Box JC
VA 23
Williamsbu rg, 185

Dear Ms. Gussman:

In cooperation with the Biology Department at the College
of William and Mary and the Location and Design (LOC) Engineers
of the Virginia Department of Highway and Transportation (VDH&T)
Ford's Colony has studied the proposed routings of RT 199 in
James City County. Ford's Colony is strongly opposed to proposal
D and is making a formal presentation to VDH&T in Richmond through
our legal representatives, McQuire, Woods & Battle. The purpose
of this letter is to point out a variation to proposal A-1 which
we endors4 with the support of environmental concerns about the
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) and the LOC Division
of VDH&T.
:7

When the James City County corridor of 199 was being designed
in 1976, the LOC Divisionuof VDH&T designed an alternate to proposal
A as we now know it by ro ting immediately West of the "Soft 96"
radio tower field and on the Westerly side of the 100 ft. ridge
line North to where A-1 and A now intersect. I will call this
route "alternate A" for the sake of clarity. Alternate A was abandon
for A in 1976 and never got out of the LOC Division because it
apparently offered no advantages over A. The only disadvantage
known was a slight cost increase to swing West of the radio tower.
VDH&T offered proposal A and D for public consideration.

Alternate A-1 surfaced in respons e to Mrs. Donna Ware's
rediscovery of the small whorled pogonia in 1982 in the vicinity
of the intended route of proposal A approximately one mile due
North of the radio tower.' With.,the subsequent classification of the
orchid to the Endangered Plant and Insect Species of Virginia in
1985, VDH&T determined it would be appropriate to route proposal A
on the other side of the ridge line to prevent alteration of the
drainage area and habitat of the orchid. With the interchange for
proposal D already designed North-West of Mt. Pleasant Church, the
LOC Division simply swung a Northerly arc to intersect with
proposal A on Eastern State property. The LOC Division has informed
me that it is a simple matter of redesigning the interchange ramps

Ford's Colony at Williarmsburg
One Ford's Colony Drive
Williamsburg, Virginia 2.3185
1-8M334-6033 L.BW.533-4043 (in VA)
01-

6-99

to accommodate Ford's Colony's request to revive alternate A.
In fact, the LOC Division informed me that, if they were aware of
our concerns earlier, proposal A-1 could have been the original
alternate A since alternate A minimizes the impact on Ford's
Colony, Casey, and Eastern State property.

Enclosure 1 graphically illustrates alternate A in comp-
arision with proposal A, A-1, and D. Ford's Colony requests that
the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors endorse this modification to proposal A. Proposal A-1
sweeps unnecessarily West of the intended route. Additionally,
alternate A would represent a savings of approximately 2000 linear
feet of roadway compared to A-1.

Sincerely,

rew R. MI lhare
Project Engineer

Disposition:

Revised Line A has been selected. The selected alignment does not
extend as far westward as the Alignment A-1.
D a@R. M @1@are

6-100

OTEY AND POWELL

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

POST OFFICE BOX 192

WILLIAMSBURG,VIRGINIA 23187 101a John Jefferson rd
David W otey Telephone (804 229-6141
Samuel T Powell
David W OTEY. JR.
April 17, 1986

Mr. M H. Culbertson, Jr.
District Right of Way Manager
Department of Highways & Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

RE: Route 199, Project 0199-965-101, PE-100
Property of Ronald T. Curtis Custom Builder, Inc.

Dear Mr. Culbertson:

This firm represents Ronald T. Curtis Custom Builder, Inc., an d I have
in hand your letter to Mr. Curtis dated April 11, 1986. 1 understand that
there has recently been some public comment favoring so-called Alternative
A-1 to proposed Route 199. It is my understanding that Line A-1 is an
alternative recently proposed as a way of avoiding certain environmental
objections.

As you might expect, on beh aIf of my client, I vigorously oppose
Alternatives A-1 and D or any variation thereof that would bisect my
clients 37 acres.

Mr. Curtis' company purchased this property several years ago
intending to subdivide it into high quality wooded lots. As you will note,
the property is and has been zoned R-2. At the time Mr. Curtis purchased
the property, water and 'sewer were available without any need for the
construction of a pumping station. Although Route 199 had been proposed,
no then existing alternatives interfered with Mr. Curtis' intended
development. Relying on all of the foregoing, Mr. Curtis purchased the
property.

Mr. Curtis has begun work on his intended 100-120 lot subdivision.
Alternatives A-1 and D would bisect his subdivision and render his plans
completely useless. Certainly there are more desirable alternative routes
that would avoid such significant interference with projects consistent
with both current zoning and James City County's comprehensive plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

YOurs very truly.

David W OTey. Jr.. 1986

DWO:jmg
cc: William F. Brown

Di sposi ti on:

Revised Line A has been selected.

6-101

75-

March 24, 1986

Mr Frank Hall
Vi;ginia Department of
Highways & Transportation
P. 0. Box HD
Williamsburg, Va. 23187-3608

RE: Routes under consideration
for the extension of 199
through James City and
York Counties

Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199 through James
City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend adoption as follows:

B. Support of Corridor A-1 through James City County.

C. Support of Re-signing 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at
Exit 53 to include at least the following:
1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlet Malls - Next three
exits.
2. Toano.

The westerly end of Rt 60 in James City County is an important economic
base which can be preserved and stimulated by the adoption of the routes
recommended above.

Please consider my recommendation as you present the options to be
considered at the Corridor Hearing at Lafayette High School on April 3,
1986.
Very truly yours,

cc: William F. Brown Victoria Gussman
100 Kingsmill Road Director of Planning - James City County
Williamsburg, Va. 23185 P. 0. Box JC
Williamsburg, Va. 23187

Di sposi tion:

No response required.

6-102

" /' -\ -
-94-

William M. Pettitt, Jr.
34 Patton Drive
Newport News, Virginia 23

Zc.-nmon%ealth of Virginia
Dept. Of Highways & Transportation
Suffolk , Virginia 23434

Dear Sirs:

1. 1 own the last piece of property on the north side of 646
next to the C&O railroad in York County. I am very concerned
about the new Route # 199 that is being proposed for that area.
From what I heard at the public hearing last night, it seemed to
me that almost everyone from York County that spoke, had a similar
view. .Leave 646 alone to develope into the CT (Commercial
Tourist) area that the York County planning board seems to have
projected'. Mr. Robert Ripley made a very good presentation for
the investors that have bought property along 646 based on past
and present planning and I can understand their position. As a
long time property owner (My family has owned this land since the
early 1800's) I am very concerned that this new road will seal off
my property and leave me with high taxes and on a dead end lane,
watching the cars go to the Pottery and not able to develope or
utilize the land as it should. From what was said at the meeting
it seems that the Pottery has an unfair advantage over your road
building plans

2. Mr. Gallimore and others stated that "If the York County part
of the road must be changed at all, it should be the line D with
at least a direct road to #646 from the interchange at the
intersection of f646 and #64. 1 tried to talk to as many of the
1646 property owners as possible, and all that I talked to said:

(1) Leave 646 alone.
(2) At least build #199 along line "D" and leave us a
clear road from Route 4646.

3. As a small property owner I fell that our interests are not
always given as much weight as a big outfit such as the Pottery.
I hope my faith in the system is justified and your road will
benefit the community not just the one big special interest group.

4. 1 do not have any thoughts at all on the projected route
through James City County as I am not effected and have therefore
not studied route.
5. 1 sinceirelsyhope that you can build a road that will not
destroy the potential of Route #646 from Route 464 to Route 460.

Sincerely

William M. Pettitt, Jr.

Disposition:
Access has been provided betwee'n'Routes .199 and 646.

6-103

127 Lightfoot Road
Williamsburg, Va.
23185
12 April., 1986

Mr. Frank Hall, Resident Engineer
Department of Highways an@ Transportation
Williamsburg, Virginia

Dear Mr. Halli

It is the purp9se of this letter to join
with most of the other residents along Lightfoot
Road to express our determined opposition to any
plans within your department to select any cor-
ridor other than the so-called LINE D for the
route for the proposed Route 199 extension fr om
1 64 to u. s. 6o.

We view the "A",Lines, 1 & 2, as too de-
structivelof homes, community, valuable resource
property to justify the punishment of so @any
for the benefit of so few. Our overwhelming feel-
ing is that we would rather see Route 199 plans
abandoned than have the heart of our community
gutted by a massive road bed. I feel that the
regional study people used too broad a brush in
delineating a proposed route, and did. not take
into account the vicious impact upon local residents.

Thank your for letting me file this view.
Sirrely yo 5_9
e
@e-org Y" -Po e

----------------

Disposition:

No response required.

6-104

-86-

LADY ANNE WILLIAMSBURG
DOLLS,.c DOLLFACTORY
AT 60 P.O. BOX 245 RT 60 P.O. BOX 291
NORGE VA 23127 NORGE VA 23127
804-564-9703 illiamsbur Brill jurforig 804-564-9703
March 28, 198F 's
HOMEOF
Mr. Frank Hall Tabu @knnz grills
Virginia Department of'
Highways & Transportation
P. 0. Box HD
Williamsburg, VA 23187

RE. Routes under consideration of 199 through James City and York
Counties..

Dear Mr. Hall:

With respect to various proposed routes and designs of 199
through James City and York Counties, I urge you to recommend
adoption as follows:

z;
A. Support of Corridor A-2 through York County as presently
recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, with 199 through York County being a
limited access road, interchange only at intersection with Rt.
60 and 1-64, with controlled entrance/exit to Williamsburg
Pottery.

B. Support of Corridor A- I through James City County.

C. Support of Re-signing 1-64 for Eastbound traffic at Exit 53 to
include as least the following:

1. Williamsburg Pottery, Outlets Malls - Next three exits.
2. Toano.

The westerly end of Rt. 60 In James City County Is an Important
economic base which can be preserved and stimulated by the
adoption of the routes recommended above.

Please consider my recommendations as you present the
options to be considered at the Corridor Hearing at Lafayette
High School on April 3,1986.

Very truly yours,

WHEN IN WILLIAMSBURG VISIT OUR DOLL FACTORY.

Di spositi on:

No response required.
J?
(_114t?

6-105

-114-

101 lightfeet road
milliamsburg Virginia April 15, 1966

Mr. C A. Nash, Jr.
District Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
P. O. BOx 1070
Suffolk, Virginia

Dear Sir:

Regarding Route 199, Project 0199-965-201.fs 100

I have been a long term resident of York County, living in lightfoot
Rose. (646) at the 1-64 end, for 25 Years. I was here when route 162 was
upgraded to a double lane highway and am one of about 3 original families
living on this road now. I have seen a lot of changes made in this community
in that time, from a farming area to a residential community with a few farms
left.

It was changed quite A lot when 1-64, and Rochambeau roads were built
in 1977. it that time these highways divided and used up a lot of frontage
an my place. So I am very disturbed with thin 199 project coming up again now.

As I see. it along with most of my neighbcrs that Lightfooot Road (646)
is all the road this community needs from 1-64 to rout,. 60. This road (646)
in an upgraded condition of being a 4 lane highway with A turning lane in the
center is all we need.

I alone with most of the people of this community do not want a limited
access highway.- like 199 coming through our property.

Of the three alignment alternatives presented at the location meeting,
corridor A-2 will do no lass damage. The board of supervisors of York County
has already selected this alignment with modifications at the I-64 end. The
modifications being that line A-2 will cross to the north of 646 about a mile.
from the 164 interchange, with Rochambeau to be kept as close to 1-64 as like
it is now.

This road,route 199 has been kicked around in the highway department since
1979 and. has been. very disturbing to me and my family ever since.

Sincerely yours,

Robert F. Sherman
ph. 565-2020

Disposition:

Revised Line A which includes th e Alignment A-2 segment has been selected.

6-106

-85-
ell,
ROME 0
BROWN
&ASSff-11

March 27, 1986

Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
ATTN: Mr. Frank N. Hall
Resident Engineer
P.O. Box HO
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

RE: Route 199 Extension

Dear Mr. Hall:

am writing you regarding the proposed extension of Route 199 from U.S.
Route 5 to 1-64. Having been recently involved in the develo 'oment of several
commercial tracts, located on U.S. Route 60 between the Williamsburg Pottery
entrance and Lightfoot Road, it is my opinion that.the commercial development
of land on the U.S. Route 60 corridor would be best served by the proposed
Route 199 A-1 alignment in James City County and the A-2 ali;nment in York
County. This design would permit easy access for the local residents to major
road arteries thus relieving the road congestion for tourist frequenting the
U.S. Route 60 commercial corridor.

In the event the VDHT pursues the aforementioned alignment, I would
recommend the eastbound 1-64 roa4 signage be modified to denote the two
interchanges west of the proposed 199 interchange as well as the 199
interchange, as exits for the Outlet Mall and Williamsburg Pottery. This would
allow the existing commercial developments on U.S. Route 60 between Toano
and Lightfoot Road continued exposure to the tourist frequenting the Outlet
.Mall and the Williamsburg Pottery which has been a major attribute in the past
for the comercial development of this corridor.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration of my viewpoint, I
remain,-

ely yours,
t. ct,
Robert J. Singley

RJS/k1m

cc: E.S. Bingley, Jr.
William F. Brown

Co mercial Real Estate - Brokerage - Development
3 Koger Fxecutive Center. Suite 100 PO. mBox L2702 - Norfolk. Virginia 23502 - Norfolk 1804) 461-C-CM - Peninsula (804; 877-5600

4!
Disposition:

No response required.

6-107

VIRGINIA LANDIVIARK CORPORATION
Realfors

P.O. Box 8379 1807 Libbie Avenue Richmond. Virginia 23226 (804) 285-3935

April 4, 1986

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
District Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
P. 0. Box 1070
Suffolk, VA 23434

Dear Mr. Nash:

I was at the Location Public Hearing for Route
199 at the LaFayette High School in James City County on
April 3 and am writing a letter as a representative for
the Casey family, which owns a significant amount of
property between Route 615 and Eastern State Hospital,
that would be ef fected by Route 199. We ask that this
letter be incorporated as part of the official record of
that Searing. 1/. 1

At the present time, with the information
available to the Caseys, it appears that Route A-1 is
the most appropriate for them.

The actual routing cost needs to be subject to
certain micro studies, and to this end, we are
requesting some information from you in order to more
specifically pin down the more appropriate location and
to iden-tify potential problem areas.

To this end, Have you applied the proposed A-1
route to a property line section sheet of James City
County? Have you all flown aerial topography? Environ-
mental Impact Study indicates several archaeological
sites located on the Casey properties. This was from
Map 4.7, located just after Page 432 in the Environ-
mental Impact Study Book. Are there any written des-
criptions concerning what these archaeological sites
consist of? As you are aware, there is an endangered
specie plant (a pogonia). Has any mapping been done to
locate the extremities of this plant?

Finally, is t he Monticello extension from Route
615 to the proposed 199 part of this project?

6-108

Mr. C.'A. Nash, Jr.
Page Two
April 4, 1986

If we could have the aforementioned information
and!data, the Caseys would be in a pos ition to
definitively arrive at some conclusions about the
location.
remain, With appreciation for a prompt response, I

Cord ially,

Joseph Stettinius

-JS/kc
cc: Mr. C. Lewis Casey
The Reverend Carlton D. Casey
The Reverend Robert T. Casey

Di s pos i ti on:

1 Property 1 i nes have@ not been assessed as part o'f the DEIS.
2. Aerial photography is available Jor the Route 199 Study Corridor and
was used in the development of the various alternatives.
3. The Cultural Resources Technical Report provides a detailed description
of the archaeological sites.
4. A Section 7 - Biological Assessment has been conducted for the endangered
plant species (Isotri medeoloides).
5. Monticello Avenue extension from Route 615 will be constructed; however,
it is not part of this project.

4-109

ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING

Paul C. Small, PE, PLS
Richard A. Covello, PE
April 11, 1986
C, rporntion

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
W%
District Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation
P. 0. Box 1070
Suffolk, Virginia 23434
C

RE: Route 199 Extension from Rte. 5 to 1-64
State Project No. 0199-965-101, PE101

Dear Mr. Nash:

Please enter the following coT=ents into the public hearing record
(held April 3, 1986) for the above referenced project. Be advised that our
firm is and has been involved with the location and design of numerous land
development and utility projects all along the proposed corridor of Route
199 extended. Representative projects and clients of AES, include:.Ford's
Colony (Richard Ford), Windsor Forest (Robert S. Hornsby), Seasons Trace
(David Hertzler), Outlets Ltd. Mall, The Midlands Townhouses (Joseph
Terrell), New Quarter Industrial Park, Olde Towne Square, Chisel Run,
Williamsburg West (now part of Ford's Colony),the Williamsburg Pottery and
both,political jurisdictions.

We have followed the progress of Route 199 since its inception. We have
attended both public hearings, and we have worked closely with James City
County in their efforts to preserve and protect the proposed corridor. As a
result, we feel that we are thoroughly familiar with the various
alternatives for the final alignment of Route 199.

Based on our evaluations of the alternatives, and given our knowledge
of the design constraints within the corridor, .we support a modification of
alternative "A" in Jame's City County. We cannot support line "A2" in James
City County due to cost, and we cannot support line "D" in James City County
for reasons of both cost and adverse environmental impact. We feel that a
minor modification to the proposed alignment of line "A" in James City
County could be made on a final design basis such that the "small whorled
pagonia" colony could be preserved. This would eliminate the impact on this
environmentally sensitive area and at the same time preserve the cost
effectiveness of line "A" as compared with the other alternatives. Selection
of line "A" with this modification would also salvage the considerable
effort James City County has expended over the past ten years in
implementing land use controls through their zoning and review process to
protect, preserve and actually acquire right-of-way for the line "A"
corridor.
now

1761 Jamestown Road, Williamsburg, Va. 23185 804-253-0040
6-110

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.
VDH&T
April 11, 1986
Page 2

We support line A2 in York County from Route 60 Northwest to 1-64
because it simply represents in our opinion the best alignment for the
future of both political jurisdiction and the land owners affected. We also
support business signage at the Croaker/Norge interchange and at the
Barhamsville/Toano interchange that would provide directional information to
eastbound traffic from Richmond re'lating to major businesses along the Route
60 corridor from Lightfoot north to Barhamsville. Such signage would offset
any adverse economic -impact to commercial interests in James City County
resulting from single point signage at the Lightfoot interchange.

We would appreciate your consideration of our comments and wish to
compliment you on your excellent presentation at the recent public hearing.
Perhaps with joint cooperation of all involved parties, we may yet see the
completion of 199 in the near future.

Respectfu ly submitted,

AES a p fessiona corporation

Paul C. ma 1, P.E.
President

PCS:dpp

cc: Frank Hall, VDH&T

Disposition:

Revised Line A has been selected. This alignment includes the
-Alignment A-2 segment.
@
sp
eS
AE

s r

6-111

-95-
.40

p' 0. BOX 97
Providence Forge, Virginia
April 4, 1986

Mr. F. W. Hall
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
P. 0. Box HD
Williamsb. rg, Virginia 23187

Dear Mr. Hall,

This letter is in reference to the public heaiing on
proposed Route 199'between the Lightfoot interchange and
and Route 60 in York County.

We concur with the York supervisors and Williamsburg
Council in recommending alternative A-2.

