DT-MT-MLK EA rev3-23-11 - Elizabeth River Tunnels · The tolling system would utilize time-of-day congestion pricing that promotes congestion relief at peak periods, while also providing

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel –Martin Luther King Freeway Extension Project

Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth

March 2011

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Environmental Assessment Martin Luther King Freeway Extension

1

Section 1 Project Description

1.1 Introduction The Downtown Tunnel − Midtown Tunnel − Martin Luther King Freeway Extension (DT-MT-MLK) project consists of transportation improvements in the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth. The three components of the project (Downtown Tunnel, Midtown Tunnel, and Martin Luther King Freeway Extension) have independent utility and were individually reviewed previously under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).1 The three components are now being bundled as a single project for construction purposes as part of a public-private partnership under the Virginia Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA). When completed, these facilities would be tolled. Federal authorization was given to toll the facilities under the Value Pricing Pilot Program subject to certain conditions. The tolling system would utilize time-of-day congestion pricing that promotes congestion relief at peak periods, while also providing a revenue source to support the financing and long term operation and maintenance of the project. The project would feature a fully electronic state-of-the-art open road toll collection system capable of reading transponders or license plates through the use of video cameras. The toll collection system would allow users to pass through at highway speeds without slowing or stopping to pay the tolls. The actual toll rates have not yet been established, but would be determined, along with future toll escalation provisions, in the Comprehensive Agreement to be negotiated between VDOT and the PPTA partners. Figure 1 shows the locations of the project components.

• The dual-tube Downtown Tunnel on Interstate 264 crosses the southern branch of the Elizabeth River and links the Cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk. Improvements proposed at the Downtown Tunnel include safety, lighting, ventilation, and signage, as well as cosmetic and traffic management elements. No improvements outside the footprint of the existing Downtown Tunnel are planned.

• The single-tube Midtown Tunnel on US Route 58 crosses the Elizabeth River to the north of the Downtown Tunnel and also links the Cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk. Improvements proposed at the Midtown Tunnel consist of construction of a new immersed tube tunnel under the Elizabeth River, running generally parallel to the existing Midtown Tunnel; modifications to the existing tunnel including safety, lighting, ventilation, signage, cosmetic, and traffic management elements; and minor modifications to the Brambleton Avenue / Hampton Boulevard interchange in Norfolk.

• The MLK Freeway carries US 58 between London Boulevard and VA 164 (Western Freeway) and the Midtown Tunnel. The proposed MLK Freeway Extension would extend the existing freeway south from its current terminus at London Boulevard to a new interchange at Interstate 264. Ancillary improvements along I-264 in the vicinity of the interchange also would be included. An interchange at High Street also would be constructed.

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to serve as a reevaluation of the previous NEPA documentation. It assesses potential changes in environmental impacts resulting from changes to the project components, changes in the affected environment, and changes in

1 All of the previous NEPA documentation is available at www.midtowntunnel.org.


2


3

regulatory requirements and guidance since completion of the previous documentation, and to determine if new information or new circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not previously evaluated.2

1.2 Previous NEPA Documentation • Downtown Tunnel. On May 13, 2009, a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) was

prepared for improvements to the Downtown Tunnel consisting of modifications to the existing eastbound and westbound tunnels necessary for the facility to conform to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 502 "Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways" (NFPA 502). These modifications would include upgrades to the existing water supply, ventilation, electrical, and emergency response systems, as well as any other system identified in NFPA 502. Additional modifications would include communications and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) software and equipment. All work would take place within the existing tunnel facility.

• Midtown Tunnel. On November 8, 1996, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Route 58 − Midtown Tunnel Project (including the Pinners Point Interchange) was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued March 17, 1997. Alternatives were presented for a limited access highway facility and tunnel that would provide for east-west travel linking VA 164 and US 58 in Portsmouth to Brambleton Avenue in Norfolk. Alternative A4-B4 (modified)-C1-Dl was the selected alternative. This alternative consisted of phased construction of (1) a limited access highway from existing VA 164 at the east end of the West Norfolk bridge to US 58, since constructed; 2) A new interchange at Pinners Point providing access to Portsmouth Marine Terminal, US 58 (Martin Luther King Freeway) and the Midtown Tunnel, and local access to the Port Norfolk section of Portsmouth, since constructed; (3) a second Midtown Tunnel tube parallel to and just downstream (north) of the existing tube; and (4) improvements to the Brambleton Avenue/Hampton Boulevard interchange in Norfolk. On May 9, 2007, FHWA completed a reevaluation of the FEIS previously prepared for the project and concluded that a Supplemental EIS would not be required. A revised ROD was issued on July 9, 2007 for location approval of remaining sections to be constructed for the Midtown Tunnel (i.e., the tunnel itself and the Brambleton Avenue interchange). On May 13, 2009, a PCE was prepared for proposed improvements to the Midtown Tunnel consisting of modifications to the existing tunnel necessary for the facility to conform to the National Fire Protection Association Standard 502 "Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways" (NFPA 502). These modifications would include communications and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) software and equipment, lighting, flood prevention, fire detection and suppression, ventilation, and power systems, as well as any other system identified in NFPA 502. All work would take place within the existing tunnel facility. On May 22, 2009, a PCE was prepared for ITS and signalization improvements at the Brambleton Avenue/Hampton Boulevard interchange to help accommodate new traffic patterns, turning movements, and volumes resulting from the addition of the new parallel tube at the Midtown Tunnel.

2 This Environmental Assessment is being prepared in accordance with 23 CFR 771.129, 23 CFR 771.130(c), and Section XI.B of FHWA Technical Advisory 6640.8A.


4

• MLK Freeway Extension. On February 26, 2009, FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on the findings of an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation. The selected Alternative E Option 4 is a four-lane limited access freeway connecting Interstate 264 with the existing MLK Freeway at London Boulevard. It would be elevated over top of, and replace, Harbor Drive, and includes a new full interchange at Interstate 264 and a new partial interchange at High Street. It would also include closing the Des Moines Avenue off-ramp from and on-ramp to Interstate 264 and the South Street entrance to Interstate 264. The EA noted that the MLK Freeway Extension could be a tolled facility. The existing MLK/London Boulevard interchange would be retained with minor improvements to existing ramps.

1.3 Design Changes As part of the PPTA design efforts, the following design changes have been incorporated into the project since completion of the previous NEPA documentation:

1.3.1 Downtown Tunnel Design Changes The following changes are proposed for the Downtown Tunnel:

• Tolling. Tolls would be used as the revenue stream to fund the improvements and operation of the project. Currently, there are no tolls on the existing tunnel facilities. Toll collection equipment to be installed would include sensors and cameras mounted to overhead gantries. The tolls would be collected electronically through the use of two collection mechanisms: an E-Z Pass transponder and via video cameras that would capture license plate images as the vehicle passes through the gantry and tolls would be billed to the driver. Informational signage also would be installed on the approaches to the tunnel.

• Structural improvement activities that involve routine facility maintenance, including sealing cracks in the concrete with grout and fixing concrete spalling within the tunnel structure itself.

1.3.2 Midtown Tunnel Design Changes The following changes are proposed for the Midtown Tunnel:

• New curvilinear alignment. Due to the depth of dredging required for the new MT tunnel, the parallel alignment presented for the new tunnel sections in the 1996 and 2007 RODs cannot be realized without potentially compromising the structural integrity of the existing tunnel. Consequently, a new curvilinear alignment is required. While the approaches and tunnel portals would not materially change, the curvilinear alignment between portals would increase the project’s “footprint.”

• Tolling. Tolls would be used to provide a revenue stream to support the financing of the initial design and construction work, as well as the long term operations and maintenance of the project. Currently, there are no tolls on the existing tunnel facilities. Toll collection equipment to be installed would include sensors and cameras mounted to overhead gantries. The tolls would be collected electronically through the use of two collection mechanisms: an E-Z Pass transponder and via video cameras that would capture license plate images as the vehicle passes through the gantry and tolls would be billed to the driver. Informational signage also would be installed on the approaches to the tunnel.