As farmers we are vitally concerned with area water
resources. Millions of dollars are being spent on the
Chesapeake Bay clean-up, a good portion of which is going
to agriculture, consequently, it is our opinion that it
would be cownter-productive to select a highway alternative
(D) which in both building and in traffic will inevitably
pollute the York river and bay. Alternative D crosses
erodable. sloping ground, springs, ravines and streams
which feed the Waller Mill Reservoir. A-2 is high,level
and much more desirable from a water retource management
point of view.

Sincerely,

Albert L. White, IV
Legislative Director

ALW/gb

Disposition:

No response required.
@O
'I r

6-112

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Virginia Department of Transportation

Name and Degree Expertise Applied to EIS Experience

Vincent Valenti EIS Coordination and Review Eight years experience in
transoortation noise analysis
and 7 years in environmental
planning.

Federal Highway Administration

Robert Thomas, BSCE, MBA Project Coordination and 10 years experience in hiqh-
Review way engineering.

George E. Kirk, BSCE Project Coordination and 27 years experience in high-
Review way engineering.

De Leuw, Cather and Company

Lidano A. Boccia, MA Overall Consultant Project Eleven years exiDerience in
Coordinator/Task Manager socioeconomic, land use and
socioeconomic impacts environmental analyses for
municipal, environmental and
transportation projects.

Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc.

Mary M. Howard, MA Docum ent coordi nati on, f i el d Thirteen years experience in
investigation for Cultural environmental plannino and
resources analysis assessment cultural resources.

Elaine D. O'Flaherty,MIURP Assistant Document Coordi- Four years experience in
nator, data collection and de- regional and local land use
velopment of socioeconomic planning, market analyses
analysis and development of regional
policies plan.

Janit L. Potter, MLA Project Coordination, Admin- Four years experience inland
istrative Assistance to the use planning, site develop-
Project Manager. Coordi- ment and environmental
nation and research for arch- planning.
itectural resources analysis

M. Janet Everett, MSCE Task Manager f or transporta- Nine years of experience in
tion systems analysis and traffic enqineering and trans-
energy analysis portation planning.

Timothy L. Guyton, BSCE Transportation Systems Anal- 2 years experience in traffic
ysis engineering and transporta-
tion planning.

7-1

Diaz, Seckinger & Associates

George Brisban, BSCE T as k M ana ge r, f ut ure sys- Twenty years of experience
tems and Route 199 traffic, in transportation engineering
noise impacts and planning.

Steve Henry, BSCE Existi ng traf f ic condi ti ons One year experience in traf-
fic engineering and transpor-
tation planning.

Randy Cohen, BA Existing traffic conditions Fourteen years experience in
traffic engineering and trans-
portation planning.

Engineering-Science, Inc.

Richard E. Burke, MS Task Manager, noise impacts Eleven years experience in
environmental assessment
and noise impacts.

Krishna Nand, Ph.D. Noise analysis and report Exoerience in environmental
preparation assessment and noise
analysis.

Kendall Jue, IMS Noise analysis and report One year experience in noise
preparation analysis.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.

Ron Alderf er, Ph.D. Task Manager, water quality Sixteen years experience in
and ecolony the area of environmental
impact assessment, toxic and
hazardous material and
bio-physical ecoloqy.

Richard Hall, MS Water quality and ecology Ten years of experience in
aquatic ecology and limnol-
opy.

William Elzinga, MS Water quality and ecology Three years of exoerience in
aquatic and terrestrial ecol-
oqy.

Office of Exc avation and Conservation, Department of Archaeology

Marley R. Brown, HI, MA TaskMlanager, Archaeologi- Seventeen years experience
cal resources in archaeology and anthro-
pology.

Robert P. Hunter Archaeological resources Ten years experience con-
ductinq archaeological re-
search on prehistoric and his-
toric sites in Virginia.

7-2

Thomas Higgins, III, MA Research and field survey for Supervised several major
archaeological analysis excavation projects for the
Colonial Williamsburg Found-
ation.

Reynolds, Smith & HiRs, Inc.

Walter A. W. Jetter, MS Task Manager, air quality Eleven years experience in
analysis environmental analysis and
planning. Nine years experi-
ence in air quality analysis
and environmental document
preparation.

Air quality analysis Six years experience in envi-
Daniel Doebler, BS
ronmental analysis. Exper-
tise in microscale and meso-
scale air quality analysis.

Wendy J. Giesy, MS D raf t E IS pre parat! on Nine years experience in
environmental analysis and
planning. Seven years
experience in environmental
document preparation.

WAPORA, Inc.

Steven Bach, Ph.D Responsible for managing Thirteen years of experience
the WAPORA, Inc. wetlands oerf orming ecological and
evaluation team. @otanical studies specializing
in submerged and emergent
ve get ati on.

Steve Bowling Coordination of wetlands data. Fif teen years e xpe ri ence i n
conducting botanical surveys
for wetlands terrestrial
vegetation for various
2genci es.

Jim Renner, MS Digitized wetland Maps and Two years experience in
review of the DEIS. preparing technical studies
for environmental projects.

David Dummond, MS Delineated wetlands using Corps 20 years experience as a
of Engineers multiparameters wetland botanists, soil
approach. scientist and general
ecologist serving as a
consultant to various
a qen ci es.

Michael N. Josselyn, Ph.D Directed the survey for Twelve years experience in
potential wetlands mitigation wetlands ecology and
sites and developed mitig2t'lon mitigation.
plan.

7-3

8.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF

THE EIS ARE SENT

Federal

U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C.
Coast Guard, Fif th District, Portsmouth, VA
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review, Washington, D.C.
Fish & Wildlife Service, Annapolis Field Office
National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. Department of Commerce, Deputy Assistant Secretary f or Environ-
mental Affairs, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Enqineers, Norfolk, VA
Environmental Protection Agency
EIS & Wetlands Review Section, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
0 f fi ce of En vi ronm ent al A ff ai rs, W as hin gton, -D.C.
U.S. Department of Housing &Urban Development, Philadelphia, PA
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Richmond, VA
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Executive Director, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Federal Emerqency Management Agency, Regional Director, Philadelphia,
PA
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, @tlashington,
D.C.
U.S. Department of the Army, Quartermaster Center, Fort Lee, VA

State
Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board
Virginia Department of Agriculture &Consumer Services
Virginia Research Center f or Archaeology
Virginia Commission for the Arts
Virginia Department of Aviation

Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development
Virginia Council on the Environment
Virginia Office of Emergency & Energy Services
Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Virginia Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation
Virqinia Port Authority
Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission
Virginia State Water Control Board
University of Virginia

Local/Regional
City of Williamsburg
Public Works Department
City Manager
City Traffic Engineer
Mayor
P I ann i ng 0 epar tm ent
Superintendent of Schools
Department of Parks and Recreation
W ill! amsb ur g C h am ber of C omm erc e
York County
County Administrator
Office of Planning and Development

Chamber of Commerce

Health Department
York County Library
Superintendent of Schools
James City County
County Administrator
Office of Planninq and 'Development
Ch2lnber of Commerce

8-2

P eni ns ul a M etro pol i tan P lanni ng 0 rga n! zat! on
Peninsula Planning District Commission
Biology Department - College of William and Mary
U.S. Senator John W. Warner

U.S. Senator Paul S. Trible
U.S. Representative Herbert H. Bateman
State Representative George Grayson
State Representative Harvey B. Morgan
State Senator William E. Fears

8-3

I
I
I
I Appendix A
I Questionaire for Little Zion Baptist Church
and Mount Pleasant Baptist Church
I
I . I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW & ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING - ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

November 12, 1986

The Reverend Richard Holmes
Little Zion Baptist Church
2538 Pocahantas Trail
Williamsburg, VA 23185

Dear Reverend Holmes:

Our firm is working for the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation on the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
Route 199 Corridor in James City and York Counties. To complete our
environmental -assessment,-we need some general information about the
Little Zion Baptist Church.

We would appreciate your cooperation in completing the enclosed
list of questions and returning them in the self-addressed, stamped
envelope by November 21, 1986. If you have questions regarding this
questionaire, please give me a call. I appreciate your assistance
And prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Janit L. P otter

cc: Li Boccia, Project Manager

A-1
400 EAST MAIN STREET, RICHMOND, VIRGINI A 23219(804) 649-8627 CABLE: HARPLAN
ATLANTA BIRMINGHAM CHICAGO JACKSONVILLE MEMPHIS RALEIGH RICHMOND ST. LOUIS WASHINington D.C.

Route 199 Cooridor: Questionaire for Little Zion Baptist Church and
Hount Pleasant Baptist Church.

Church Name Little Zion Baptist Church

Phone Number 229-9788

Address 8625 Pocahontas Trail, Wil1iamsburg, VA 23185

Pastor's Name- Reverend Richard Holmes

Number of People Served by the Church approximately 385
Church I'lembership approximately 385

Weekly Schedule of Services Day Times
Mondays 7:30 p.m

Thursdays 7:00 p. m.

Wednesdays before the fourth Sundays 7:30 p. m.

Sundays 11:30 a.m. and evenin-s
0
var3ina taimes)
Number of People that drive cars to church Majority of people attending church
drives
Number of people using a bus to get to church none
C,
Number of people that walk t o church only a very s m all nu m ber r,;.;o

In which area do most church attendees live?- WiUiamsburg-James City ounty area:
however, we have many visitors /weekly, who come frmo other areas

Which route or roads do most church attendees take to get to church?-
Route 60 - Pocahontas Trail - Warwick Boulevard

Date November 23, 1986

Signature -,4

A-2

-HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW & AS.SOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

November 12, 1986

The Reverend William Byrd
Mount Pleasant.Baptist Church
529 Burbank St.
Williamsburg, VA 23185

Dear Reverend Byrd:

Our firm is working for the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation on the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
Route 199 Corridor in James City and York Counties. To complete 'our
environmental assessment, we nee some general information about the
Mount Pleasant Baptist Church.

We would appreciate your cooperation in completing.the enclosed
list of questions and returning them in the self-addressed, stamped
envelope by November 21, 1986. If you have auestions regardinq this
questionaire, please give me a call. I appreciate your assistance
and prompt reply.

Sincerely,

J'anit L. Potter

cc: Li Boccia, Project Manager

A-3

400 EAST MAIN STREET. FICHMOND, VIRGINIA 237-19 (804) 649- 8627 CABLE: HARPLAN
ATLANTA 113IR,'V11iNGHA.M CHICAGO JACKS0,NVILLE MENAPHIS RALEIGH RICH.MCIND ST,LOUIS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Route 199 Cooridor: Questionaire for Little Zion Baptist Church and
flount Pleasant Baptist Church.

Church Name

Phone Number

Address

Pastor's.Name

Number of People Served by the Church

Church Membership

Week.1y Schedule of Services Day Times.

Number o fpeople that drive cars to church

Number of people using a bus to get to church

Number of people that walk to church

In which area do most church attendees live?-

Which route or roads do most church attendees take to q et to church?-

Date

Signature

The survey was not returned from Mount Pleasant Baptist Church.

A-4

I
I
I Appendix 8
I Wetlands Mitigation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Appendix B

In accordance with Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands!,, the Virginia

Department of Transportation reviewed the selected alternative, Revised Line A,

in an effort to determine if further shifts in the alignment would be possible to

reduce or minimize the wetlands required for development of the proposed project.

A summary of this review is included in the June 1, 1988 memorandum to Mr. R. A.

Mannell from Mr. R. P. Morris. The wetlands acreages cited in this memorandum

were checked during the wetlands delineation and are accurately shown on table

5-10 of the FEIS.

Several coordination meetings have been held regarding the M-6A mitigation site

and other potential mitigation sites. An interagency coordination meeting was held

on January 28, 1988 with a subsequent field review of site M-6A on February 12,

1988. The meeting notes and attendance roster from the January 28, 1988 meeting

are included in this appendix. The Wetlands mitigation plan which was developed

as a result of the February 12, 1988 agency field review which involved the Fish

and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers, Virginia Institute of Marine Science and

the Virginia Council of the Environment is also included in this ap pendix.

B-1

COMMONWEALTH of VIR
GINIA
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
Richard N. Burton 2111 Hamilton Street BOARD MEMBERS
Executive Director
HenrV 0. Hollinion, Jr.
Post Office Box 11143 David H. Miller
Tiond. Virginia 23230-1143 Ronald M P111Iin
January 29, 1988 Velma M. S .. i"
(804)367-0056 Patrick L. Standing
W. Bidqood Wall. Jr.
Robert C. Winitiger
Mr. M. H. Thomas
Environmental Division
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: January 28,.1988, Coordinated Projects

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Following are our comments on this month's project.

No objections to fast track projects (Section B).

section C. Prolects

1. Route 6019 (19) - Modification acceptable if completely
remove material upon project completion.
2. Rt. 620, 645, 650 - Std. conditions.
3. Rt. 1309 - Standard Conditions
4. Rt. 697 - Standard bridge conditions
.5. Rt. 640 - Provide low flow passage and countersink culvert
6. Rt. 661 - Standard bridge comments
7. Rt. 723 - No objection
8. Rt. 645 Standard,.bridge comments
9. Rt. 648 Concur with Came and Inland Fisheries - 10/24/83
letter.
10. Rt. 634 Prefer minimal channelization. If unavoidable,
new channel enhancement with DGIF guidance is appropriate.
11. Rt. 252 - Provide low flow passage and countersink
12. Rt. 730 - Standard bridge comments
13. Rt. 601 - Work during low flow conditions
14. Rt. 643 - No objection to modification
15.* Rt. 639 - Standard conditions
16. Rt. 606 - Standard conditions
17. -Rt. 15 - Standard conditions
18. Rt. 611 - No further comment
19. Rt. 44 - Standard conditions
20. Wetland Bank II - No comments
21. Rt. 199-- No objection to mitigation plan
22. 'Midtown Tunnel - No further comment at this time
23. Rt. 635 - standard bridge comments
B-2

Page 2

24. Rt. 501 Standard bridge comments. Avoid lengthy channel
change, or at least minimize it.
25. Rt. 15 Standard bridge comments
26. Rt. 611 - Standard bridge comments
27. Rt.- 630 - Standard bridge comments
28. Rt. 628 - Standard bridge comments

VCP85-2'083 Modification Swift Creek. (As per telephone
conversation with Ian Frost.) Acceptable if turbidity curtain used
and TSS-or turbidity monitored with guidance from DGIF.

mbg07/sph

Sinc rely,
cc: M.G.Ferguson, Jr. 1kicha 1 B. (G-regor

B-3

ATTENDANCE LIST

JANUARY-28, 1988
IACM

Name' - ------ Agency --- ---------------- Phone_#

M.H. Thomas VDOT-ED 804-786-7428
Bob Rubelmann NMFS 301-226-5771
Lisie Kitchel DGIF 804-257-8747
Alice Allen-Grimes COE 804-441-3219
William R. Rudd VDOT-Culpeper 703-825-8300
R.L. Clatterbuck VDOT-Culpeper 703-825-8300
Ruth Markey VDOT-Staunton 703-332-9082
Elaine Surber VDOT-Bristol 703-669-9979
Richard Claytor VDOT-Richmond Dist. 804-526-2121
Ian Frost VDOT-Richmond Dist. 804-526-2121
H. Dean Groome VDOT-Lynchburg Dist. 804-522-2118
John R. Mcclain VDOT-Lynchburg Dist. 804-522-2118
Ken Myers FHWA-Richmond 804-771-2776
L.H. Walker VDOT-L&D 804-786-3088
John Gill USFWS-Annapolis 301-269-5448
Bob Zepp USFWS-Annapolis 301-269-5448
W.G. Beuter VDOT-ED 804-786-4175
R.E. Veasey VDOT-ED 804-786-4175
T.E. Hamlett VDOT-Salem 703-587-5410
S.C. Russell VDOT-Suf folk 804-539-8701
J.B. Davis VDOT-Suffolk 804-539-8701
J .L. Potter Harland Bartholomew & Assoc. 804-320-0447
Bill Elzinga Env. Science & Engineering 314-567-4600
Derral Jones VDCHR-DP&R 804-786-9042
Chuck Roadley VIMS 804-642-7395
Jay Roberts Council on the Env. 804-786-4500
Ellie Irons Council on the Env. 804-786-4508
Roy T. Mills VDOT-L&D Hydraulics 804-786-9013
D. L. Horton VDOT-Structure & Bridge 804-786-1315
S. L. Brooks VDOT-Fredericksburg 804-899-4218
Janet Young VDOT-Bristol 703-669-9979
Malcolm Cameron VDOT-Stauntqon 703-332-9177
M. L. West VDOT-Richmond L&D 804-786-5869
S. E. Murphy VDOT-Lynchburg 804-528-6521
Richard Hill VDOT-Central ED 804-225-3653
Bryan McCormick VDOT-Central ED 804-786-6671
W. Bruce Aitkenhead Hayes,Seay,Mattern & Mattern 804-499-2391
David M. Ramsey VDOT-Central ED 804-786-2576
Guy W. Buford HSMM 703-343-6971
Howard Noel HSMM 703-343-6971

B-4

January 28, 1988

0199-047-102
0199-047-103

VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS:

A) FEDERAL -r I

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE:
Holding comments un il site visit.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Not present.

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE:
Seems to be enough confusion about the site to
require a site visit.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS:
Concur with NMF.

UNITE D STATES COAST GUARD:
Not present.

B) STATE

VIRGINIA WATER CONTROL BOARD:
Not present.

B-5

MARINE RESOURCES COMMISSIQN:
Concur with VIMS pending site visit.

DIVISION OF PARKS & RECREATION:
Defer to the other agencies.

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE:
Hold comments for site visit.

STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT:
Not present.

DEPARTMENT OF GAME & INLAND FISHERIES:
Concur with NMF.

COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Concur with NMF.

DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION:
Not present.

IX. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESPONSE:
Meeting scheduled for February 12, 1988 at 10: 30
a.m. at the Jamestown - Scotland Wharf Ferry.
The Department will conf irm the on-site meeting
via letter with a map of the location for assembly.

B-6

0A E W

COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AA
1401 EAST 8ROA0 STREET
RAY 0. PETHTEL RICHMONO. 23219
COMPAISS*MA June 1, 1988

Route 199
Proj. 0199-965-101-100
Williamsburg

Memorandum

To Mr. R. A Mannell

Attn Mr. W. J. Butler

Please be advised that we have reviewed the Route 199
alignment in an effort to determine if further shifts would be
possible to reduce or minimize the wetlands required for
development of the proposed project.

Upon reviewing this alignment and considering the many
constraints in the area, it does not appear that any shifts can
be made to significantly reduce the wetlan 'ds that will be taken
for the development of the proposed project.

It appears that if the ramps are placed on the south side of
Route 612 that the acreage of wetlands could be reduced from 3.27
to 1.7 acres. However, I would not recommend that this be done
due to the fact that the 100P3 would have to be sub-standard due
to property development that is already taken place on the south
side of Route 612. This design adjustment would not appear to be
reasonable and practical to do at this point.

I believe that the difference in acreage (1.57) could not be
justified by the significant safety problem that we would produce
by placing all of the ramps on the south side -of Ro%ite 612.