5

• Improvement to Brambleton Avenue / Hampton Boulevard interchange in Norfolk: o Improvements to the interchange on the Norfolk side of MT would incur right of way

impacts that have not been documented in prior NEPA efforts (approximately 2.13 acres).

o Minor geometric modifications within the existing interchange. o The existing tunnel facilities building access road must be relocated as the new two-lane

westbound approach would be constructed at the location of the existing access road. o Flood proofing. An open channel drainage structure, which conveys stormwater from

the West Ghent and Sentara Norfolk General medical complex, is located within one of the loop ramps of the Norfolk Interchange. VDOT has initiated planning level efforts to construct levees and a floodwall to reduce flooding impacts which have historically threatened the MT portal as well as inhibited the operation of the interchange. This minor action while essentially a permit issue with some hydraulic and floodplain implications is being added to the DT-MT-MLK project. A detailed Flood Study may result in modifications to the vertical geometry of the ramp to further mitigate the flooding potential.

• Changes in time of year restrictions, dredging practices, and dredged material disposal. The July 2007 ROD commits to time-of-year restrictions during the excavation and dredging for the new Midtown Tunnel sections. Additionally, the ROD references “hydraulic dredging”, “closed bucket dredging”, and deployment of “hydraulic dredges”. These terms are no longer appropriate for the construction technique and disposal plan being proposed. The MT FEIS indicated that Craney Island would be used for disposal of dredged material that met the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) criteria. Discussion with the USCOE has confirmed that the Craney Island facility is not a viable alternative for dredged material placement. Instead, it is anticipated that the majority of the dredge spoil would be deposited in the approved off-shore Norfolk Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (NODMDS) managed jointly by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USCOE, with the remainder of the material placed in an approved upland disposal site.

• Midtown tunnel ventilation. The proposed MT ventilation system is different than the one proposed in the MT FEIS.

• Tunnel construction techniques. The MT FEIS discusses a specific tunnel section placement technique that does not reflect the current construction proposal. Tunnel section placement would reflect the current state of the practice and would deploy measures to avoid, minimize, and reduce river bed disturbance. References to tunnel tube sections, sunken tube, and parallel tube in the FEIS have been superseded by more current tunnel construction practice. The tunnel sections now reflect a rectangular box culvert prototype which actually reduces the depth of river bottom disturbance.

• Utilities: o Relocation of a 30-inch City of Norfolk raw water main crossing the Elizabeth River is

anticipated under the current project. This relocation was not reflected in the earlier NEPA documentation. Permits, planning, design, and construction associated with the relocation of the 30-inch water main would be included in the project. The relocated water main would be directionally bored beneath the Elizabeth River, thus eliminating river bed disturbance. Disturbances would be limited to upland boring pits on both sides of the river.


6

o Potential relocation of a 42-inch Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) sanitary sewer force main. Measures to protect this 42-inch sewer main will be explored and coordinated with HRSD management and engineering staff. Relocation may be required. This relocation was not reflected in the earlier NEPA documentation. Permits, planning, design, and construction associated with the relocation of the 42-inch sewer main would be included in the project. The relocated sewer main would be directionally bored beneath the Elizabeth River, thus eliminating river bed disturbance. Disturbances would be limited to upland boring pits on both sides of the river.

• Vertical and horizontal geometry changes. Minor changes to the vertical and horizontal geometry at the Brambleton Avenue / Hampton Boulevard interchange are proposed.

1.3.3 MLK Freeway Extension Design Changes The following changes are proposed for the MLK Freeway: • Tolling. Tolls would be used as the revenue stream to fund the improvements and operation

of the project. The previous NEPA documentation noted the possibility of toll funding. Currently, there are no tolls on the existing MLK Freeway. Toll collection equipment to be installed would include sensors and cameras mounted to overhead gantries. The tolls would be collected electronically through the use of two collection mechanisms: an E-Z Pass transponder and via video cameras that would capture license plate images as the vehicle passes through the gantry and tolls would be billed to the driver. Informational signage also would be installed on the approaches to the MLK.

• Vertical and horizontal geometry changes. The MLK EA includes references to vertical clearances of 18 to 30 feet in regards to structures and the impact of structures on visual and aesthetic concerns. The current proposal anticipates an increase of two to three feet in proposed vertical clearance for the MLK crossing of the CSX railroad yard.

• Interstate 264 Interchange ramp reconfiguration. Minor changes in horizontal geometry to further avoid disturbance to a National-Register-eligible historic cemetery (Mount Calvary Cemetery) are anticipated beyond what was documented in the MLK EA and FONSI.

• ITS. The MLK EA did not address traffic management, traveler information, or ITS elements. The current proposal assumes an integrated ITS for the project.