We have checked the acreag& at each or the sites and find
that w e- have a total of 9 .77 acres of wetlands within the
proposed right of way areas for Route 199. This is somewhat
different to some of the acreages indicated previously.

If, of course, the decision is made to place all of the
14
%R Yo

ramps on the south side at Route 612, we would save another 1.57
acres Of this amount.

B-7

Mr. R. A. Mannell -2- June 1, 1988
Mr. W. J. Butler

It should also be noted that Site3 #15 and #17 will not be
involved with this proposed project.

I am handing this roll and information to Mr. Dave Ramsey of
the Environmental Quality Division for continuation of his work
on the project.

If we can be of further assistance, please advise.

R. P. Morris, As istant State
Location and Design Engineer

RPM/Jbb
Copies:
Mr. Dave Ramsey - attachment
Mr. Alan Siff - Harland Bartholomew

B-8

WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN

SITE M-6A

(PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS)

ROUTE 199

Prepared for:

Dr. Steven Each
WAPORA
1815 Century Boulevard Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30345

Prepared by:

Wetlands Research Associates, Inc
2169 E Francisco Blvd. Suite G
San Rafael, CA 94901

March 1988

B-9

INTRODUCTION

This report provides additional information on a proposed mitigation
site (M-6A) for wetland fill required in the construction of Route 199 in
James City County, Virginia. The mitigation site is located near the mouth
of Mill Creek as it enters the James River. The mitigation site is a farmed
field which surrounds a wooded area. Within the wooded area, approximately
1.8 acres of forested wetland (PFOA) has been delineated by David Dumond. A
mitigation plan containing two alternatives was submitted by Environmental
Science and Engineering of St. Louis, MO (1988). The plan as submitted was
determined to be technically inadequate by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and a revised plan was requested.

Wetlands Research Associates, Inc., acting as subcontractor to WAPORA,
collected additional field information to assess the hydrologic and soil
conditions at the mitigation site. Soil borings to describe the underlying
soil and the installation of piezometers to determine water table depth were
completed. In addition, a water budget model was developed to estimate the
hydrologic conditions which would occur under the proposed mitigation plan.

FIELD AND MODELING METHODS

The field work at the mitigation site was conducted on March 14-16,
1988. An elevational survey was conducted from an established benchmark on
the Mill Creek Bridge (JT-6; National Park Service). The Park Service was
contacted concerning the benchmark elevation and was not able to locate the
record (D. Wilking, pers. comm.). An estimated elevation of 14.5 feet was
used for the benchmark based on an average roadway elevation of 14.0 ft.
above National Geodectic Vertical Datum (NGVD). NGVD is approximately
equivalent to mean sea level.

Within the mitigation site, transects were established (Figure 1).
Elevations of stations positioned at 50 ft. intervals along the transects
were determined using an engineering level and stadia rod. In addition,
the elevation of the ground surface surrounding the piezometers was also
taken (Figure 1). The survey was closed with an error of 0.1 foot. The
elevational data was used to make a contour map (2 ft. intervals) to
determine the existing watershed acreage within the mitigation area.

Soil borings were taken both within the forested wetland and in the
surrounding agricultural field. Borings were taken with a 2-inch bucket
auger and soil samples inspected every 4 inches. The depth of the sampling
ranged between 2 ft. in the lowest portion of the site to over 8 ft. in the
field. Soils were described using standard soil classification methods.
The presence of any water was noted and depth to the water table determined.

B-10

iqi7 kV@ J@
,t

Irp

5-200
6-400 5

On;m
o 200 400
'47

2-150
X-A tx - -

2-50

9
-:oy

e%
vI
C
r

Figure 1. Route 199 Mitigation Site (M-6A)
with location of piezometers (A - E) and
i
200
/5

elevational transects (1 - 6). Soil borings
taken at all piezometer . locations and at
indicated sites on transects. Wetlands Resea

Within the forested wetland, 2-inch diameter piezometers were installed
to varying depths (Table 1). The piezometers were installed early in the
day and inspected throughout the day. (They were left at the site for
further measurements as necessary). The piezometers were sealed with clay
at the surface and the end taped to avoid penetration of surface water along
the exterior and interior sides of the PVC tube. Thus, any water rising in
the piezometer would be a true indication of the water table at the depth of
the tube.

Finally, a simple hydrologic model was developed to describe the water
budget for the site. A conceptual description of the model is shown in
Figure 2. The only water input for this site is precipitation. (Ground
water does not appear to play a role in the water budget as explained
below.) Outputs included evapotranspiration, seepage to soil and ground
water, and runoff. For the purposes of the model, seepage to the soil was
assumed to be 5 %, though this percolation rate is a maximum estimate given
the clay soils present. Base return flows are considered negligible.

Table 1. Location and depth of piezometers installed at Route 199
mitigation site. Surface elevation given relative to NGVD. Height of water
in piezometer recorded after 6 hours.

SITE LOCATION SURFACE ELEV. LENGTH OF HEIGHT OF WATER SOIL TYPE
PIEZOMETER IN PIEZOMETER

A Pond edge 4.2 ft 12 inch 0 Clay
24 0
B Above pond 5.0 36 0 Clay
C Boundary of 5.2
forest/field 36 0 Clay
D Pond edge 4.1 12 0 Clay
24 12 Organic
E Below cul-vert 2.7 24 0 Sand

Data for the model was derived from meteorological data (average
monthly rainfall and temperature) recorded by the National Weather Service
at the Williamsburg station. The equations and tables of Thornthwaite and
Mather (1957) were used to calculate evapotranspiration values, specific to
this latitude.

The model was used to calculate the amount of water collected by the
watershed, the amount of water ponding on the site, and the amount of water
that runs off after evapotranspiration and soil percolation losses.

B-12

EVAPO- PRECIPITATION
TRANSPIRATION

OVERLAND
RUNOFF

BASE
RUNOFF STREAM

DEEP GROUND - WATER
OUTFLOW
OV ERLAND
RUN OFF

,BASE
UNo FF

Figure 2. Conceptual model for water budget -0 4- -0y
determination. e - I yy YY:
Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.

9-13

ELEVATIONS AT THE MITIGATION SITE

In general, the elevations determined from the estimated benchmark are
within 1 foot of spot elevations determined by other individuals working at
the mitigation site. However, these measurements were taken more frequently
along transects and therefore, allowed the development of a more detailed
contour map for the site using two foot contour lines.

The elevational data for the transects is presented in Figures 3-5. In
general, the south field crests near the middle at about 10 ft. Along the
eastern edge of the mitigation site, the elevation of the field decreases.
At the northwestern portion, the field becomes much wider and once again
increases to 10 ft. in elevation.

Based on the field data, a contour map was constructed and the
watershed currently contributing to the forested area was determined. The
acreage in the watershed (including the forested area) is 7.7 acres. The
area of the field was also determined to be 10.5 acres.

PIEZOMETER AND BOREHOLE DATA

The lack of water in the piezometers indicates a perched water table.
Even the wells placed immediately adjacent to the ponded water showed no
water at depth. Only one piezometer of the seven installed had any water in
it after one day. The soil surrounding this piezometer had a high degree of
organic matter (it was at the base of a large tree). It is probable that
the side of the piezometer did not seal well and water may have moved down
the side from the surface.

The thick clay layer seen at these sites (Figure 6) effectively blocked
the downward movement of surface water or the upward movement of ground
-water. Except for a moist surface layer (top 12 inches), the remaining clay
thickness was dry,

Borehole data at h igher elevations confirmed the evidence from the
piezometers. Below a shallow sandy loam topsoil, a clay layer of varying
thickness is found throughout the site. It slopes gradually towards the
existing forested wetland. While moist near the surface, the lower layers
of the clay are very dry and brittle. In some cases, sandy clay overlies
the clay layer. Sand is found below the clay and in the deepest borehole,
the water table was observed at approximately mean sea level. Although this
water table may fluctuate slightly with the tides, the clay layer
immediately above the sand was dry and appears to block any water movement
upward.

B-14

Transect 1

10 -

6-
r
a

w
4-

0
0 50 100 150 200

Distance (ft)

Tronsect 2

t
7-

50 100 150 200

Distance (ft)

Figure 3. Elevations (relative to NGVD) for
,%OMWMW'T
transects 1 and 2 at the M-6A mitigation VI-0 Y
site, Position 0 started on outside border of %O-YYYI
field opposite of forested wetland in middle
of mitigation site, Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.

B-15

Tronsect 3

T
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 340

DIstance (ft)

Transect 4

10 -

5 -

2 -

0
0 50 100 150 200 225

Distance (ft)

Figure 4. Elevations (relative to NGVD) for T
Transects 3 and 4 at the M-6A mitigation YX
site. Position 0 started on outside border of
field opposite of forested wetland in middle
of mitigation site. Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.

B-16

Tronsect 5

10 -

7 -

5 -
r

4
w
4

3 -

2 -

0
0 50 100 150 200 2;0 300 3;0 350 375

Distance (ft)

Transect 6

10 -

0
>

w
4 -

0
0 so 100 150 200 250 30 350 4@0 450 500 520

Distance (ft)

Figure 5. Elevations (relative to NGVD) for
Transects 5 and 6 at the M-6A mitigation
OY

site. Position 0 started on outside border of
field opposite of forested wetland in middle V_Yyy@
of mitigation site. Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.

F3 - 17

10-

0 0
tn 0 0
9-
-CO

0
0
.8: 04

In
-Z

C
0 > B C

Z
>

A
D

3- E

t2;

sandy clay sandy sand
loam clay

Figure 6. Results of soil borehole data for
piezometers and transect stations. Wavy line
at bottom of Station 5-200 indicates water
table. Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.
-9-1B I

MODELING RESULTS

The monthly average precipitation and calculated evapotranspiration for
the Williamsburg area is shown in Figure 7. During all months except June,
July, and August, precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration. During summer
months, evapotranspiration greatly exceeds water input.

Two model runs were made, one which describes existing conditions and
the second to determine the maximum amount of acreage that could be
converted to forested wetland if the entire field was re-graded to
contribute to the watershed (Table 2). Under existing conditions, there is
sufficient water (precipitation - evapotranspiration) through the mid-May of
each year to contribute to standing water within the wetland. From May to
August, the site will not maintain standing water.

If the site was re-graded such that the entire field contributed to the
watershed and the water was managed to maximize standing water (using
weirs), the model indicates that the maximum ponded area that can be
supported is 6 acres. This would require retaining a greater amount of the
surface runoff, especially during the late winter, early spring months.

According to the ecological characterization of bottomland hardwoods by
Kurz and Godfrey (1962), the existing forested wetland at this site is
typified by species in Ecological Zones III and IV. The species in this
type of wetland include: Myrica cerifera, Salix nigra, Acer rubrum,
Diospryros virginiana, and Liquidambar styraciflua. These species grow best
when inundation is less than 35 % of the growing season and greater than 20
% (Teskey and Hinckley 1977). The growing season for the Williamsburg area
is April to early-September and therefore, optimal inundation is 2 to 2.5
months. This duration of inundation currently occurs during the spring
months.

Dumond also considers the area dominated by Pinus taeda as wetland,
though he admits that it is a "line call". This species grows in
considerably drier conditions (listed for Ecological Zone V). In fact, it
generally cannot tolerate any standing water. The piezometer data collected
in this study does not support the inclusion of this area as wetland.
Dumond delineated a 1.3 acre forested wetland. If one excludes the Pinus
taeda area, the wetland acreage is only 1.0. Therefore, for the purposes of
the model and later discussion the area of wetland used is 1.0 acre.

[3-19

,VIRGINIA DOT MITIGATION SITE (M-6A)
PRECIPITATION AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

In 4
W
X
U
z 3

0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

MONTH
13 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION + PRECIPITATION

VIRGINIA DOT MITIGATION (M-6A)
PRECIPITATION LESS EVAPOTRANSPIRAT"ION
3.5

2.5

1.5

in
W

U
z

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5
JAN FEB MAR APR LY JUN JUL AUG ;EP 01 CT NOV DEC

MONTH

--j
Figure 7. Monthly evapotranspiration and
N Y,
precipitation for Williamsburg, Virginia.
BOTTOM: Excess (deficit) of water for Y Y
Williamsburg, Virginia. Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.

Table 2. Water budget model runs using data shown in Figure 7 as input.
Values expressed as acre-inches. Negative values converted to zero.

odel Run 1. Assume 7.7 acres of contributing watershed. Assume 1.0 acre
of ponded water within existing forested wetland. Ponded water has average
M

depth of 6 inches. Remainder of water not retained is estimated as outflow
to Mill Creek.

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Water 25.5 23.7 24.1 4.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 11.2 16.0 23.3
avail.

Amt of
runoff 19.5 17.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 10.2 17.3
after
ponding

Percent 68% 66% 56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 41% 66%
runoff

Model Run 2. Assume 12.5 acres of contributing watershed. Model run
determined that maximum acreage of wetland is 6 acres if all water captured.

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Water 41.4 38.5 39.2 8.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 18.2 26.0 37.8
avail

Amt of
runoff 5.4 2.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
after
ponding
for 6 ac
wetland

Percent
runoff 14% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%

B-21

RECOMMENDED ENHANCEMENT PLAN

The results of this study show that groundwater does not contribute to
the saturation of the soils at this site. Groundwater was found at only one
station and at an elevation of 0 ft. NGVD or approximately mean sea level.
The groundwater is in a sand layer located below a 3 to 4 ft. thick layer of
impervious clay. If the site were excavated to within a foot of this water
table, the sand would not be suitable for a forested wetland.

The clay layer acts to retain water at the soil surface. Most of the
winter rainfall runs off the site, and a small amount of water is ponded in
the forested area. Under existing conditions, the water balance model shows
that ponded water can exist on the site throughout the winter and into the
early spring.

In order to expand the area of wetland on the mitigation site, the
objective of the enhancement plan is to retain as much surface water as
possible for the first several months of the growing season. However, as
the model indicates, the amount of water which can be ponded during the
spring months is only 6 acres. The ponded area would also support some
wetland vegetation along the perimeter that would get less inundation. This
wetland buffer is estimated at an additional 1.0 acre of wetland. If the
1.0 acre of existing wetland is subtracted, the enhancement site can provide
a maximum of 6 acres of mitigation.

The proposed enhancement plan retains the existing forested wetland
(Figure 8 and 9). The field surrounding the forested area would be graded
such that the entire field (10.5 ac) will contribute to the watershed. In
addition, a low berm would be constructed around the existing forested area
to retain water at an upper wetland area. The upper wetland area would be
created at approximately 5 ft. It would be drained through an adjustable
weir to the lower forested wetland. The weir consists of a concrete
headwall with a slat for wood boards which can be inserted or removed for a
desired water depth. In this case, the bottom of the concrete footing would
be at 5 ft. The lower wetland would also have a weir to retain water. The
boards in the weirs would be set a 6 ft. and 3 ft., respectively, during the
winter and spring months and removed during the summer. Thus, winter and
spring flows would be retained on the surface and summer rainfall would be
allowed to drain off. The exact height of the weirs and the timing of
adjustment will be determined by initial trial and error.

The planting plan for this wetland is similar to that recommended for
Zone III in the mitigation plan submitted by ESE (1988).

The advantages of this enhancement plan are that it preserves existing
wetland habitat while creating more forested wetland by expanding the size
of the watershed by 3 acres and increasing water storage. The enhancement
relies on the existing clay layer to retain the surface water. Construction
will primarily involve re-grading of the site. Although some soil removal
will be required; it will be substantially less than in the original plan.

B-22

Thus, the costs are significantly reduced compared to the original plan.
The primary disadvantage is that the site will require a greater amount of
management than originally envisoned. The weirs will have to be adjusted
during the first several years to determine the best management techniques.
Following that period of calibration, the weirs need only be adjusted twice
yearly.

B-23

5;-

, Vn
0000"00 0
ch @; .
0 00 0
se-V o
4*r'
C V, 00 0
AL&- ......... . ee 'P
Y
0
09% 0
If-If
0
0
00
N' T-194
q, 0 0
%pol
L
IL
err'
E
.0c
A
o
JIKI.
Ls' TV
0
0
'U- -1711.0 :T.
0
0 C.
N 0,

0
*"" rt
0 4i"
0
4-
0 200 400

0
30
0
@T4 00 0
00 a 0-3.
0. 0@' ou 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
00 0-
0 a
0 0
0
On
0
4t 00 0 00 0000 0 00
0
JW
JL-
A@

C
(@."k el
'iN
. ^; @@ ( --( C %
14 0'
or-.
et-
M,
ci
'0@ -a,- (I ILO. -I;n
rl tV
(-K Jn

Figure 8. Conceptual plan for Route 199 M-6A
mitigation site. Hatched area indicates new
wetland acreage added if entire field re-graded to
add to watershed. Dotted area shows wetland
buffer. Location of weirs shown. Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. -A

LO) C7, GQ
>

(D @-h (D
H. 0
" "@10 C=> el-) C-n coo
(n
rt

W F-J.
n r) W
(D 0)

@J
C) 00

0 "0
En U)
=' (AW
0 1::1
VC (f)
@j (D F-h
00
H. rt
:I H.
051
ITI :j H.
P. rt transitional wetland

0 0

tv W
(D FJ-

poncled wetland

0
berm with weir

0
RIArm

existing wetland

Potential Plant Species for Mitigation and Buffer Zone Plantings

These species have been reviewed durinq interagency coordination meetings as
possible species suitable for the Route 199 mitigation site(s).

T rees

Acer rubrum red maple
Betula nigra river birch
Fraxinus pensylvanica green ash
Ilex opaca holly
Liquidambar styraciflua sweet gum
Nyssa sylvatica black gum
Pinus taeda loblolly pine
Quercus alba white oak
Quercus palustris pin oak

Shrubs

Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Lindera benzoin spi ce bus h
Myrica cerif era wax myrtle
Myrica pensylvanica sweet gale
Rosa palustris swamp rose
Viburnum spp. blueberry

Herbs

Bidens connata tickseed sunflower
Cyperus esculentus nut sedge
Iris pseudacorus water flag
Iris versicolor blue flag
Leersia onyzoides rice cut qr ass
Lobelia cardinalis cardinal flower
Mithcella repens partridge berry
Peltandra verginica arrow arum
Pontedari a chordata pickeral weed
Polygonurn spp. knotweed
Sagitarria latif olia arrowhead
Saururus cernuus lizards tail
Scirpus americ2nus bulrush
S ci rpus fl. ui vi at al is bulrush
Scirpus validus great bulrush
Sparganium eurycarpum burreed

(Source: ESE, 1985)

B-26

I
I
I
I
I Appendix C
Virginia Divsion of Historic Landmarks Coordination
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
- I
I
I
I
I
I

Divisions
Forestry
Historic Landmarks
LItter Control
Parks and Recreation
Soil and Water Conservation
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources
Division of Historic Landmerks Research Center for Archaeology
H. Bryan Mitchell, Director Route 238, P.O. Box 368
Yorktown, Virginia 23690
Telephone (804) 253-4836
August 1, 1985

Mr. R. L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Dept. of Highways & 'Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
RE: VDHT 0199-965-101,PE-100
Phase I Archaeological Survey

Dear Mr. Hundley:

Thank you f or providing this of f ice with a copy of the Draf t
Phase I Arcliaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed' Route
199 Project, James City and York COounties, Virginia" By MR. Robert
It. Hunter, Jr. and Mr. Thomas Higgins, III for our review and comment.

Based upon the survey results presented in the above draft document,
we concur with the recommendations made by the authors that phase II
investigations and further evaluation on specific sites to determine
the potential for National Register eligibility are warranted prior
to any construction activities on the selected alternative.

Should you have any questions on the above comments, please do not
hesitate to contact our office immediately.
Sincerely

Bruce J Larson
Review Compliance

BJL/th

AUG 1985

C-1

HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW & ASSOCIATES INC.
PLANNING . ENGINEERING - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

November 19, 1985

Mr. Bruce Larson
Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission
221 Governor St.
Richmond, Va. 23219

Dear Mr. Larson:

The purpose of the Route 199 study is to prepare an environmental analysis
for the area which begins at the intersection of existing Route 199 and R te 5 in
James City County and proceeds northward, terminating at the interchange of
Route 64 and Route 646 at Burkes Corner. A part of the environmental and traffic
analyses for Route 199 includes a cultural resources assessment identified as Task 7
under State Project 0199-965-101, PE101 and Federal Project F-126 (101) between
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and Harland Bartholomew &
Associates,, Inc. The goal of this task is to assure that no significant historic or
archaeological sites will be disrupted as a result of the Route 199 project study
area.

C. Vernon (Tripp) March the environmental review officer of the Virginia
Historic Landmarks Commission was contacted June 12, 1985 regarding the historic
resources surrounding the Route 199 study site. Based on our discussions, field
studies and research of the available literature including the 1978 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Route 199 which reports that Jame- City
County officials and York County officials were consulted on the 'presence of
historic resources in the study area, it is our opinion that no historic resource.,
exist in the Route 199 study area.

The following historic structures were identified outside the study area for
Route 199:

The closest standing historic structure to- the proposed
project is the Lane Farm Site which consists of a late l8th
century house and adjacent f2rm buildings. These structures
are located approximately 100 feet east of the proposed road
alignment A, are overgrown and are in a dilapidated
condition.

2.) Other historic structures in the area include the Cherry Hall
Farm, a late 18th century brick house which is located some
950 feet north of proposed alignment A. The house is
presently occupied and is in good condition. It is not
considered to be in the area impacted by the road
alignment.

c-2
____ Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 2:2pm 610 cable hartlan
Atlanta birmingham chicago jacksonville memphis raleigh richmond st. louis washington D.C.

3.) A federal style brick structure with a slate roof is located
on the grounds of Eastern State Hospital. Though this
structure may be eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places, it is approximately 2,000 feet
from the proposed road alignment A.

A base map of the proposed alignments which indicate the aforementioned
historic resources are enclosed with a site vicinity map and photographs of each
site discussed. We would appreciate your review-and comments regarding the
attached documents. If you concur with our findings and-2gree that no historic
structures will be affected by the proposed Route 199, please sign in the space
provided at the bottom of this letter. We would appreciate your comments and
affirmatiqn of your statement in the iorm of an executed copy of this letter
returned to me no later than December 2, 1985. Please call me if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,

L! Boccia,
Project Manager

rue Larson, Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission

M. R.C. Hundley
Li Boccia
r u 4cLa r si

r- - 3

NO ADVERSE EFFECT AGREEMENT

Summary of project and its effect upon archaeological resources identified
during the Phase 11 Evaluation Study within the selected alternative, revised Line A,

for Route 199.

Route 199 - James City and York Counties
Federal Project: F-126--I(Iol)
State Project: 0199-047-102 and 0199-047-103
From: Route 5 in James City County
To: Interstate 64 in York County

A. -Description of- Project

The Virginia Department of Transportation (YDOT) has proposed the
-construction of a f our-lane- highway in James City and York Counties, beginning at the

intersection of completed Route 199 and Route 5 to a terminus at the 1-64

interchange. Revised Line A, the alternative selected by the Highway Board, is

appro ximately 7.4 miles in length. The right-of-way, for survey purposes, was

generally determined at 100 feet wide..

Land use and terrain in the general project area varies considerably, but forest

lands predominate in the proposed alternative. Present land use falls into-four

categories: agricultural, low density residential, rural residential, and commercial. A

projection of future land use indicates the area will be predominately residential by

1995. The topography of the project area is typical of the interior near the central
drainage divide of the'peninsula. It is dissected by numerous small drainages, the

majority of which flow toward the James River. Elevations range from over one

hundred to less than forty feet above sea level.
B. Description of Prehistoric and Historic Resources Eligible for the National
Register

Phase 11 archaeological exam inatioh--., of fourteen sites located within the
proposed Route 199 extension corridor (Alte@nate A, Revised Line A and A-2), has

deti@rmined that six sites are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.

C-4

These six sites which will be destroyed by construction of the Route 199 extension,

are:

-A-3 - Eighteenth-century-mill with prehistoric component
A-8 - Prehistoric site
A-12 - Prehistoric site
A-I 3 - Prehistoric site
A-16 - Prehistoric site
A-17 - Prehistoric site

a order, to mitigate the adverse effect of. the project on these resources,
Phase III archaeological data recovery is required. The purpose of this final phase of

work is to retrieve significant information associated with the sites. Retrieval of

significant information will be accomplished through a, combination of intensive

excavation, documentation,- laboratory analysis, and report writing. In, addition,

intensive paleo-ecological testing'will be conducted as part of this work in order to

reconstruct the changing environmental context of the prehistoric sites within the

pro)ect'area. Further documentary research related to the single eligible historic site

will also be conducted.

The prehistoric resources within the project corridor afford an unprecedented

opportunity to understand a p reviously-neglected aspect of the cultural development

of the James-York peninsula and the surrounding region. Phase 11 site examination of

the five prehistoric sites has indicated the presence of stratified deposits, hearth and

possibly storage features, limited organic preservation, and horizontal separation of

functional activities. Preliminary analysis of these sites indicate that they represent

the remains of seasonally-occupied resource procurement sites with components

ranging from the Late Archaic period (2000-1200 B.C.) to the Late Woodland period
(A.D. 900-1600). The preliminary data also suggest that the interior areas of this

portion of the James-York Peninsula were mqst intensively utilized during the Middle

Woodland period (500 B.C. - A.C. 900).

The Phas e 11 investigations of the proposed Route 199 corridor also examined

eight historic-period archaeological sites. Only one of these sites, A-3, appeared to be

C-5

eligible to the National Register. This mill complex consists of an earthen dam,

280 feet long and eight feet high, two large borrow pits, and the mill headrace.

Evidence for the mill does not-appear on the Pechon map (1781) nor on the

Gilmer map (1863). Nonetheless, the name "Mill Creek" suggests milling activity

along the creek, possibly as early as the eighteenth century. Documentary research

brings to light evidence of property ownership as well as indirectly suggests the type
@f function attributable to this site during the mid-eighteenth century. Furthermore,

it establishes a clear transition of ownership well into the nineteenth century, and as

early as 1854 refers to the site as "Indigo Dam." Interestingly, the presebt-day Indigo

Dam lies just a few hundred feet to the northwest and is'part of the modern housing

development known as Indigo Terrace. Althaygh the current reference names to

indigo are not documented for the site prior to the mid-nineteenth century, the

grow ing of this crop is known to have taken place in its vicinity one hundred years

earlier. This endeavor seems to have been quite fashionable during the late 1750s to

early 1760s and was grown locally by @4:well-known planter. Colonel Philip Ludwell 111,

whose Rich Neck plantation incorporated this mill site and at least two more mills in

the area, produced the indigo, of which a large quantity was sold following his death in

1767. Ludwell's nearby Green Spring plantation -was exceptional in producing large

q6antities of indigo of which.but little was raised elsewhere in Virginia.
The mill site may provide very important historical and archaeological
information relevant to the milling process as practiced on large plantations in James
City County in the early to mid-eighteenth century. To date, no site of its kind has
yet,been investigated on the James -York peninsula, and perhaps in the entire Virginia
Tidewater. Considering the documentary evidence of indigo cultivation within the
immediate vicinity of the site, the conditiont under which the crop is grown, and the
prominence of the grower, a great deal may b@:learned abqut the local cultivation and
processing of a valued crop during the colonial period. For these reasons, the site is
considered eligible for nomination to the Register of Historic Places.

In addition, a small prehistoric component at this location is considered

important due to the deeply buried nature of Archaic-period components. However,

much of the area has been previously disturbed by the eighteenth-century borrow

pits. An adequate sample of these prehistoric resources can be recovered as part of
the data recovery for the historic component at the site.

C. Reasons for Finding of No Adverse Effect

The SHPO has determined that in-place preservation of the properties is not

necessary to fulfill the goals of the State Historic Preservation Plan. The properties

are significant for the information they contain only, and appropriate funds and time

will b@-_ committed to adequately retrieve the information. The adequacy of the

mitigation will be reviewed by the SHPO. Any comments by the SHPO will be

addressed by the lead agency through the MOT and its consultant.

D. Comments from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

The SHPO has reviewed the Phase 11 (significance evaluation) report that

describes the site and concurs with the author's recommendation that the sites be

considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO concurs

with the determination of no adverse effect as long as the mitigation of the impact of

the project is approved by that office.

E. Comments from the Federal Highway Administration WHWA)

The FHWA concurs with the SHPO in the significance of the sites and the

determination of no adverse effect. The FHYA agrees to ensure that the mitigation

of the impact of the project upon the site will be at a level acceptable to the SHPO.

The FHWA has determined that final approval of the no adverse effect indicates that

Section 4(f) does not apply.

F. Comments from the Virginia Departmeniof Transportation (VDOT)

The VDOT, responsible for the construction of the project, has discussed the site

and the impact of the project with FHWA and SHPO. The VDOT will work with the

FHWA to help provide for the mitigation of the impact its project will have on the

C-7

archaeological site. The archaeology staff at the MOT will work closely with a

consultant and the SHPO to be certain that the retrieval of information from the site

is adequate and acceptable to the review agency.

Federal Highway Administration
Division of Historic Landmarks
Virginia Department of Transportation

Route 199 - James City and York Counties
Federal Project: F-126-1(101)
State Project: 0199-047-102 and 0199-047-103
Archaeological Sites A-3, A-8, A-12, A-13,
A-16, and A-17.

We have jointly reviewed the plans and data for the described project and agree

that it will have no adverse effect on the National Register Property involved.

Date 10/17/88 Gekik, Jr.
For the Division Administrator, FHWA

Date A
State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Historic Landmarks

Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation

C-8

(f-1
A20

646 64

614

199

A-17
A-1

A-16

645

A -14

A- 12 A-13

A@ fO 713
Ale

321

613

A-3

Route 199 Archaeological
Study of Alternate A
(Revisedl and A2
615

4000
5 feet

Figure I-Location of Archaeological Sites Identified for Phase II Evaluation.

C-9

Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation

The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004

Oa 28 10

Mr. James M. Tumlin
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
400 N. 8th St.
P.O. Box 10045
Richmond, VA 23240-0045

REF: Construction of Rt. 199
James City and York Counties, Virginia

Dear Mr. Tumlin:

On October 19, 1988, the Council received notification of your
determination that the referenced project would not adversely
affect several archeological sites eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. We have reviewed your
supporting documentation, including the conditioned concurrence
of the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, and see no
reason to object based on your agreement to work with the
Virginia SHPO on further archeological investigations prior to
construction.

Your completion of the commitments outlined in your documentation
will evidence that the requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and the Council's regulations
have been met for this project. Both this letter and your
supporting documentation should be retained in your environmental
or project files.

Thank you for your continued cooperation.

ncerely,

L. Klima
ector, Eastern Office
erely,

Kl,
ctor,,
@e
Project Review

C-10

I
0
I
I
I Appendix D
Endanqered Species (Isotria medeololdes)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

ISOTRIA MEDEOLOIDES
(Small Whorled Pogonia)

0 1@ 04!4@@

010
Ocfober, 1986

D-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction I

Figure 1 2

Figure 2 3

Identification of Endangered Species 4

Description of Proposed Work 6

Assessment of Potential Impacts 9

Mitigation of Potential Impacts 10

Conclusions I I

References 12

Appendix A 13

INTRODUCTION

The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) proposes to

construct a four lone, divided, section of controlled access highway beginning in the

vicinity of the intersections of completed Route 199 and Route 5 in James City

County and ending in the vicinity of the existing 1-64 interchange with Route 646 in

York County. This section of road will complete the partially constructed Route 199

facility.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared in January 1986

discussed four build alternatives.and the no-build alternative. During the development

of the DEIS it was identified that one of the primary construction alternatives under

consideration was adjacent to a colony, of the federally endangered plant species

Isotria medeoloides (the small whorled pogonia).

After this endangered species was identified, the Department began extensive

coordination with a recognized expert, Dr. Donna Ware, of the College of William and

Mory, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services. The Location Public Hearing was held on April 3, 11,80", and

with the comments received from the public and other agencies along with the

cooperation of the experts, a new alternative was developed for the specific purpose

of avoiding Isotria medeoloides. That alternative, Revised Line A, was selected for

us e by the Department in completing the construction of Route 199.

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to discuss the endangered species

Isotria medeoloides and it's relationship to the proposed highway project's selected

alternative.

This document is prepared in response to and compliance with Section 7(c) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, cis amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(c)).

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
ROUTE 199 CORRIDOR
JAMES CITY AND YORK COUNTIES
VIRGINIA

%@ILLI MSBURG
POTTER FACTORY

top
OUTLET MALL
ol
1*
LINE A2
ZION CHURCH
WARMILL TRACT

HIGH TENSION LINi

LAFAYETTE H.

64-

FORD'S COLONY FIRE STATION NO. 4
/WINDSOR
FOREST

EASTERN STATE
HOSPfTA11'

F1 URE 2

uj
cc

<
C T

ilk/

t...

FIGURE I

50 04

LIN- A

MAIN COLO@Y

LEGEN

I MAIN CCkCNY 120 INOVADUALS
2 7WO INDIVICUALS
3 FOUR INCMDUALS
5CALE
A5 T, '01INUIVIC)UALS,-
T7 NCiVIOUA,"

RELATIONSHIP OF ISOTRIA MEDECLCIDES POPULATIONS
TO ALIGNMENTS A, A-1, AND REVISED A FIGURE 2

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK

The proposed project is located in the vicinity of the City of Williamsburg, which

ties in east-central Virginia on G peninsula of land surrounded by the James River,

York River, a nd Chesapeake Bay.

The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T), in

conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing to extend

Route 199 from Route 5 to 1-64. Construction of this segment of Route 199 will form

a circumferential system which will serve as (1) a collector for internal traffic in

Williamsburg, (2) a bypass for through traffic around Williamsburg, (3) a link which will

tie together the existing road systems, and (4) access into the mid-Jomes City County

or ea.

The proposed Route 199 is a controlled access, 4-lane divided highway beginning

at the intersection of the previously completed Route 199 and Route 5 and continuing

northward to its terminus at the interchange of 1-64 and Route 646 (see Figure 1).

Three alternative concepts, Lines A, D and A-2, were originally studied. Line A
is 7.4 miles in length and would cost $26,933,000 to construct. Line D is
approximately 8.1 miles long and would cost $28,287,000. Line A-2 was added in

between Lines A and D at the north end of the project, running for approximately 1.3

miles from Route 60 to 1-64. The purpose of this alternative is to improve access

conditions in the vicinity of the Williamsburg Pottery Factory/Route 646 and is not

involved with the endangered species.

Line A was considered to be the preferred alternative because it resulted in less

overall impact and was approximately $1,354,000 cheaper to build than Line D.

A colony of small-whorled pogonias Osotrio medeoloides), an endangered plant

species, was discovered in the southern section of the project. During the

environmental analysis this colony of 1. medeoloides was determined to be within

100 feet of Line A. This Line would also have taken two individual plants from a

smaller historical colony (see sites 4 and 5, figure 2). Line D did not traverse this
area. At this time, the Department coordinated with Dr. Donna Ware of the College of

William and Mary and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the

State agency responsible for administering the Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect

Species Act, and developed Line A-1 which avoided the endangered plant but would

add approximately 1.6 million dollars to the cost of Line A.

After receiving public input at the Location Public Hearing and coordinating

with the same experts, one additional adjustment to Line A was studied for the

purpose of avoiding the lsotria medeoloides. That adjustment is identified on Figure I
I
as Revised Line A. The increase cost associated with using Revised Line A to avoid

the small-whorled pogonias is approximately $200,000 over Line A. While this

represents an increase in project cost it is the least expensive option for constructing

the project and avoiding the endangered plants.

IDENTIFICATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

The endangered orchid, lsotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia), is a

federally endangered or threatened species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

known to occur in the project area. Isotria medeoloides is also listed as endangered by

the Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act of Virginia (1984).

The species had historically been known from 60 sites in 16 states and one

county in Ontario (Crow, 1/182). However, at the time of listing only 16 populations

were known in 10 states and one county in Canada. New discoveries through the field

season of 1983 increased the number of known populations to 33 and the number of

individuals to 2,500 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985).

Four populations are known to occur in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Two of

these populations are located in the project area in the v icinity of Chisel Run near

Lines A, A-[, and Revised Line A. The larger population first discovered in 11/82

consists of approximately 144 individuals, while the recently rediscovered population

at the historic "Grimes Site" consists of ten specimens (Donna Ware, personal

communication 1986). The colony of the historical "Grimes Site" was originally

discovered by Professor E. J. Grimes of William and Mary in 1921, and since the death

of the caretaker some 12 years ago, knowledge of its exact location had been unknown

(see sites 2, 3, 4, 5; figure 2).

The relationship of these small whorled pogonia populations to the various lines

are shown in Figure 2.

In recent years, most research has focused on attempts to discern the

reproductive biology and ecology of lsotria medeoloides (Mehrhoff, 1980; Ware, 1985;

Homoya, 1977; and Bracl<ley, 1981). Throughout its range, 1. medeoloides is found in a

variety of medium-aged woodland habitats such as deciduous woods in Canada (Argus

and White, 10,82), open mixed hardwood in New England (Crow, 1982), and oak/hickory

forests in Illinois (Scheviak, 1974).

A common characteristic of many sites visited by Mehrhoff (1980) and Brackley

198 1) was the open tree canopy. Mehrhof f found that an increase in vegetative cover

(i.e., less light penetration) had negative effects on the reproductive viability of

1. medeoloides_. Similarly, Brackley 0 98 1) found that a small population under a closed

canopy increased in vigor when the canopy was defoliated by gypsy moth.

In New England, 150tric medeoloides seems to prefer slopes with an eastern

orientation that are dissected by vernal streams. A frequent habitat feature is a

subsurface soil hardpan or acidic soils (shallow-to-bedrock) that promote a subsurface

sheet flow of water (Rowinski, unpubl Iished). .1sotrio medeoloides is frequently

associated with vernal stream leaf deltas where it has been found associated with

mycorrhizal fungi. Homoya (1977) has suggested that 1. medeoloides is associated with

different species of fungi depending.on habitat type. However, these and other

cryptic habitat requirements of 1. medeoloides remain unknown.