• Pedestrian bridge removal. The existing pedestrian bridge across Interstate 264 just west of the Frederick Boulevard (US 17) interchange is proposed to be removed.

1.4 Public Involvement VDOT will hold public hearings for this project in Spring 2011. The purpose of these hearings will be to present the preliminary project design, address design changes since the project was last presented to the public, present the findings of this EA, provide a discussion forum between the public and project team, and obtain input and comments from the community. All comments received during the public hearing and public comment period will be considered, and all substantive comments will be addressed in subsequent NEPA documentation.

After the hearings, VDOT and FHWA will assess whether there are any new significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in previous NEPA documentation. If new significant environmental impacts are identified, then a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared. If no new significant environmental impacts are identified, then a Finding of No Significant Impact would be issued for the new environmental impacts.

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Environmental Assessment Martin Luther King Freeway Extension 7

Section 2 Environmental Issue Evaluation

Table 1. Issue Evaluation Checklist Issue or Area of

Concern New Resource

Present Method of Review Have the Impacts

Changed? Comment

TRANSPORTATION

Traffic Volumes / Patterns/ Time Yes No N/A

Public Transportation Yes No N/A

Highways Yes No N/A

Transportation Plan Yes No N/A

Freight Yes No N/A

Pedestrian Facilities

Yes No N/A

HRTPO 2034 Long Range Transportation Plan. Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

No. Yes.

In the update currently being developed (to 2034) for the regional long range transportation plan, this project ranked highest in the prioritization of all transportation projects in the region. The MT FEIS stated the project would have a direct benefit to the Portsmouth Marine Terminal at the western portal of the Midtown Tunnel. Since that time, an additional terminal facility, the Maersk Sealand terminal, was completed two miles west of the project on the Western Freeway (VA 164). Direct access to this additional terminal via VA 164 and the Midtown Tunnel would further improve connections between terminal facilities within Hampton Roads. It has been proposed that the pedestrian overpass over I-264 just west of the Frederick Boulevard interchange be removed and not replaced. The EA for MLK contained a commitment that the interneighborhood access provided by this overpass would be maintained. The overpass also provides access from the community north of I-264 to the City-owned John F. Kennedy Recreation Center on the south side of Manteo Street that runs alongside of Interstate 264. Prior to the original construction of I-264, the general area was within one school district. When I-264 was built it created an impassable divider within the school district for children to walk to the nearby Douglass Park Elementary School, thus the need for the pedestrian bridge. Since then the City of Portsmouth has recognized this condition and its difficulties presented by I-264 with the children, as well as others traversing from one side to the other to get to the school. I-264 now is the school district boundary, eliminating the need for crossing I-264 relative to attending school and thus eliminating the primary purpose of why the pedestrian bridge was originally built.


Issue or Area of Concern

New Resource Present Method of Review

Have the Impacts Changed? Comment

Additional reasons for eliminating the pedestrian bridge include the following: • City Planning Department representatives have indicated verbally

a desire to demolish the bridge and use monies saved from not replacing the bridge elsewhere on the project. Written concurrence supporting the bridge removal will be requested as well.

• Replacement of the bridge would require traffic controls and closing down I-264 four times.

• Continuing bi-yearly inspections and continual maintenance of the structure would be required.

• The entrance ways to the bridge have become a magnet for loiterers.

• Casual observations indicate negligible pedestrian usage of the bridge.

• An alternative pedestrian route exists along Rodman Avenue, which crosses under I-264 approximately 0.6 mi. west of the pedestrian bridge.

Notwithstanding, VDOT is conducting a formal pedestrian traffic count to determine actual usage of the bridge. The count information will be provided when available. Input from the public will be sought at the public hearing and a final decision on the bridge will be made following the hearing.

LAND USE

Land Use Conversion Yes No N/A

Development Yes No N/A

Consistent with Area’s Comprehensive Plan

Yes No N/A

Review of the current comprehensive plans for the Cities of Norfolk (the 1992 Norfolk General Plan) and Portsmouth (2005 Portsmouth Comprehensive Plan)

No change in consistency with local plans.

There have been no changes in local plans or zoning that would cause the DT-MT-MLK project not to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or zoning ordinances.





POPULATIONS & SERVICES

Populations Yes No N/A

Emergency Services Yes No N/A

Review of 2000 US Census and 2009 US Census Population Estimates.