Little is known about the reproductive biology of 1. medeoloides. Mehrhoff

(1980), however, did show that it is primarily a self-pollinating species. Evidence-

suggests that its primary mode of reproduction is by seed rather than by vegetative

means. Attempts at seed germination and transplantation have been unsuccessful

(Poulos, 1985).

Field reviews of the Route 1019 project area were conducted in May and August

1085 by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and Dr. Donna Ware. The populations of 1. medeoloides in the vicinity of

Chisel Run were found on slopes having an eastern aspect with an arboreal community

of white oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Liquidambor

styrocifluo), scattered loblolly pines (Pinus toedo), hickories (Caryo spp.) and,

sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum). The sparse shrub layer is composed of flowering

dogwood (Cornus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), and spicebush (Lindera

be nzoin). The herbaceous community is composed primarily of Christmas fern

(Polystichum acrostichoides), partridgeberry (Mitchella repens), and American

strawberry bush (Eunonymous americanus).

The populations at Chisel Run are currently under ongoing investigation by

Dr. Donna Ware of the College of William and Mary. Dr. Ware discovered the main

colony in 19.82 and has been conducting population studies over the post 3 years. It

currently consists of approximately 144 individuals, making it the largest and perhaps

the most signif icant population south of New England (Wore, 1985).

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

As shown in Figure 2, Revised Line A is located approximately 1100 feet west of

the main colony (1) of 1. medeoloides and is 220 feet from site 4, 240 feet from site 5,

260 feet from site 3, and 340 from site 2.

The selected alternative, Revised Line A, will not take any of the plants.

An indirect impact of 1. medeoloides may be from highway runoff and altered

subsurface drainage patterns due to roadway excavation and compaction. A possibility

exists that exotic plant species which become established in the right of way may

compete with nearby colonies.

An additional indirect impact of the construction of the proposed roadway

between plant sites 2 and 3, and sites 4 and 5 may be the reduction of adjacent

available habitat and introduction of a barrier to seed dispersal.

MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Four mitigative measures can be taken to reduce the potential indirect impacts

of Revised Line A. First, preserve wooded -stands in the right-of-way upslope of

known populations to act cis a buffer zone. This would reduce the potential for

competition with exotic plant species and reduce effects from thermal convection,

runoff, etc. Second, biologists at the College of William and Mary will study the orea

during and after construction to identify any changes. Third, the Department has

selected Revised Line A at an additional cost of $200,000 over Line A to ovoid a

direct take of any plants and miss the main colony by 1100 feet. Fourth, the

Department will install and maintain strict erosion and siltation control measures in

accordance with the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and VDH&T's

Road and Bridge Specifications and Erosion and Siltation Control Manual.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the information provided above the Virginia Department of Highways

and Transportation has concluded that the selection of Revised Line A and

implementation of the mitigation measures discussed will minimize any impacts to

Isotria medeoloides.

REFERENCES

Argus, G.W., and D.J. White. 1982. Atlas of the rare vascular plants of Ontario.
National Museum of Natural Sciences. Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.

Brackley, F.E. 1981. The Orchidaceae of New Hampshire. Master's Thesis.
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
Brackley, F.E. 1985. Personal Communication. New Hampshire National Heritage
Program.

Crow, G.E. 1982. New England's Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Environmental Science and Enaineering, Inc. 15186. Wafer Resources and Ecology
Final Technical Report for Route 199 Environmental Impact Statement.
Prepared for Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.

Harland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc. 1986. Route 199, James City and York
Counties. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Proposed for Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.

Homoya, M.A. 1977. The Distribution and Ecology of the Genus Isotria in I] lino'is.
Master's Thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois.

Mehrhoff, L.A. 10/80. The Reproductive Biology of the Genus Isotric (Orchidaceae)
and the Ecology of Isotria medeoloides. Master's Thesis. University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Poulos, P.G. 1985. Small Whorled Pogonia Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Region 5.

Rawinski, T. Unpublished data. The Nature Conservancy. Eastern Heritage Task
Force.

Scheviak, C.J. 10,74. An Introduction to the Ecology of the Illinois Orchidaceae.
Illinois State Museum. Scientific Papers XIV.

Ware, D.M.E. 1985. Reprieve for an Orchid: The Status of the Small Whorled
Pogonio in Virginia. Jeffersonia 16(2): 27-35.

Ware, D. M. E. 1 '1186. Personal Communication. College of William and Mary,-
Williamsburg, Virginia.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A

Letter dated July 2, 1 ?86, From the Virginia DepoEtment
I of Aariculture and Consu mer- Services
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 13
1

RAYMOND D. VAUGHAN
S. MASON CARBAUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER T r17
COTvf MONWEA! j Hof V11711CjINIA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
P. 0. Box 1163, Ricliniund, Virginia 23201)

July 2, 1986

Mr. Robert L. Hundley
Environmental Engineer
Department of Highways and Transportation
1221 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Bob:

This letter is a follow-up- to meetings and discussions your
staff and members of our Division of Product and Industry
Regulation have had concerning the alternative plans your agency
is considering for construction of Route 199 in Jar-::es City
County, Virginia. Since the proposed portion of Route 199
running through York County is not in proximity to any threatened
or endangered plants, I will not address that segment.

My staff advises me that your Department developed several
alternative routes for Route 1991through James City County. Some
of the alternatives were developed to offer protection to a large
colony of Isotria medeoloides located near Chisel Run. While
these alternatives were under active consideration, a smaller
colony of 1. medeoloides was discovered near Alternative A-1.

On June 9, 1986, members of my staff met with Dr. Donna Ware
of the College of William and Mary and officials of your agencyt
including Jack Stewart, Robert Morris, Vincent Valenti, R. E.
Pickett, and Don West, to evaluate a new alternative (designated
as Refined Line A) developed by your staff in, an effort to
protect both colonies of 1. medeoloides.

I understand that it was the general consensus of those
present at this June 9 meeting that the new Refin@d Line A
alternative will have the least impact on the Isotria medeoloides
population. My staff advises me that while it does appear that
even Refined Line A will come close to the newly discovered
colony of I. medeoloides, located in James City County, this
alternative provides protection for the largest colony of I.
medecloides south of 'New England, while reducing the increased
cost of Alternative A-1. I am told that Refined Line A may also
lessen the impact of Route 199 on the current landowners.

D- 2

Mr. Robert L. Hundley
Page two
July 2, 1986

it would appear from the review and discussions that have
taken place between our staffs that your agency should consider
adopting Refined Line A as the alternative that would minimize
adverse impact upon the small whorled pogonia and which would
cost considerably less than other alternatives you are consider-
ing. Should you decide that this alternative satisfies your
criteria, I believe my agency can support your choice of Refined
Line A as the preferred alternative.

I also point out that VDACS is working cooperatively with
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect threatened and
endangered plants within the state through a formal cooperative
agreement. As such, you should be aware that under Section 7 of
U. S. Endangered Species Act, your Department is required to
formally consult with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service con-
cerning any action that might-adversely affect I. medeoloides if
federal monies are involved.

If I can provide you with any further assistance, please
feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

S. Mason Carbaugh
Commissioner

cc: Mr. B. W. Southall
Mr. D. H. Kludy

National commissoner Oscar _ Ma__ty

_____ _____ bristol district Deputy Commisioner
______ __________ roanoke salem district J M Wrat. Jr
______ _ Davidson linchburg linchbur district chiefe engineer
_____ ______ Richmond Richmond District Albert W Coates Jr
_____ ______ Virginia Beach suffolk District assistant commisioner
___ _____ Jr _____ Fredericksburg District
_______ R _______ culpeper culpeper District Jack HOOGE
Robert W _______ Berryville Staunton District DIrector of Engineering
_____ ______ Alexandria NOrthern VIrginia District
_____ v Kelly sr. Newport news at large Urban Bally H cooper
Robert A quicku BLackstone at Large RUral Director of ___ and public transportation
J,O ripley
director of planning and programming

J w Atwell
Director of _______
David M ___
Director of operations

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
1221 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
M M SHAVER JR October 16, 1986

STATE LOCATION AND DESIGN ENGINEER

Route 199
Proj. 0199-965-101,PE-100 Fed. Proj. F-126-1(101)
RECEIVED James City and York Counties
OCT 2 0 1980 Fr: Int. Route 5 (S.W. of
Williamsburg
ENVIRONMENTA1 To: Int. 1-64 (Exit 55
QUALITY DIV. Route 646)

Location Approval

Memorandum

To: Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr.

Today the State Highway and Transportation Board approved
the location corridor for Route 199 defined as Line A Revised in
James City County and Line A-2 in York County.

Line A-2 Revised crosses Route 615 on proposed Line A-1 and
swings to more closely follow Line A through the area of the
endangered plant.

The Board also approved through access for Strawberry Plains
Road (Route 616), a relocation of Route 658 to connect with Route
612 and additional access for the Route 658 relocation to pro-
posed Route 199. Further studies and actions will be conducted
as deemed appropriate for funding and public involvement for the
relocation of Route 658.

The location and other features were approved as presented
at the hearing as Line A in James City County.

In York County Line A-2 was approved as presented at the
public hearing with one access point near the midway point
between Route 60 and Route 64.

Please advise those who spoke or wrote concerning the
project and the appropriate local officials of this action.

D-3

TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES

Mr. C. A. Nash, Jr. -2- October 16, 1986

I am sending 100 copies of a map showing the approved
corridor.

H. M. Shaver, Jr., State
Location and Design Engineer

MAB/jw
cc:
Mr.'R .L. Hundley
Mr. R. C. Lockwood
Mr. G. W. Alexander
Mr. D. D. Harris
Mr. R. A. Mannell
Mr. F. B. Bales
Mr. R. E. Atherton
Mr. M. A. Bowyer

D-4

IL
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AIQ DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
1825B VIRGINIA STREET
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401

November 7,.1986

Mr. James M. Tumlin
Division Admini-strator
Federal Highway Administration
400 N. 8th Street
P. 0. Box 10045
Richmond, Virginia 23240

Dear Mr. Tumlin:

This responds to your letter of October 10, 1986, to Mr. Stephen Parry of
ourRegional Office, requesting Fish and Wildlife Service review of your
Biological Assessment of the impacts of proposed Route 199, in James City
and York Counties, Virginia, on the endangered small-whorled pogo-nia.

Our review Indicates that your Biological Assessment is a very well written
document. We concur with your conclusion that selection of Revised Line A
together with implementation of the four mitigative measures specified in
the Biological Assessment will minimize Impacts to the small-whorled
pogonia.

Thank you for coordinating with us.

Sincerely yours,

!V-Glenn Kinser
Supervisor
Annapolis Field Office

D-5

Appe ndi x E

Virginia Department of Transportation

Road and Bridge Specifications

Section 107.14(b)3 Noise Control

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATIONS

SECTION 107.14 (b) 3 NOISE

Rev. 6-20-85
Rev. 4-6-88

The Cbntractor's operations shall be performed in such a manner that the

exterior noise levels measured at the closest point to a noise sensitive activity

shall not exceed 80 dB(A) during periods of such activity. Noise sensitive activity

is defined CIS any activity for which lower.ed noise levels are essential if such

activity is to serve its intended purpose. Noise sensitive activities include, but

are not limited to, those associated wi,,th residences, hospitals, nursing hornes,

churches, schools, libraries, parks and recreational areas.

The Department reserves the right to monitor construction related noise as

deemed necessary. In the event construction noise levels exceed the criteria

herein, the Contractor shall take such action as necessary to conform before

proceeding with operations. The Contractor shall be responsible for (III costs

as sociated with the abatement of construction noise and with the delay of

operations due to non-compliance with these requirements.

The Department reserves the right to prohibit or restrict to certain

portions of the project any work which produces objectionable noise during normal

sleeping hours, 10 p.m. t a 6 a.m., unless other hours are established by local

ordinance in which case the local ordinance shall govern.

Equipment shall in no Way be altered so-as to result in noise levels which

are greater than those produced by the original equipment.

E-1

When feasible, the Contractor shall establish haul routes which direct his

vehicles away from developed areas and ensure that noise from hauling operations

is kept to a minimum.

These requirements are not applicable if the ambient noise (noise produced

by sources other than the Contractor's operation) at the point of reception is

greater than the noise from the ContrGCtor's operation at the some point.

E-2

I -
I
.1
I
Appendix F
I Wetlands Delineations for the Selected Alignment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Acres
Site Wetland Type on ROW Stream Watershed Comments

1 PF01A 0.45 Mill Creek Mill Creek alluvial flat adj. to stream, small portion is filled

3 PF01A 1.47 unnamed trib. Chisel Run alluvial flat adj. to stream

5 PF01A 1.16 unnamed trib. Chisel Run alluvial terrace adj. to stream
PF01 C 0.15 inundated alluvial terrace adj. to stream

8 PF01A 0.60 unnamed trib. Chisel Run possibly old pond

9 PF01 C 4.32 unnamed trib. Chisel Run floodplain terrace

11 PF01 C 1.46 Chisel Run Chisel Run floodplain

12 PF01A 0.89 unnamed trib. Long Hill Swamp alluvial terrace and seepage slopes adj. to stream

13 PF01 Hb 1.08 Long Hill Swamp Long Hill Swamp beaver impounded alluvial terrace

14 PSS1C 0.31 unnamed trib. Long Hill Swamp swampy, young woodland adj. to stream

19 PF01 A 0.28 unnamed trib. Chisel Run seepage slope above stream, perched o n sandy clay loam

Total= 12.17

PFO= 11.86
PSS= 0.31
The following wetlands are located alonq a proposed interchanqe spur. They were delineated, but are not considered in the current project.
15 PF01 A 0.34 unnamed trib. Chisel Run not currently involved, Monticello Ave. extension
17 PF01A 0.50 unnamed trib. Chisel Run Jnot currently involved, Monticello Ave. extension
Total= 0.84

................

..................

..........

.. ...........

............

Mill

r
k
ee

............
.................
3 .... ........

............... ...............

............. 2
...........
Wetland #1
PF01A
0.45 acres on ROW

. ...... ....
75
...........

75'
0.
:10

75'

..............

1 43

100,

1..,=200'
cont6ur interval 5'

F-2

.. . . ...... . .
-n-@d tribo Iry
unnai
................ ......... of Ch.i�el.Rq
5 T

... .........
.. ...... 03
.......... .........
Wetland #3
.... ........................
PF01A .... .

.............
1.47 acres on ROW

-9
..........

..........
.. ..........

pipeline

ii Sq* age
T
at
ie.' rhent
Pjabt,

1 "=200'
...............
contour interval 5'

. .. ............

. ..........
-.'.-'P IF 0 1
. . . .... . .. ..
unnamed triNtary
of@Lhisel Ruh

Wetland #8 A . ................
V,
PF01A
to,
0.60 acres on ROW

. .... . .....
... . .........

flions

;3;
h
20" Wit Wetland#9

.............

5.b,
50, V-Run
612

1"=200'
contour interval @Y---.

and #11

a
d*
jacent MaD-**-*.-*.
7

. . . ... .. ..
CL

0
Wetland
PF01C
4.32 acres on ROW
2
.........

7V .....
... .. . ......

50,

F-4

...............

1"=200,
contour
interval 5'
........ .......
.................
.......... SN

......... .

R
... ....... .......

..........
.. ... ...........
.. . ...... . ....
Wetiand #9'
included on
. . ...... . .
Map Wetland #11
agacent
PF01C
..........
1.46 acres on ROW

...........

.............

..........

5.0'

.% . .. . . . .....

1"=200.',
ritour-ifiterval 5' ......
Co
7
..........

-TI

.......... .
2
Wetland #12 .'5
PF01A
0.89 acres on,
ROW

........................ ............... . ........

75' . ....

7@'
togMt fva

.. ...........

50'
Long

Hill
",-Nswam
p ......

. ........ ..

,tt*.:
...........
..... . Wetland #14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
...... PSSIC
0.31 acres on ROW 75

.... . ....
Wetland #13
PF01 Hb

1.08 acres on ROW

...... 7F'

50.1
Long\
Cotts \Hill
Pond

S
mp
wa

. ..... .....

. ............

........................

75'

F-7

.......... .

..... .....

Wetland #15
PF01A

... ............
0.34 acres on Row

.......................

............... ......

10.0,

75
2

U "a me'd-tributa
nn
f i- el Rury----.,.
>' o Ch

I"=200'
contour interval 5@"..: CD

Wetland #17
PF01A
0.50 acres on ROW

2 ......

100,

3
.00

...........

F-8

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: ~q@~2q0~q,~qe Y- COUNTY:
~V
LOCATION: / 9 STREAM: ~6qu~.~' ~"~4 ~qI~-r~t ~8qbt~A
PLOT: Q I DRAINAGE BASIN: ~8qr~4qn~,~'~ql I ~0qc
ELEVATION: FWS CLASSIFICATION: ~4qP~6qf~6qo~ql~@~4qq
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~q4~6qQ ~0q6~0q4 ~.~q5 ~2qb~qi~qj

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(F~qI~4qV~8qE
I~qf only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TR~8qE~2qF~,S), S(SHRUB), H(HE~8qRB~0qS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPEC~qI~8qES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
1. ~2qr~6ql~-~0q2 ~2q0 A( -

2. ~8qO~qc~f~-~qy~' ~8qC~,
3. r ~8qr~-~4q4~2qc I/
4. 5) ~q1~/~h~4q& ~8qr~- ~q/~4q@ c ~q@~4qj
~k-~Z ~I~o~8qA~d~o~-~e ~Y~-~qU~-~e ~-~0~0q@ ~q0 5 41

~q6. ~)~1~:~q:~,~qr ~4 ~x~v

7. ~q)~qc~q@~4qv ~qe-
8. ~q6~q)~,~q5 A~1~4 r-~.~Y ~6qF~1~0q9 ~0qc~- ~0qV

9. ~20q0 ~12qe~8q4~q,~6qX~2q"~q-~8q(~q.~qd A- ~56q0 ~q'~40q0~8q4~4q;
10. ~08q6~qa~q-~28q@ "a
~40q0 ~88qe ~2qJ~q, ~0qc ~56qS

12.
PERCENT OF N~8qO~16qNW~12qET~16qLAND SPECIES: 72~8qb

PERCENT OF W~08qETLAND SPECIES:

CI~16qASSI~12qFIC~16qATION: ~12qW~16qZT~12qL~2qAND VEGETATION? NO ~08q&~4qw~2qt~8qt~qA~q,~6q(~28qt BASIS
F-9

~8qV~qD~4qO~8qT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

11. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES ~2qN~4qO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES ~qL--~q' NO. METHOD USED:
OTHER INDICATORS: ~qC- ~0q@~ql Olt ~0qS ~)~qV~4 ~-~I~-~r~-~4qo~qw~s~, ~qe~6qj~l~,~,~&~-~4q@

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES No BASIS

III. SOILS
SERIES: T~qEXTURE~q(26CM DEPTH): ~0qZ~0qn~q!~4qm~%~_~8q* ~.~q1~q0~,~f~4q4

MOTTLES: ~qY~4qE~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GL~2qEYING: YES 0.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.
MATRIX COLOR (26~4qCM DEPTH): ~2q@y, 21~2q0
~6qQ

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLA IF~qIC~qAT~qI~8qO~4qN: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES No BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-10

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: COUNTY:
I~8q& ~0qG
LOCATION:- STREAM: ~6qU~q4~i ~4qm~t~qa~8ql -7~0qt~qi~t~q; ~4qb ~qW
PLOT ~*~. ~0qG ~8q2, DRAINAGE BASIN:~-~.Y~4qK~q1~q1 C~,-~qL~c~0ql~q)

ELEVATION: ~-~9~2q7~- F~qWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~0qV~q:~qE~0q4
00~, ~6qu

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
I~ql only on~e or two layers, list the live dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERB~qS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
~0qO~r~-~1 ~q4~q2 ~q1~4~.~1 ~2qf~-~-~@ ~qc~qx ~qV~-~t~'~qk STATUS TOTAL
~V

3~*

~q5.

~q6.

9~q.

10.

~0q1~0q1.

~4q1~4q2.

PERCENT OF NONW~08qET~12qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF ~8qW~12qL~q`T~12qL~2qAN~2qD SPECIES:

C~12qL~8qAS~12qSIr~2qIC~08qATION: ~08qNETLAND V~6qE~12qG~16qE~12qT~12qATio~12qn~2q? YES no BASIS

F-11

~4qV~qD~qOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM ~q1-2~q888~.

~11. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? ~ ~~qY~qE~qS NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:
OTHER INDICATORS:- ~q@~0~2q5~0qt

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXT~4qUR~8qE~q(26CM DEPTH):

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~qL~8qEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HY~qDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (2~q5~8qCM DEPTH):

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLA IFIC~qATIO~2qN: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS D~2q1~2q7~q2~q3~qt~8qMIN~8qATION: YES -NO BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-12

DATA FORM 3

ATYPICAL SITUATIONS

Applicant Application Project
Name: ~8qV DOT Number: Name: ~6qF~-~qr ~2qn ~8q9
Location: ~q19~2q1~-0 1 Plot Number:. C~q) Date: ~q;~qz

A. VEGETATION:
1. Type of Alteration:- ~0qF~, ~v~l~,~-~t
~6qQ

2. Effect on Vegetation: ~8qc~qo ~y~-~t~q1~1~4qJ

3. Previous Vegetation:_ ~4qp~r~qt~6q6~e~2qb~q@~q4
(Attach documentat~qi4on) ~4qU

4. Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes No

B. SOILS:
1. Type of Alteration:- ~2qC~qA~-~r~,~-~6q@

2. Effect on Soils: ~4~q:~q-~/

3. Previous Soils: ~6qP~qO ~q5~0q5~q@~q4~2q@~qt Ice ~q-~4qW~,~q0~4q2 ~0q/~q4~4~-~8q@
(Attach documentation)

4. Hydric Soils? Yes No

C. HYDROLOGY:

I ~- Type of Alteration:

2. Effect on Hvdrolog~4qy:

3. Previous Hydrology:_ ~12q0 ~04q5 ~00q5
(Attach documentation) ~qL~q/

4. We~qtland Hydrology? Yes ~4q-No~4q-~8qL~q-~q-~q-~q-~q-
rized By:
Characte

F~q-1~8q3

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM ~q1-2888

DATE: COUNTY:-

LOCATION: STREAM:

PLOT: ~4q0 DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: F~qWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~q4~" ~qZ~q@~q)

1. VEGETATION: L~ql ST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(T~8qRE~8qE~qS), S(SHRU~8qB), H(HE~4qRB~8qS), OR V(VINES)~.

STRATA/SPECI~6qES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

~Y~t~t~q, ~C~-~L ~I~2qr~q/~q5~q1 ~c~q7~c~q)

~2.
~3. ~qI~4qn~4qa~4ql ~qV~- ~L~L~q)
~4. ~2q6~q)~,~,
~8qr~qi~0q9~6qc ~4qy ~0~0qZ~)

~q0
~7~. ~4qH ~q7~*~'~c~'~t~.~-~e~-~q"~r~q0~:>~'~z~'

~8. ~4~Q ~e

0. ~24qV~2q@~qi ~08qn~qt~4q@~56q@ ~12qr~0qo
~q1~8q1. ~28q@~6q)~q-~4qe ~qe~q- ~qZ~qL~q'~qt~q-~q@~q'~qf ~0q7 ~qy ~q:~0q:~q4 ~8qJ~q7~0q,~qI~4q& ~28q9~q,Z
12. ~28q/~04qV

PERCENT OF NON~12qWET~12qLAND SPECIES: ~q4~q1~0q1~q,
PERCENT OF WET~08qLAND SPECIES: ~88q2~84q3~q,~64q2 ~20q@~12q0

C~12qL~8qA~12qS~08qSI~2q7~2q7~8qC~08qA~08qT~8qI~8qON: ~04qM~08qETLA~08qND vE~4qG~08qz~12qT~08qk~08qT~8qzo~08qu? YES ~q@~q-~24q@o ~4q"~q'~6qJ~q'~qn ~qe~4qi~qr~q'~q-~q'~6qV BASIS
F~q-14 ~2qp I

~q0~1 ~

~8qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II~. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER: -

SATURATED SOILS? ~q-~qY~qE~qS NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES 0 BASIS

III. SOILS
SERIES: T~8qEXTURE(25CM DEPTH): ~2qb~qm~q-~l~8qn~-~-~@~q3 ~-~qs~q"
MOTTLES: ~0qP~q" YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: ~0qA~6ql~4q* r
~qu

~G~8qL~2qE~qYING: ~qY~4qE~qS NO.

SERIES ON HYDRXC SOILS LIST: YES 0.

MATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH):

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES No BASIS

IV. WETLANDS D~6qE~2q7~q3~8q3~2qM~qI~2qN~8qATION: YES No

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-15

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: COUNTY:

LOCATION: ~q3 -~4qs STREAM:

PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN: ~qS

ELEVATION: ~:~:~qz~: F~qWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~2qS~-~6q@~8qL~,~q@~0qZ 4

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIV~6qE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T (TREES), S(SH~2qRUB), H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRAT~qA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

~2. ~4qA~6qW ~6qc a
3. ~qu
~r~t~q"~, ~8q4 ~4qF~6qw ~4qc~- a ~q-

~4. ~2qS

~5. ~0qF~A

6.
~q) ~qV ~qC~0qJ~-
~0~1 ~8qg~6q"

~8.

~-~4q9~q. ~q6

10. ~q1~q, ~qO~qL

il.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WETLAN~2qD SPECIES:

CLA I~16qFIC~2qA~08qT~6qI~2qO~08qN: ~08qW~12qETLAND VEG~8qirr~08qAT~8qI~08qO~08qN? YES NO BASIS
F~q-16

V~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888~.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? -YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES ~L~l~q@ ~8q0 BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: T~2qEXTU~8qR~8qE~q(2~q6CM DEPTH):

MOTTLES: -YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~8qLEYING: YES 0.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.
MATRIX COLOR (25CM DEPTH): r ~-~q2 ~2qh~qs

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: W~2qETI~8qA~8qNDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS D~2qETE~qR~8qM~qI~ql~2qUTION: YES No() ~4qf~,~,~q(2~,~:~qw~*~qm~4~8q&~qm BASIS
ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES ~qZ~_~0q@ -No.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-17

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: COUNTY:

LOCATION: STREAM:
PLOT: ~4q0 ~q;~q2~- DRAINAGE BASIN: e-~4qA ~,~-~,~,~8qt ~2qg~6qt~o~q(~8q@

ELEVATION: TION:
FWS C~4qLASSIFICA
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~4~2q4~q@~e~0q@

1. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAY~8qER.(FI~4qV~2qE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREE~6qS), S(SH~2qRUB), H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

~2.
~3. ~8qr~-~'~0qr~qk~qy~l~q@~0qv~L~z~_~-~) ~0qa~8qz~e~0qn~2ql~'~8q@~j ~qi~8qc~0qw~8qc ~4qh~8q/

~4.

~q;~8qz ~qC~q3
~u

~7.

~-9.

~q10.
~qV ~08qj

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLA~12qND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF W~16qETLAND SPECIES:

~qMA IF~2qIC~12qATIO~12qN: ~04qWET~08qLAND VEGETATION? ~0q_~8q_~q_~q_~40qL~4q_~q_~q_~q_~q_~08qY~08qE~2qS no ~96qe~32qc~44qt~q-~00q@ --BASIS
F~q-18

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

11. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? ~qY~qE~qS NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES ~J~.~2q@ No. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY~q- YES NO BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(25~2qCM DEPTH):

MOTTLES: YES 0. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~8qLEYING: YES 0.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: ~ ---YES NO.
MATRIX COLOR (26~qCM DEPTH): -~0q3~8q,~6q1~q1

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES No BASIS

IV ~- WETLANDS D~6qE~2qTE~ql~2qM~qI~2qN~2qA~6qT~qI~8qON~: YES~ so BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

~c~qo~2q"~2qo~qr~qr~qs~:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-19

~8qV~qDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: ~4q2 ~q6 ~4q0~q1~q2Y~-~1~4q1 ~qI~4qT~1~q6~-~q8~, COUNTY:
LOCATION:-/ STREAM: ~qn~q4~l~.~-~C Of~"

PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN

ELEVATION: F~qWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION:- ~q4~1~1~q1~8q@~4q@~0qa~0qz~6qg~8q4~l

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAY~qER.~q(FIV~qE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREE~6qS), S(SH~8qRUB), H(~8qHERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECI~6qES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

~2. ~_~q%4 ~4qe~2qs~q-
~6qu
~8qc~"~c~' ~1
~3. F ~0q6

~6. ~0 ~0q5

~7. ~6qr I~qa~q0~v~i~a ~0q4~@ ~4~7

~-9. ~4q5~6q7~76q"

~q10. ~qr~q.~4q(

~q1~0q1~q.

12.

PERCENT OF NON~6qW~16qETLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF W~04qETLAND SPECIES: ~q-~8q3 ~8q0

CLASSIFICATION: ~12qW~16qZTLA~12qND ~12qV~6qE~16qWE~6qTAT~6qI~12qO~12qN? YES NO 1~8q4 ~16qQ ~4qt~qi BASIS
F~q-20 ~qu

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

Il. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES ~qL--- NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES _~.~L~8q@~6q@~@NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: T~qEXTUR~qE(2~q6CM DEPTH):

MOTTLES YES NO. MOTT COLOR:

GL~qE~8qYING: YES ~q-4~@~q@~qN~qO~-

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH): 3 ~/ 7-
IV

OTI~8qM INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS ~qY~8qE~qS No BASIS

IV. ~6qW~8qETL~qA~qP~2qMS, DETERMINATION: YES ~qL~@~2q@~q-~qN~8qo BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: ~qY~8qE~qS NO.

COMMENTS:

INATION MADE BY:

F~q-21

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 9 COUNTY:_\ ~qy~q2~l~z~0q@

LOCATION: ~q-7 STREAM:
PLOT: of DRAINAGE BASIN: ~qC~8qA~'~6q@~q%~.~2qJ

~=~:~8q& FWS CLASSIFICATION:
ELEVATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION: ~'~8qS ~qj~qo cc_ ~=~qe

1. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SH~2qRUB), H(HE~2qRBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

-~q1. ~2qC~q;~q4~1~- ~0qc

~2.

~3.

~q4~0q0~-~2q7~-

~q6.

~-9.

10.

~q1~0q1.

12.

P~08qERC ENT OF NONWET~08qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF W~16qET~16qLAND SPECIES:

CLA I~20qFIC~12qATION: ~12qW~0qIT~16qLAND VEGETATION? YES so BASIS
F-22

VIDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

XI. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? -YES NO. METHOD USED:- -

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLA IFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE (26CM DEPTH) Q@

MOTTLES: YES 0. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES 0.

MATRIX COLOR (25CM DEPTH): J 4

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES -mo BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-23

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: ~q:~qz ~qL A r ~2qq~2qz ~4qt~t
LOCATION:. STREAM: ~6qT~6q@~, ~2qL~.~I~l~6qf~q~qi~q"~q-

PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: ~2q4 ~qJ~-4 ~6q0 ~qF~qWS C~I~-A IFICATION: ~qe~q) 1~.4

SITE DESCRIPTION:-
~2qu

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T (TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
~2q7~q-~q)~

~3.

~L~2ql ~2q0
4. 4~C

~e~. yr. ~4q0

~7. ~q1~8q4 ~qL~4qd 0

~q8.

9~q. 04~64q3~64q4
0. ~0qV~2q) ~4q3~0q)~q,~qe ~0qC~q-~04qu ~q.~q1 ~qy I
~qC~0q" ~q-~qp~0q- ~qY~q-~qr~q-~q- ~qV~q-~q@~q'~qx I ~qc~q'

12.

PERCENT OF NON~16qWET~16qUND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF ~2qWET~12qLAND SPECIES:

~qM-~2qA I~16qnC~12qAT~8q:~2qE~12qOH~q*~q. ~12qW~12qETL~2qRND V~12qEG~16qF.TA~12qT~q'~2qI~12qO~12qN? ~2qL~q@~q- YES so BASIS
F-24

~~qr~qo

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

Il. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES ~qL~q,-~-~q@~_No. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY- YES No f ~q/~q0 a -BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE (26CM DEPTH): ~q5
~2qu
MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: ~q16~qS~q@~4~q)~r

G~2qLEYING: Y~qES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.
~1~q4~8qATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH): J ~6q0 ~2q@~8qh
~v

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: ~qW~8qL~8q=~2qA~8qN~qD~4qS SOILS ~qY~8qE~8qS NO BASIS

IV. WETLA~qk~qEDS DETERMINATION: YES No BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-25

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETM~qtM~qINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: ~8q2~0q6 ~8qP~qA~q2~1~1~- ~qI~'~qS~qa~qk COUNTY: ~y~K~e~-~qA ~2qn

LOCATION: STREAM: ~8qt~qi~,
PLOT: ~4q0 DRAINAGE BASIN: ~qC~q"~4qL~qA~'~6qd ~2q&~"~"~'~q"

ELEVATION: ~qA~8qY~6qb ~2qFW~qS CLASSIFICATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION: ~qk~qJ~C~, ~qt~qt~l~" ~C~qj - ~qJA

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TRE~8qES), S(SH~qRUB), H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SP~qECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
-1. ~i~A~~j ~A_~A_A~,~6~@~0 ~r~_~L~A~_ ~qr ~4~L ~8qF~ql~q@ ~4qc

~-2. ~4qE~0 ~qg~d~x~a~l a ~e~3 A F
~qU
~-3. ~6qp~c~q@t~j_~L~,4 ~q4 ~qC~,

6.
~7. ~y ~L~'~s ~t~v ~f ~L~)~L~f~- ~8q4~, ~6qr~8ql~2q@ ~2qc

8. ~8q6~-

~q-9~q. A ~88qr~q,~52q4 C

~q10.

~q1~0q1.

12.

PERCENT OF N~8qON~12qWET~16qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WET~12qL~8qkND SPECIES:

CLASSIFICATION: ~12qWET~16qL~2qAND V~20q=~16qL~qrT~20qm~12qa~16qw YES NO ~08qK~8qc~04qV~4qV~0qV~q0~8q"~2q&~q1~qJ~qq -BASIS

F-26

~8qV~qD~qOIT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED~q? YES NO, DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES ~L~l~q- NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

C~4qL~qA~;SSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTUR~qE(2~q6CM DE~qP~4qrA~q): ~2qS~4q"~0qd

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~8qL~8qEYING: YES 0.

SERIES ON HYDR~qIC SOILS LIST: YES ~q0.
MATRIX COLOR (2~q6C~qM DEPTH): r 7~2q1~0qA
~v

OT~4qM~2qM INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES ~qN~qO ~N~q1~q6 ~y~qf~qt~o~2qH~2ql~q, ~qC BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES Leo~, ~q1~q60

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES No.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-27

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY W~8qETIJ~qU~2qM DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: ~qL~P~4q4~q1~q2~8qn ~q1~qq~8qk COUNTY: ~0q6 ~qC~r~'~,~-~4~8q0

LOCATION: 0 STRE~qA~qM~:

PLOT: ~8q0 ~qJ~-~qf DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: ~:~@~q-~- ~2q4~q0~q@~2q4~- F~qWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: F~- ) ~0 ~0 ~U~qJ~- ~4~1~1~q" ~4~- an, ~6q4 ~q@~6q/ ~4q1~2q&~@~1~1~7 ~2q@~qa_~4qe
~qu

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.~q(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T (TREES), S~q(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINE~qS).

STRATA/~qSPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
&A"-, ~C ~8qr

~\~^~%~4~- ~V~%~o~'~k /~0q0

~qc ~qij

4. ~qY ~L~J~1~q4 ~qa~l~r~'~@~qV~qA~A I ~&~1~r~- ~qA~'~q@~q- ~qC~- ~qL~-~qr

~7.

~8.

~-9.

10.

~q1~0q1.

12.

P~12qERCE~16q= OF N~8qO~2qNWET~12qL~6qAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WET~20qLAND SPECIES:

c~12qL~6qAssi~20qr~6qic~2qA~16qn~12qc~6qu: w~24q=~16qa~20qm ~16qv~16qE~0qs~16qz~16qm~16qno~16qm? ~16qY~16qzs no ~56qA~q-~4q6 ~08qW~64qd~q4~q-~q-,~4qk. BASIS

F~q-28

~2qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

~II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:
INUNDATED? ~qk~-~q-~q, ~qY~8qE~8qS NO. DEPTH OF WATER: ~6qn ~q- ~-~,~7 ~2q@~q@~( ~4q4

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:
OTHER INDICATORS: r ~8q<-~4qA6~L~4~- ~q4~-~4q1 ~t~qf~qg~,~.~8q@ ~0~- ~J~A~q4 ~4qk~,

Cl~0qj~q-~qs~4qSI~8qFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY ~0qL~.~-~q- YES No BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: T~2qrATURE~q(26CM DEPTH):
MOTTLES: Y~8qE~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 7 ~-~4qr

G~8qL~8qEYING: Y~qE~qS NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: NO.
MATRIX COLOR (~q26C~qM DEPTH): ~q0~q1~q4~qr ~qA~2q41~q1

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: ~8qWETT~2qA~2qNDS SOILS ~qI~l- YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: ~8qY~2qES No BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES ~q1~@~0q@ NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-29

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS D~qET~qER~qNINA ION
TECHNICAL DATA FORK 1~-2888

DATE: I ~qr~qi COUNTY:

LOCATION: STREAM:
PLOT: ~0q0 DRAINAGE BASIN: ~@~0q5
ELEVATION: ~qF~qW~qS CLASSIFICATION: ~8qP ~6qr~q- ~0qo ~qi
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~8qP0 ~-~'~q5 5 ~V~4q" ~qe~6qn ~L~@~c~4q@ ~'~(~0q@~'~2qh ~6q4~4~qt~-

1. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA~=T (TREES), ~qS~q(SHR~2qUB), H(HERB~qS), OR V(V~qINES).

STRATA/SPECI~6qES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
T ~8qs~8qi ~2qFA~8qC 0

~2. ~qc~- ~8qe~q- ~qY~@ ~V~-~u~@~. ~0qw~, ~4qA~qI
~3. Ed ~6qC~6qW

~4.