No. Population changes in Norfolk and Portsmouth have been negligible since the 2000 US Census. The DT-MT-MLK project would allow for improved emergency service times.

RELOCATION IMPACTS

Potential Relocations Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

Yes. Twenty-one houses, two businesses, and one church facility would be relocated due to the MLK portion of the project. The impacts for residences are the same as stated in the MLK EA. In the EA, nine businesses were expected to be displaced by the MLK. This has been reduced to two. The acquisition of property and the relocation of residents, businesses, farms, and non-profit organizations will be conducted in accordance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations and requirements, including but not limited to, 23 CFR Part 710, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended and its implementing regulations found in 49 CFR Part 24. All persons displaced on federally-assisted projects will be treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that they do not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects that are designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Relocation resources will be available to all residential and business relocatees without discrimination.

Environmental Justice Populations

Yes No N/A Review of 2000 US Census and 2009 US Census Population Estimates. Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

Yes. The 1996 MT FEIS included demographic data from the 1990 US Census and noted two census tracts with high minority and low-income populations that would not be adversely affected by the project. US Census data from 2000 were reviewed to determine if changes had occurred in the tract and city populations. Changes were negligible. 2009 Census population estimate data at the city level also showed minimal changes since 2000 (see Appendix A). The MLK EA and FONSI of 2009 noted that the minority and low-income populations within Census block groups affected by the project are representative of the study area and that no





disproportionately high or adverse impacts would occur as a result of the MLK Freeway Extension. Twenty-one residences and two businesses are expected to be displaced by the MLK. By locating the facility on structure, displacements and potential impacts were minimized. The presence of adequate, safe, and sanitary replacement housing in the area was assessed and found to be readily available for those residents being displaced. Public involvement is a key element of the compliance required under the Environmental Justice Executive Order and guidance. Extensive public outreach was conducted during previous NEPA processes for the MLK, DT, and MT project components. This outreach occurs in order to include all potential stakeholders in the transportation decision-making process and to identify and to address any concerns that the stakeholders and local communities have. Elements of the public outreach included public hearings, public informational meetings, meetings with other identified stakeholders, such as local churches during the MLK NEPA process, and multiple mailings to property owners. A Communications Plan has been developed that includes outreach to both general and minority media outlets and minority interest groups. VDOT is committed to hosting two community briefings, one each in Norfolk and Portsmouth, to provide a project update and discuss the benefits of the project, as well as highlighting the project, milestones and accomplishments, procurement schedule, congestion pricing and electronic toll collection. Media will be invited. VDOT will host a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/ Small, Women- and Minority-owned Businesses (SWaM) outreach event to highlight the project and potential subcontracting opportunities. VDOT will reach diverse community members via churches and religious community leaders. Civic leagues and local organizations are a part of the stakeholder process. VDOT will host a community business outreach activity. Potential environmental justice concerns regarding tolls were also addressed in the MLK EA. The level of tolls would be kept as low as possible but at a level sufficient to cover costs. Free (non-tolled) routes would still be available to the public in lieu of the MLK





project. Potential environmental justice concerns regarding tolls on the MT and DT were not addressed in previous NEPA documentation. Even though congestion pricing may appear to be inequitable, longer-distance commuters would still have a choice to use alternates such as Interstate 64 and Interstate 464. While it is expected that a higher proportion of higher-income drivers would use a tolled facility than lower-income drivers, the latter are still expected to also use the facilities. These facilities would experience less congestion and therefore provide a more reliable travel time. These results benefit all drivers regardless of income level because they provide better access and mobility. Please see Appendix A for additional information.

Based on these considerations, tolls and/or congestion pricing are not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Business Relocations Yes No N/A

Construction & Operations Employment

Yes No N/A

Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

Yes, there are less business relocations.

Two businesses would be relocated by the project. Nine businesses were expected to be relocated in the MLK EA and FONSI. The study area is expected to experience an increase in tax revenue and employment resulting from project construction. The recent project design changes would not greatly affect levels of employment associated with construction and operations of the project.

VISUAL & AESTHETICS

Visual & Aesthetics Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

No change in impacts. Although the vertical clearance for the MLK crossing of the CSX railroad yard would be increased (previously estimated in MLK EA as 18-30 feet), this design change and the addition of toll facilities are typical of an urban/industrial area. Therefore, the project would still be in character with the existing visual landscape.