~2q/~q5~q-~q/~8qY ~6qc
~q)~0qc ~4q6~q1 ~qC~-~8q4~q)
~7.

9. ~20q0~6q1~72q3,~6q4,
~q10~q. ~q4~6q2 All ~6q0~8q1~q/~6q:~6q7~0q1~52q@ ~04qC

~q1~2q1. e ~4qr~qo- ~28q0~52q5~q-

~q.~q4 ~0qe~ql~6qt~2q-
Joe,. ~08qr ~q'~4q@~q4~qL
PERCENT O~6qF NONWET~16qL~6qAND SPECIES: 7

PERCENT OF ~08qWET~20qLAND SPECIES:

CLASS~20qWIC~16qATION: W~20qIT~16qL~16qU~20qM VE~6qaZTATIO~16qK~0q? no ~76qr~ql~qe~qt~qA~q@~qz BASIS

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888~.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? Y~8qE~qS NO. DEPTH O~qF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? ~qY~qE~qS NO. M~2qMOD USED:
OTHER INDICATORS: ~q@~-o ~k~0qp~,~8q" ~4qd~, ~2qQ~'~8qA ~q4-~-~qn ~r~7

C~ql~ql.A~4qSSIFIC~qATI~qON: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO ~q/~q0~2q0 ~8qd~q@_~6qq BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXT~qUR~qE~q(26CM DEPTH):

MOTTLES: Y~4qE~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~6qL~0qEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HY~qDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM D~2qM~:~'~0qM~q):

OTHER INDICATORS:

C~ql- ~qIF~qIC~qAT~qI~4qON: WETLANDS SOILS ~qY~8qE~qS so ~1~q)~0q0~1~4~.~@ BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES ~2q3~2q0 ~q@~6q2~0q@-~8qA~2qm~ql~qs

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES No.

COMMENTS: ~0qd~qr
a ~6q1~q%~8qe ~6qv ~6q4~1~1~r~q@ ~'~X .. e~f ~q@~2qa ~C~2q4~,
~12qc~q- A ~qZZ ~6qy~0qa

DETERMINATION MADE BY: ~00qC'

F~q-31

~~q6

JUL 2~q:~q2 1988

WAPORA, INC.
ATLANTA OFFICE
VD~6qO~qT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY W~qE~6qM~0qA~6qNDS DETERMINATION
~6qT~2qZ~qC~8qSN~qI~2qC~qAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: 2 ~0q0~~ COUNTY:. ~8q3~6qi~y~p~%~-~q@ ~4qC~t

LOCATION:_ STREAM~:
PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN: ~6qC ~8qh

ELEVATION: FWS CLASSIFICATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION: ~qp~,~-~q6
~q@~q, ~0q" ~L,~c~qn a ~8q@ ~qo~l~c~8q@

VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER-(FIV~0qE
if only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRAT~qA~=T(TREES), S(SH~6qRUB), H(HERBS), OR ~2qVVINES).

STRATA/SP~2qECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
~q1. 7 ~q)~qy~8q@ d~t~qv + ~L-~,- ~q1~4q4~q, a ~-
~qr
2. ~6qC2~q@ ~8q4~2q/ ~q;~qz ~2q0
3. F~0q"~0qr ~qa~'~A~qi~'

~5.
~qC~"
~q7. 0 ~q0 ~8q@ ~4qu~j a, ~r ~6qF ~q1~4q4~2qC ~0qw~qi
~qS ~6qf~l~,~0qL ~q@ ~k ~Y~6qV a ~qC~, r ~q0 ~6qS~2qI~) ~q/~4q5

~-9. ~8q4

~q10.
V

12.

PERCENT OF NONW~20qETLA~16qND SPECIES:

PERCENT O~6qF ~2qW~12qET~16qL~2qAND SPECIES: ~88q2~8q)~q, 7

C~6ql-AS~12qSI~6q7~6q7C~12qATION: W~16qI~16qTL~2qA~2qJ~16qW VEGETATION~2q? YES so BASIS
F-32 ~qV

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-~q2~q8~q8~q8~.

Il. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES ~qi~-~q-~q@ NO. DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS? ~qY~8qE~qS /,---NO. METHOD USED: e~q@~qi~7~t~q;~l~qe ~r~8q%~A~-

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO No ~.~6q4~0qd~-~,~0q&~,~-~q/~o~"~-~r~qs~2qB~4qAs~qI~2qs

Ill. SOILS
SERIES: TEXTURE~q(26C~6qM DEPTH): ~0qS~q4~q1~q" ~l~6qy

MOTTLES: YES ~1~-~-~q' NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~0qL~6qEY~qING: YES ~qL-- NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: Y~0qES NO.
MATRIX COLOR (26C~qM DEPTH): Z

OTHER INDICATORS:

CIA IF~qIC~qAT~qI~8qON: WETLANDS SOILS YES ~qz~q,~q- No ~0qZ BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES SO 6~1 Y~-~qa- I ~6qS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-33

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: 7 ~0qZ~2q?~,~r~qz~0qz~,~,~2q1~0qZ~,~-~f ~6qk~-~2qS` COUNTY: ~8qT~c~, ~Y~-~q ~A~qA ~2q0~, ~L A

LOCATION:- STREAM:

PLOT: ~q6 DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: ~8qP~q7~- ~qF~qWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: a ~o~qt ~qa~c~-~g~4q@ ~e~q,~7 ~'~q5 ~qo~qu ~6qt~6qj ~q5 ~I~'~0qL

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAY~qE~qR.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRAT~qA=T(TRE~2qES), S(SHRUB), H(HER~qBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
~1. ~0qT~8q@ ~6qr~-~&~1~qj~L~qL~!~qb roll" a, ~'~2qy~0qc~8qa ~8q3 ~6q0
2. ~4~1~1 ~- ~2q@ ~8q@~-~k F~,~6q1 ~6qC~- /~8q0
A t
~3. ~qA~qJ~1~6q4 ~q5~q5~-~C~L CIL, /~8q0

EA ~V /~40
~4. ~2q5 ~q4

5~. ~C~qL ~.~q4 ~q ~'~k~,
~c~q-~, ~0 ~4qL~A ~f~.~-~qJ

~6.

7.
r~l ~y~qi ~q4 ~0qW~0ql~.~q@~,~z~0qc~'~u~6qie~8qs
~q(~I~q/~.~d ~C.~) ~4qd~q", ~2q4~q:~'~-~qj ~c~c~l~q@ ~0

~q10. /a,./ ~qJ-~qc~qf 7~2q@~6q@

12.
PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 0 ~16q5~2qt~4q)

PERCENT OF WETL~2qAND SPECIES:

C~12qLA~08qSS~8qI~16qr~8qIC~04qA~08qT~2qI~4qO~8qN~q,~q. ~04qW~12qZT~12qL~8qA~08qM~8qI~8qD ~2q9 ATIO~12qN~2q? YES ~2q1~2q10 BASIS
F-34

~8qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS7 ~qY~8qE~qS METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: T~qEXTU~qRE(2~q6CM D~6qM~IT~6qH~q):

MOTTLES: ~-~,~-~0qf ~2qE~-~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR: ~6qr

G~2qL~8qEYING: ~qY~8qE~qS 0.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH): I ~8qO~qU ~J~-
~qv

OTHER INDICATORS: -

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS D~2qE~q77~qR~8qH~qIN~8qAT~qI~8qON: YES _~qp~8qO B~qISIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-35

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: 2~-7 ~qr~q4~2qa~y~-J COUNTY: ~q-~8q7~qk ~qr~1~1~q1~6 ~8qc

LOCATION: STREAM:

PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION:, ~4q4~-~- ~qFWS CI-A IFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~q/~8qc~r~qj ~qZ~A~q"~q"~I~qn ~8q7 ~-~f~- ~Y~' ~qY~4~1 ~qC

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAY~qER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(T~8qREE~2qS), S(SHRUB), H(H~8qERBS), OR V~q(VINE~qS).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
~~qi. ~'T) F~0q4L

~2.

~3. ~qc- r~q"~q- ~qr~l~qu Vill

~4.

~-~V
~Y~"~- ~2qL~qk~ql~0q@ Ulf
6. ~0qF ~qt~q;
~- ~-~-~q- ~2qT
~7. H~4q@

~-9. ~32qL~68qi ~q0 ~8q0 ~8q/9 ~4qc~q- ~68qw A ~64q0
~1 ~6q/ ~q'~q-
o. ~48qy ~6q1~q'~8q@~q> ~q-~qe_ ~6qL

il.

12.

PERCENT OF NONW~16qET~16qL~6qAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WET~12qLAND SPECIES:

CL~8qAS~08qSIF~q"I~12qC~08qA~08qT~2qI~12qO~12qN: ~08qN~12qET~2qL~08qA~08qND ~12qV~12qE~6qG~16q=AT~6qIO~12qN? YES ~2q1~2q1~6q0 BASIS

F-36

~4qV~qD~8qO~qT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? _~qk~,-_YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS: ~C~, ~qI~qV~A~A~4~.~-~qS~, ~e~l~q" ~qc~l
0 U .~. ~qz~0qv~4q@
CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS
~8qU

III. SOILS
SERIES: TEXTURE~q(26CM DEPTH): zoo_ 2~q!~8qd~q4 ~q5~6q"~2qd
~q6~1
MOTTLES: Y~8qE~qS NO, MOTTLE COLOR:

G~8qL~8qEYING: ~qY~8qE~qS NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: ~8qY~qE~qS NO.

MATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH): ~q&~q4

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS Y~8qES NO ~7~'~l~r 4- BASIS

IV. WETLANDS D~2qE~8qT~qE~2qMX~8qN~4qA~8qT~qI~8qON: YES -No

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES

~;112qC
~2qMMENTS:
~q0

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-37

VDCIT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: COUNTY:.
LOCATION: STREAM: ~qI~I~q(~qI~qn ~Y~-~1 ~k~,~-~,~7~qv

PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: a- 4~-~qy ~0q3 FWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~0q4~qd~4q4 ~'~qC~0q@~8qa
~1~q6~qr

I ~- VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STR~qATA=T (TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HE~8qRB~8qS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
~q/~8qc a
~2~. A A.
~3~. ~qL~I~2q@~L~L~4~-4 ~?~*~7~1~c~' ~4q@~4q4~4~-~4~.~8qx~/~j
~1
4.

~q6. ~1~6q/~1 ~c~- ~c~l A..- ~qL~q"~I ~0qr~7 ~'~*~7~q@ ~je ~t~' ~;~p~l

~7.

8. ~6qV~@ ~y~- ~qc~qk
~q-9. ~04qV~q! ~76qL ~qc~0qr~qn ~q-~0q4~q-~00qw ~qt~qN ~48qa~4qC~qf~q>~q7 ~q/ ~qC ~04qq_
~4qu
10.

~q1~8q1.

12.

PERCENT OF NONW~0qET~12qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WET~12qLAND SPECIES: ~36q3 ~0q!~80q@~12qb