FARMLANDS

Farmlands Yes No N/A Not Applicable Not applicable There are no farmlands present in this urban corridor.

NOISE & VIBRATION

Noise Criteria Yes No N/A

Existing Noise Conditions Yes No N/A

Review of revised engineering plans and design changes. Review of Noise Abatement Design Report.

Yes. The Downtown Tunnel component of the project is not a Type I project as defined in 23 CFR 772. Accordingly, a noise analysis was not required for it. For the remaining components, the MT and the MLK, improvements and associated improvements to Interstate 264, there are 16 locations, representing 28 residences and 2 cemetery sites, where noise levels are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC under the existing condition. Under the No-Build Alternative, 36 locations, representing 60 residences and 3 cemetery sites, are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC in 2032. The proposed Build Alternative would affect 17 locations, representing 31 residential properties and 1 cemetery, which are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC in design year 2032. The amount of affected locations is less than previously assessed in the MLK EA. Under the existing condition, noise levels at 126 residences and 1 cemetery approached or exceeded the NAC. Under the No Build, noise levels at 155 residences, 1 church and 1 cemetery approached or exceeded the NAC. Under the Build Alternative, noise levels at 126 residences, 1 cemetery, and 1 recreation center approached or exceeded the NAC. The number of impacts is less than previously expected. Eight noise barriers were evaluated following FHWA and VDOT guidelines and criteria. Three noise barriers have been determined to be both feasible and reasonable to construct, and are thus recommended for inclusion in the project, Numbers 1, 4, and 5 (Appendix B). One noise barrier that had been preliminarily recommended in the 2008 Noise Analysis Technical Report, Noise Barrier No. 2, was found to no longer be justified for construction and is not recommended. Noise Barrier No. 3 is intended to protect a non-residential site, thus per VDOT policy, the final determination of whether the noise barrier is justified would be





made by the joint FHWA/VDOT Noise Abatement Committee.

AIR QUALITY

Existing Conditions Yes No N/A

Regional Compliance with the PM Standards

Yes No N/A

Regional Compliance with the Ozone Standards

Yes No N/A

Air Toxic Analysis Yes No N/A

Review of revised engineering plans and design changes. Review of Air Quality Report (Appendix C).

No. The Hampton Roads region is in attainment for all criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established. On June 1, 2007, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) redesignated Hampton Roads as an attainment area for ozone. However, the region is considered a maintenance area – a designation given to an area that was originally designated a non-attainment area for a pollutant that later met the federal standard for the pollutant, and for which the EPA has approved an air quality maintenance plan that shows how the area will remain in attainment through 2018. On August 30, 2010, FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) found that the Transportation Conformity Analysis final report of the Amended FY 2009-2012 TIP and FY 2030 CLRP for the Hampton Roads 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area demonstrates conformity as prescribed by EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule and subsequent amendments and guidance.

The 2007 Reevaluation and revised ROD for the Midtown Tunnel addressed mobile source air toxics (MSAT) and concluded that no significant impacts with respect to MSAT would occur. Similarly, the MLK EA addressed MSAT and concluded that there would be no significant impacts. FHWA subsequently has issued revised MSAT guidance (September 30, 2009). Based on the results of the air quality analysis, CO concentrations with the Build Alternative are predicted to be well below the NAAQS in both the Interim / Opening Year (2016) and Design Year (2032) conditions. Therefore, since projected CO levels are below the NAAQS under Build conditions, no exceedances are anticipated as a result of the proposed improvements and no mitigation measures are required. Additionally, the Cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk have been designated as attainment for PM2.5, and no analysis is required as part of the air quality assessment since the project is considered exempt. The project has been determined to generate minimal air quality impacts for the





CAAA criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns.

The proposed new Midtown Tunnel with its currently specified ventilation system would maintain in-tunnel CO concentrations at under the one-hour standard of 35 ppm for both routine (peak-hour traffic) and non-routine (idling traffic) worst-case conditions. Therefore, it can also be concluded that under routine non-peak hour traffic conditions, in-tunnel CO levels would be maintained at well under the 35 ppm threshold. The project is not expected to cause or contribute to any violations of the NAAQS or to interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the applicable NAAQS.

ECOSYSTEMS

Native Wildlife Yes No N/A

Existing Vegetation Yes No N/A

Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species

Yes No N/A

Critical Habitat Yes No N/A

Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Yes No N/A


No change in impacts. Due to the urbanized nature of the project area, impacts to native wildlife and existing vegetation are minimal and have not been increased by recent design changes as compared to previous NEPA documents. No rare, threatened or endangered species are anticipated to be impacted by the project. No Critical Habitat areas or Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges occur in the project vicinity.

WATER RESOURCES

Surface Waters Yes No N/A

Dredging Requirements Yes No N/A

Public Water Supply Yes No N/A

Review of revised engineering plans and design changes and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment document.

No change in impacts to public water supply.

Although the alignment for the new Midtown Tunnel tube has changed slightly, the estimated dredged material quantity would be approximately the same, at 1.5 million cubic yards. The project area is served by a municipal water supply.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

Fish Yes No N/A Review of revised Yes.





Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Yes No N/A

Benthos Yes No N/A

Other Flora and Fauna Yes No N/A

engineering plans and design changes.

The impact to Public Oyster Ground #9 documented in the 1996 MT FEIS was estimated at 3.1 acres. The area of impact within Public Oyster Ground #9 would increase due to the new curvilinear alignment of the MT. Harvesting of oysters in this area is still prohibited by the Virginia Department of Health due to contamination. Harvesting has also been prohibited by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission in Chapter 4VAC 20-720-10 et. seq. “All public oyster grounds and unassigned grounds in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the tributaries of the Potomac River, except those areas listed in 4VAC20-720-40, are closed: October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011. The Elizabeth River was not an area listed in 4VAC20-720-40. An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment is being performed as a part of the project development process. Coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service is ongoing and would continue through construction, as necessary. Potential impacts include removal of existing bottom in the dredging process, removal of benthos prey species, permanent conversion of existing bottom sediment to armor stone, turbidity from pile-driving, and suspended solids during dredging. Twenty-five species were identified as having a designated EFH within a ten minute latitude and longitude of the Elizabeth River and/or NODMDS. No long-term adverse impacts would occur for any of the species at either the MT or the NODMDS. Detailed sediment analyses would determine if the dredge material is disposed at the NODMDS or an upland site.

FLOODPLAINS

Floodplains Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

No change in impacts. As a part of the EPA and NOAA joint Climate Change Science Program, studies of historic tidal data for the Mid-Atlantic Region have noted that sea level rise has occurred in the past from both the increase in the volume of sea water due to ocean warming and transfer of water from land reservoirs of ice and water to oceans. When combined with subsidence of some coastal regions, the total rise can be higher, such as in Hampton Roads where the total sea level rise between 1927 and 1999 has been 4.42 millimeters per year. The Climate Change Science Program has recommended





that a total of 1 meter in sea level rise by the year 2100 should be considered for long-term planning purposes, such as major infrastructure. The total impact of this project on the floodplain has not changed. As noted in the 1996 MT FEIS, construction of the tunnel approaches is a fill activity. The Norfolk side of the MT results in a fill of approximately 1.72 acres of subaqueous bottomlands. Even with the potential implications of future sea level rise, due to the limited fill area, the project would have no effect upon the flooding potential or increase the 100-year flood levels.

WETLANDS

Wetlands Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

No. The 1996 MT FEIS reported 0.7 acres of wetlands to be impacted as a part of the Preferred Alternative. The wetlands at the tunnel portal in Portsmouth, 0.63 acres, are no longer in existence. The remaining impacts (0.07 acres) occurred during construction of the Pinners Point interchange. The MLK EA determined that there would be 0.047 acres (2,064 square feet) of a Palustrine Scrub/Shrub and Forested (PEM/PFO) system impacted by the project. The impacts remain the same.

ENERGY

Energy Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

No change in impacts. The minor design changes would not greatly affect the energy requirements of project construction. Improved traffic flow which would be realized with project construction can be expected to offset construction energy requirements.

HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

Hazardous Waste Sites Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes.

No change in impacts.

COASTAL BARRIERS & COASTAL ZONE

Coastal Barriers & Coastal Zone Yes No N/A Review of revised No change in impacts. Under the Virginia Coastal Zone Program, the construction of the





engineering plans and design changes.

project would be deemed consistent with Virginia’s Coastal Zone Resources Management Plan (CZRMP) by securing all appropriate environmental permits and ensuring compliance with the enforceable programs that comprise Virginia’s program. The project with new design changes would be in compliance with these programs.