CLASSIFICATION: WETL~8qAND V~12qE~8qG~12qErATIO~12qN? YES ~q- No
F~q-38

~~~~~q3
~~qk ~q0

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

Il. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? ~qY~8qES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: T~8qEXTURE~q(26CM DEPTH): ~0q/~o~c~-~'~q2~qw~4~e~q5~l~(~l~0q@

MOTTLES: ~8qv~,~' ~qY~4qE~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR: ~qi~r

GL~2qEYING: ~qY~8qE~qS NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: ~qY~8qE~qS NO.
MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): r 7~4qA~.

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO -BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES ~qL~@~q@ No ~8q0~q+ BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES -No.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-39

VDOT
AQUATIC ECO~6qL~2qMY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 2 ~-~q7 COUNTY:

LOCATION: 9 STREAM: ~2qC,

PLOT: ~2qD I DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: 4~q1 ~q;~q?~Z~6qCt~- FWS CLASSIFICATION:
~- ~2qd~q4 ~q2 ~qc ~qy~i~:~q@
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~a~6qj~o~4qn~q@ ~q5~d~q"~1p~~4q@ Ell ~P~-~4 CA
~4qU ~4qU

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TRE~8qE~2qS), S(SHRUB), H(HE~2qRBS), OR V(VINES).

~qSTRkTA/~8qSPECI~8qES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
~~q1~.~4q:~q[~6q) ~8qf ~-~1~1~q@~1~0q6 ~q6~6q(~q- ~q- ~2q1~6q6

~3.

~4.

~7.

~6qr~8q4 ~56qC~q, (A ~16q<~q.~8q5

~56qn~92qc~0q-
0. ~0q1~ql~qc~qc~ql~qo~q@~qi (~qc a
~q1~8q1. a ~q7~q3~8q4 ~0qC~qL ~4q@~44q@~68q4 ~2qt~qe
~qu

~q1~24q2.

PERCENT OF NONWI~08qET~04qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WET~12qL~8qAND SPECIES: 0

a~2ql~q-A IFIC~08qATION: ~12qW~16qET~16qL~6qAND V~12qw~12qr~16qm~2ql~12qo~12qu? YES Igo
F~q-40

~8qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

Il. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? ~qY~8qE~8qS NO. METHOD USED:-

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES No BASIS

III. SOILS
SERIES: TEXTUR~qE~q(26CM DEPTH): ~4qC~q0~4~r~qS~qj~0q/~A~o
MOTTLES: ~q1~qz~0q" ~-Y~qE~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR: ~4qY ~0q12-

~G~8qLEYING: Y~qE~qS ~qL~@~8q@~q_N~4qo~.

SERIES ON HY~qDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.
MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): ~q/~.~qo ~6qo

OTHER INDICATORS:

~MA I~2qFIC~qATION: WET~qI~8qAN~8qDS SOILS YES No -BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES No ~'~R~A~qR~T~qS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-41

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888

DATE: COUNTY:
~u
LOCATION: ~qj~qj~C~qj~-/~2p~ STREAM:
PLOT: ~4q02 DRAINAGE BASIN: ~4q1~2q0 ~t~'~qk ~6q@~'~2qZ~2qt~x~q@
ELEVATION: ~@~-~,~6q@~.2 ~0qL~2qt FWS CLASSIFICATION: ~8qP~0qr~0qo~ql~4qc
SITE DESCRIPTION: ~:~q5 ~q7~8q@~0q@ a-

1. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION L~qAY~qER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TRE~8qF-~qS), S(SH~2qRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VIN~qES).

STRATA/SPECI~6qES INDICATOR PERCM~qrr
~-~8qT~q@ ~q@~0q4 c ~qt~qv ~y~qm ~Y~-~ei STATUS TOTAL
F~qi~2qq~qC~, ~2q3 ~q0
~6qr~- ~qk~q)~q(~q;~,~v u ~t~, ~t~qS~4~1~+~V~"~-~A~A~q4 ~2qF ~q/~q@~8qc ~q@~-~qp

~1~q@ ~1~. A-
3.

~4. ~C~L ~q@~qZ~q@~'~-~z~4qc~qv~y~l ~qc~8qj~-

~5.

6. u ~C~d~-~q" L ~q-~-~j

7 ~qk
~. ~6qk ~qc~"~I~n
~8. ~qL~4qj ~0q6
~q-~08q7~88q@
9. ~qc~q- It

10~q.

~q1~0q1.

1~24q2.

PERCENT OF NONWET~16qLAND SPECIES:
PERCENT OF WET~16qLAND SPECIES: lee) ~20q@~44q0

CLASSIFICATION: ~04qW~12qETLA~12qM VEGETATION? YES No BASIS
F-42

~8qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

11. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:
INUNDATED? ~qY~2qES __~qk~:~8qL~q@~6qN~qO. DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS? ~-~q-~0qJ~@~2q"~qY~qE~2qS NO. METHOD USED: ~qo~8qb~q@~qLej~q,~q,~,~6qt~q@~0q,
OTHER INDICATORS: ~q@~I~M~A~A~I~V~q"~qa~6qx~ql~qw ~4qZ~4~-~" ~6qi~l~l~qm A
CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS ~4q=ROLOGY YES NO ~q/~-~q-~0q/~,~qV ~5~4 BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: T~qEXT~4qURE~q(26CM DEPTH):

MOTTLES: ~qY~qE~qS NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~2qLEYING: YES ~qk~,~-~q' NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: ~qY~2qE~qS NO.
MATRIX COLOR (25CM DEPTH): / ~qd ~q@~8q4 ~q@~- ~/~-~7~8q/~6q/
~v

C~8qnH~8qER INDICATORS: -
~m~- ~, ~qI~8qFICAT~qI~8qON: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO ~6qA~d~qw~0qz~4q@~8q"~q)~q"~,~t~- BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES No ~6qW~q-~q0 BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-43

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: ~2q2 ~qi~_~2qk COUNTY: ~8qJ~-~C~y~p~2qw ~0qc~4qi~q!~q:~8q@~q_
LOCATION:- /~q5~qF~4qP-// STREAM: ~qe~- ~2q5~'
PLOT: ~4q03 DRAINAGE BASIN: A~qo~t~-~-~q@~-~6qb

ELEVATION: ~8qFWS CLASSIFICATION:---

SITE DESCRIPTION:
~8q0

1. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(T~8qRE~8qES), S(SH~2qRUB), H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL
-1. ~8q2~q7~2q@ ~qA~q/u~qf~qS4
~qj
~2. ~'~.~qt ~6q"~0~1 ~q;~-~qb ~0q" ~4qW~0q"~q'~q, t~L~0q4~' go- ~qr~4~qL
~3. ~2qP~qy~' ~_~A~_~w~d

~4. ~qw ~_~4qL~q)~-~e~qy~. ~0qW~q&e~A
~2qj a
~q@~q!~0qA ~q" ~q3 a
~6. ~1~qc~8qw~6qc
~7. ~6qH~q) ~qA~1~q0
~'~0qj~V
~8. ~qf~qt~q"~1~2q2 A ~2qE~q2~4q2~8qU
9~q. ~0qY~4qL~q, ~6qf ~36qJJ~12qJ
~qe~qt

~q10.

~q1~0q1.

12.

PERCENT OF NON~12qWETLA~12qND SPECIES: ~qL~16q1~q2 ~qc~qe~80q;

~qPERC ENT OF WET~12qL~08qAND SPECIES: -3 -~40q3 ~q- ~q.3

C~12qLA~12qSS~8qIr~2qIC~8qATION: W~2qETLA~08qND VEGETATION? YES so ~6qr~6q)~q0~q1~q_~q'~q!~q1~qn~qr~qf~qr~q4~40q"~qc~q-~qe BASIS
F-44 ~0qj I

~8qV~qD~2qO~qT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

Il~. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES _~.~,~.~q@~,NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? Y~4qE~8qS NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: T~2qEXTURE~q(26CM DEPTH): ~8qJ~6~4~qm~,~&~0qS~r~,~.~0q@
MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 7~4q1~,~qZ

G~2qL~6qEYING: -YES ~qL~@~-- NO.

SERIES ON HYDR~qIC SOILS LIST: -YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): /~qO~c~qf r
~q_J

OT~2qM~8qM INDICATORS: ~q-

CLASSIFICATION., WETLANDS, SOILS YES No BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION~: YES No BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: -YES ~q1~@~q@ No.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:
~08qC ~16q7~68qL ~60qL~q, ~4q'~60qe~52ql~76qZ~00q'

F-45

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888
DATE: ~0qZ7~4qA~4qe~8qr~qt~6qh~2q@~q@~2qI~q' COUNTY:
Of
LOCATION:~-/~q@~q@~4qF~- ~q1~q;~qz STREAM : ~4qU-7

PLOT: ~8q0 DRAINAGE BASIN:

ELEVATION: ~q-~-~L-~q5~-~0q0~- ~q7~4q6~2qF~q7~- ~4qFWS CT~-A IFICATION: ~4qP~6qI~-~8q6~4q1~1~09
SITE DESCRIPTION: Ott if ~'~!~q@~"~q ~qg~4qe ~q5~q;~6q/~2q4~-~2~-~qe~q'
~p

1. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAY~2qER.~q(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA= T (TREES) , S(SHRUB), H(HE~qRB~8qS), OR V~q(VINE~qS).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

~L~k ~Y~"~I ~0qr~l~0qq~6qc ~-~q3~q0
~2. N~q!~q@ ~s~e ~6qF ~q19
3. 11 ~4qv~t F~4qP ~0qC ~2qV

~4. ~6q6~q@ ~qr~-~q0~q1~2qh~qe~-~-~q5~-~-~-~qe~'~qw~0qS

~L~k

~7. F

~q10~q.

12.

PERCENT OF NON~2qWETLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF ~4qWET~12qL~2qAND SPECIES:

CLASSIFICATION: W~12qET~12qL~8qA~16qM VE~8qG~08qLrTATIO~12qN? YES no BASIS
F-46 ~q' I

~8qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM ~q1~-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? Y~8qES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? ~qY~8qE~qS NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:
~qY ~2qA~u ~y~qo~q6~4qt~qs ~-~, ~C~'~4qk~n~-~e~qn~t~'~L~2qL
CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO ~ql~8qa~qo ~q1 ~'~-~6q@~t~f~j BASIS

III. SOILS
SERIES: T~qEXT~8qURE~q(26CM DEPTH): ~0qC~qe~qA~q4~,~2~q4~q1~0~d~,~q* ~.~q5 a/

MOTTLES: ~L~"~q-~- ~y~2qm NO. MOTTLE COLOR: ~'~qr

~G~6qL~6qE~qYING: Y~6qE~qS ~qL~o~o~" NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: -YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH):

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO ~C-~8qh ~qn~l~u~" 4- -BASIS

IV. ~2qW~2qE~'~qrL~qA~qI~8qM~2qS DETERMINATION: YES NO ~8q0~4~4 ~qM ~@~q4 ~qi~4q@~A~q@B~qASIS
~v

ATYPICAL SITUATION: Y~8qE~qS

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:
~q'~q0~04q@

F-47

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DAT~qJ~qL FORM 1-2888

DATE: COUNTY:
~u
LOCATION:- ~q1~c~'~qj~qC~qj~q- ~q)~q:~6qk STREAM: e~y~ql ~qi~0qb
PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN: ~q)~&~4qW~qq

ELEVATION: ~qt~q@~-~8qO ~-7~-~6q5~-~qJ~qZ~6q/- ~8qFWS CLASSIFICATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION:
~V

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER~.(F~qI~8qV~2qE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINE~qS).

STRATA/SPECI~8qES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

~2. ~Y~O~qW

~3. ~y~4qd
~qu

5. ~2q&J
~qV
~q6. ~q1~-~1~q/~a C~c-;~All ~4~@~q@

~7.
~8. ~qL~qY~4qA~qI ~6qL~0q3

~-~4q9.

10.

~q1~4q1.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWET~16qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF W~16qET~12qLAND SPECIES: ~12qo

CLASSIFICATION: ~08qW~16qETLA~2qND VE~16q=~12qu~12qno~12qn? YES no BASIS
F~q-48

~qV~qD~qOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM ~q1~-2888.

11. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? -YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES ----'NO BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: T~8qEXTURE~q(26CM DEPTH): ~q5~6q"

MOTTLES: ~qL~@~6q@ YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~8qL~2qEYING: YES ~qL~-~q-~- NO.

SERIES ON HYDR~qIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (~q2~q6CM DEPTH):

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS D~6qET.ER~2qN~qIN~8qAT~qI~8qON: YES go BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: ~-~qY~2qE~qS L~-~6q@ NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-49

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: .2 ~q2~5~- COUNTY:
~qC~q/
LOCATION: ~2qO~qT STREAM:
I ~V I
PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN: ~J~0q0~4q0~q1~,~6~qt~0qA~qc~-~8q"

ELEVATION: FWS CLASSIFICATION:
SITE DESCRIPTION: 51~q0~0q"
~qu ~-~4qi

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T (TREES), S(SHRUB)~p H(HERBS), OR V~q(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

I ~- ~ql~qc~8ql~0qv~4qe ~8q/~,~0q/ ~0q3~c~q3

~2.

~3.
~q0
~4~.
~q1~6q4~-~t ~c ~qc~/ ~/~,~qw ~1~4 ~k~2qy ~2qF~l~4q@~6qc ~2qc~6qj~-

~6.

7~. ~e~-

~8.
~q"~4q2 ~qL~q'~8qL~qa~q. ~qV~q- L ~q0- ~4qC~q- ~qt~qj r

10.

~q1~q1.

12.

PERCENT OF NONW~16qET~16qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF WET~16qLAND SPECIES: -3

CLASSIFICATION: ~08qN~16qETL~12qAND VEGETATION? YES ~8q4~q-~q-~8q@ so BASIS

F~q-50

~q11~3-0~1

~8qV~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1~-2888.

Il. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES No DEPTH OF WATER: ~qL~_~_~2q@

SATURATED SOILS? YES ~qL~@~q,- METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES No -BASIS

Ill. SOILS
SERIES: TEXTURE~q(26CM DE~qPrA~q): ~2q5~,~r-~qw~2qC~6q@

MOTTLES: I YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~2qL~2qEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: -YES NO.
MATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH): 7~8qA~q1

OTHER INDICATORS:

C~qI~J~qA~8qSSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DET~8qER1~q5~qI~2qN~2qA~2qT~qI~8qON: YES No ~L~8q9 ~-~q@~0qA~, BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES -NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F~q-51

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 2 ~q5~- COUNTY:

LOCATION:- STREAM:
PLOT: DRAINAGE BASIN: ~0qP~q6~qL~.~q@~-~qA~c~-~2q"

ELEVATION: F~qWS CLASSIFICATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION:

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LA~2qY~qE~qR.~q(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TR~2qEE~4qS), S(SH~8qRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINE~qS).

STRAT~qA/SPECIE~qS INDICATOR PE~qR~qC~8qZNT
STATUS TOTAL

36
~-2. F~4q9~4q6 /~q0
~3. ~8q/~6qVc ~qt~8qj~- ~q0
4. -~6qS ~@~0qr t~c~, ~2qV ~r~' /,CA ~4q6 ~4q& ~qJ~- ~8qA~2q0
~q)~qq~ql~q)~qV~U-~q4 ~8q0~q(~6q3~6q4 ~@~-~- ~q0~.~q@~q;~q- ~2q1
~W ~qC ~C~q"~2q4 ~e- ~C~L ~V~^ ~q6

10.

~q1~8q1.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWET~08qLAND SPECIES:

PERCENT OF W~8qET~08qLAND SPECIES:

CLASSIFICATION: ~08qN~16qETLAND ~12qV~6qE~12qS~16qr~6qrATIO~16qN? ~4q1~q'~08q@ YES NO BASIS
F-52

V~qDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? --- ~qL~@~,~- ~qY~8qE~qS -NO. DEPTH OF WATER:
SATURATED SOILS? ~qY~8qE~qS NO. METHOD USED: 0 ~#~8q6~-~c~r ~e~-~r ~qy~0qZ~a~-~qZ~,~q"

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY ~4qY~8qE~qS NO BASIS

III. SOILS.*

SERIES: T~2qEXT~8qU~qR~2qE~q(26CM DEPTH):

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

G~8qLEYING: ~qY~4qE~qS ~q0.

SERIES ON HY~qDR~qIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.
~1~4ATRIX COLOR (2~q6CM DEPTH): ~6qL~ql ~0qC~6q&~q@~0qt

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLA IFIC~qATION~'~. WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS~ D~6qETM~qt~8qH~qI~8qN~qAT~qI~8qO~4qN: no BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES ~qL~l~q- NO.

C~qOM~q1~q4~8qENT~qS:
~_~qy~, ~2qr ~4ql~qo~6ql~a~0qe

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-53

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 28 Apr 1988 COUNTY: James city

LOCATION: 199-13 STREAM: Long Hill swamp

PLOT: 03 DRAINAGE BASIN: Powhatan

ELEVATION: 4C' FWS CLASSIFICATION: -

SITE DESCRIPTION: Adjacent upland slope Mary South Side

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Fagusgrondjolea FACU 40

2. Pinno tarda FAC- 20

3. Carya tomentosa - 05

4. S) y Fogus grondjolea <05

5. Kalmia latiqolia FACU <05

6. y Ilex opara FACU+ <05

7. ) Polystichumacros chaides - <05

8. Uvularia sp - <05

9. Mitchellarepers FACU <05

10. v) -

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 100%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 0%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO BASIS
F-54

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Loamy sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10yr 6/6

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES No highcroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-55

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 28 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-14 STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 01 DRAINAGE BASIN: Long Hill Swamp

ELEVATION: 47ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: -

SITE DESCRIPTION: South side slope about wetland

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER. (FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Ilexopaca FACU+ 30

2. Quercusalba - 05

3. Ac rrubrum FAC 10

4. S) y Quercusalba - 05

5. Vaccinium tenellum - 15

6. Magnolia virginiana FACW 05

7. H) Cypripedium acaule FACU <05

8. Mitchella repens FACU <05

9. V) Lonicera japorica FAC- <05

10.

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 77.8%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 22.2%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO BASIS
F-56

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE (26CM DEPTH): Loamy sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 10 yr 7/1

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 7/3

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO highchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-57

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 28 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-14 STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 02 DRAINAGE BASIN: Long Hill Swamp

ELEVATION: 47ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: PSSIC

SITE DESCRIPTION: Narrow bondq young wooded swamp along
stream.

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Acerrubrum FAC 05

2. Myrica cerifera FAC 25

3. Carpinus caroliniana FAC 15

4. S) Lindera benzoin FACW- 15

5. Myrica cerifera FAC 20

6. Itea virginica OBL 20

7. H) Osmunda cinnamomea FACW 30

8. Carex sp - 20

9. Woodwardia areolate FACW+ 10

10. V) Lanicera japonice FAC- <05

11. Decumaria barbera OBL <05

12. Smilax rotandifolia FAC <05

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 0%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 100%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO BASIS
F-58

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED: Observation

OTHER INDICATORS: water 1" from surface; abundant sphragnuis; channels

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROXLOGY YES No Flooding BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Loamy sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 10 yr 4/4

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 3/1

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO Lauchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 3+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-59

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 28 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-14 STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 03 DRAINAGE BASIN: Long Hill Swamp

ELEVATION: 47' FWS CLASSIFICATION: -

SITE DESCRIPTION: Northslope adjacent to wetland

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Ilex opaca FACU+ 40

2. Quercusalba - 20

3. Liquidamberstyraciflua FAC 05

4. S) Vaccineumcorymbosum FACW- 10

5. Ilex opaca FACU+ 10

6. Fagusgrondifolia FACU 05

7. H) Chasmanthemum laxum FACU <05

8. Mitchella repens FACU <05

9. v Lanicera japonica FAC- 15

10. Toxicodendronradicans FAC <05

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 70%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 30%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO BASIS
F-60

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 10 yr 8/2

GLEYING: YES N0.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 8/3

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO highcrome BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-61

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-15 (Montecello Ext.) STREAM: Unamed Tributary

PLOT: 01 DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 75ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: -

SITE DESCRIPTION: This plot in upland adjacent to wetland

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Acerrubrum FAC 30

2. Quercus alba - 10

3. Oxidendrum arboreum - <05

4. S) Vaccinium stamineum FACU- <05

5. y Ilex opaca FACU+ <05

6. y Liquidamber styraciflua FAC <05

7. H) Osmunda cinnamomea FACW <05

8. Pteridiumaquilinum FACU <05

10. V) Lenicera japonica FAC- <05

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 66.7%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 33.3%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO no prevalence BASIS
F-62

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II: HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROL0GY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 6/2

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO highchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-63

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April 1988 COUNTY: James City County

LOCATION: 199-15 ( ST. 157+50-158+00) STREAM: Unamed Tributary

PLOT: 02 (Montevello Ave. Ext.) DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 75ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: PFOIA

SITE DESCRIPTION: Intermillant headwater stream with associated
wet terrace and supage slope.

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Acerrubrum FAC 20

2. Nyssasylvatica FAC 30

3. Carpinus caroliniane FAC 05

4. S) y Ilexopaca FACU+ 05

5. y Magnolia virginiane FACW+ <05

6. Lerecothoe racemosa FACW <05

7. H) Osrunda cinnamomia FACW 20

8. Lycopodium obscurum FACU 10

9. Woodwardia arcolata FACW+ 05

10. V) Smilax rotundifolia FAC <05

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 20%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 80%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO BASIS
F-64

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER: -

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED: -

OTHER INDICATORS: Bultressing; Cray fish chimneys; exposed roots

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO Flooding BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Loamy sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 2/1

OTHER INDICATORS: Darhly stained by organic matter

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO Loarchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 3+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-65

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April 1988 COUNTY: James City County

LOCATION: 199-17 (montecello Ave. Ext.) STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 01 DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 90ft FWS CLASSIFICATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION: Upland slope adjacents to east side of
Wetland.

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Pinus virginiana - 15

2. Liriodendron tulipifera FACU- 20

3. Ilexopaca FACU+ 10

4. S) Vaccinium stamineam FACU- 20

5. Ilexopaca FACU+ 05

6. y Magnolia virginiana FACU+ <05

7. H) Osmunda cinnamomea FACW 20

8. Woodwardia areolata FACW+ 05

9. Mitchella repens FACU <05

10.

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 66.7%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 33.3%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO prerolence BASIS
F-66

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 8/2 (parent material)

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO highchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-67

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-17 (Montecello Ave. Ext.) STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 02 DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 90ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: PFOIA

SITE DESCRIPTION: Intermittant stream and associated terrace md
see page area.

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Nyssasytvatica FAC 30

2. Acerrubrum FAC 10

3. Liquidambar styracifluca FAC 05

4. S) y Magnolia virgmiana FACW+ 05

5. Viburnum nudum OBL 05

6. Leucothoe racemosa FACW <05

7. H) Osmunda cinnamomea FACW 40

8. Woodurenda arenlata FACW+ 10

9. Saururus cemuns OBL 05

10. V) Parthenocissus quinqurfolius FACU

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 10%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 90%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO preralence BASIS
F-68

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:-

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:-

OTHER INDICATORS: channels; crayfish chimneys; channels

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO Flooding BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH):silty loam or sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 7 or 6/2in sand 10 yr 3/1in silty loam

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO Lourchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 3+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-69

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-17 (MONTECELLO Ave. Ext) STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 03 DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 90ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: -

SITE DESCRIPTION: Upland adjacent wetland on westside

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Liriodendron tulipifera FACU- 30

2. Liquid ambar styraciflera FAC 20

3. Acerrubrum FAC 05

4. S) y Magnolia virginiana FACW+ 05

5. y Querous falcata FACU- <05

6. y Fagus grandifolia FACU <05

7. H) Woodwardia areolata FACW+- 20

8. Thelypteris noveboracensis FAC- 05

9. Osmunda cinnamomea FACW- <05

10. V) Lonicera japonica FAC- 05

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 60%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 40%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO no prevalence BASIS
F-70

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

Ill. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Sandy Loam

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 10 yr 6/3

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 4/3

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-71

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April 1988 COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-19 STREAM: Unnamed Tributary

PLOT: 01 DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 75ft FWS CLASSIFICATION: PFOIA

SITE DESCRIPTION: See page slope above stream channel perched over
sandy clay loam. Close to station 293 + 50.

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Nyssa sylvatica FAC 40

2. Fagusgrandijolea FACU 10

3. Ilexopaca FACU+ 10

4. S) y Magnolia virginiana FACW 10

5. Vaccinium marianum FACW 05

6. Ilex laerigata OBL <05

7. H) Osmunda cinnamomea FACW 20

8. Woodwardia areolata FACW+ 10

9. Thelypteris noveboracensis - <05

10.

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 22.2%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 78.8%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO Prevalence BASIS
F-72

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES No. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS: buttressing; exposed roots; abundant sphagnum

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO wetsoils BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR:

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 7/1

OTHER INDICATORS: clay loam below at about 30cm covering perching.

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO Lowchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 3+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

TERMINATION MADE BY:

F-73

VDOT
AQUATIC ECOLOGY WETLANDS DETERMINATION
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888

DATE: 27 April COUNTY: James City

LOCATION: 199-19 STREAM: Unnamed headwater

PLOT: 02 DRAINAGE BASIN: Chisel Run

ELEVATION: 75ft FWS CLASSIFICATION:

SITE DESCRIPTION: Upland adjacent see page area

I. VEGETATION: LIST THE THREE DOMINANT SPECIES IN EACH VEGETATION LAYER.(FIVE
If only one or two layers, list the five dominant.)
STRATA=T(TREES), S(SHRUB), H(HERBS), OR V(VINES).

STRATA/SPECIES INDICATOR PERCENT
STATUS TOTAL

1. T) Fagus grandifolia FACU 05

2. Quercusalba - 10

3. Ilexopaca FACU+ 20

4. S) FACU 25

5. y Magnolia virginiana FACW+ 10

6. y Ilexopaca FACU+ 15

7. FACU <05

8. Woodwardia areolata FACW+ <05

9. Hexastylis virginica - <05

10. V) Smilare rotundifolia FAC <05

11.

12.

PERCENT OF NONWETLAND SPECIES: 70%

PERCENT OF WETLAND SPECIES: 30%

CLASSIFICATION: WETLAND VEGETATION? YES NO No prevalence BASIS
F-74

VDOT
TECHNICAL DATA FORM 1-2888.

II. HYDROLOGY
ACTUAL 30 DAY RAINFALL: AVERAGE 30 DAY RAINFALL:

INUNDATED? YES NO. DEPTH OF WATER:

SATURATED SOILS? YES NO. METHOD USED:

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS HYDROLOGY YES NO BASIS

III. SOILS

SERIES: TEXTURE(26CM DEPTH): Conse sand

MOTTLES: YES NO. MOTTLE COLOR: 10 yr 7/1

GLEYING: YES NO.

SERIES ON HYDRIC SOILS LIST: YES NO.

MATRIX COLOR (26CM DEPTH): 10 yr 5/3

OTHER INDICATORS:

CLASSIFICATION: WETLANDS SOILS YES NO highchroma BASIS

IV. WETLANDS DETERMINATION: YES NO 0+ parameters BASIS

ATYPICAL SITUATION: YES NO.

COMMENTS:

DETERMINATION MADE BY:

F-75

DATE DUE

GAYLOROINo. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

Mill
3 6668 14107 4486