PUBLIC PARKLANDS

Public Parklands Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes. Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth parks and future parks information. Coordination with the City of Norfolk.

Yes. The Elizabeth River Trail (ERT) is a publicly-owned trail in Norfolk. It is along existing street, sidewalk, and a former railroad right-of-way and crosses over US 58 just east of the existing Midtown Tunnel portal entrance. The ERT was established in 2000, after the 1996 MT FEIS was completed, but was evaluated in the Route 58/ Midtown Tunnel 2007 Revised Record of Decision (ROD). Minor design changes and coordination with the City of Norfolk have altered the previously evaluated impacts on the ERT that were discussed in the Revised ROD. Tunnel improvements would remain underneath the trail, as previously proposed. However, VDOT would acquire approximately 0.116 acres of land from the ERT and grant back a permanent easement to the trail in the same manner as the existing permanent easement of the trail crossing over the MT. The trail would remain along the same alignment as the existing location. The trail would be temporarily relocated to other roadways and sidewalks along the Elizabeth River in order to minimize disruption to the trail during construction. Every effort would be made to maintain trail connectivity and the safety of the trail users during construction to the degree practicable. Therefore, even though land would be acquired from the ERT and a permanent easement granted to the ERT, the project “would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f)” as defined in 23 CFR 774.17. The nature and magnitude of changes to the trail would be minimal. There would be no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts and no interference with the purpose of the resource or the activities within it. The land disturbed by





construction would be fully restored. VDOT is seeking concurrence from the City of Norfolk regarding the above conditions and is pursuing a Section 4(f) finding of de minimis impact for the ERT. More detail appears in Appendix D. Based on the above, FHWA intends to make a Section 4(f) finding of de minimis impact for the ERT. Also as discussed in the 2007 Reevaluation, Plum Point Park is located to the east of the MT portal entrance. No property from the park would be used for the MT improvements since the park lies outside the anticipated construction limits of the project. Noise levels at the park would increase slightly, by two dBA, but this increase is not considered a constructive use since serenity and a quiet setting are not characteristics of the park given that it is located in an urban setting adjacent to the portal entrance of the existing tunnel.

HISTORIC & ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Architectural Resources Yes No N/A

Terrestrial Archaeological Resources

Yes No N/A

Underwater Cultural Resources Yes No N/A

Review of revised engineering plans and design changes. Review of previous cultural resources studies and Areas of Potential Effects compared to current design (Appendix E).

No change in impacts. It was concluded in the 2009 MLK EA that there would be an adverse effect on the Cottage Place Neighborhood Historic District, which has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Mitigation measures developed to minimize harm to the District from the construction of the MLK are detailed in the Memorandum of Agreement developed in consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Appendix E summarizes the historic property identification efforts and effects determination.

INDIRECT & CUMULATIVE

Socioeconomic Impacts Yes No N/A

Natural Resource Impacts Yes No N/A

Review of revised engineering plans and design changes. Review of other projects in the vicinity and other data.

No change in impacts. There have been no significant changes to the socioeconomic or natural environments since the completion of the previous documents. The changes to the project design are minor and would not cause any additional significant indirect or cumulative impacts.





CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Air Quality Yes No N/A

Noise Yes No N/A

Water Quality Yes No N/A

Maintenance & Control of Traffic Yes No N/A

Health & Safety Yes No N/A

Pollution Control Yes No N/A


No change in impacts. The project now involves current techniques for tunnel construction, a new curvilinear tunnel and some minor design changes; however, construction impacts are not expected to change significantly.

SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

Section 4(f) Evaluation Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and design changes. Review of 1996 MT FEIS, 2007 Reevaluation; 2009 MLK Freeway Extension EA.

Yes. As presented in the 2009 MLK EA, FONSI, and Section 4(f) Evaluation, MLK would use land within the Cottage Place Neighborhood Historic District, which was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. The Section 4(f) Evaluation concluded that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed use of Section 4(f) lands. Mitigation measures developed to minimize harm to the District from the construction of the MLK are detailed in the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement developed in consultation with the SHPO. FHWA intends to make a finding of de minimis impact for the Elizabeth River Trail, a City-owned public recreational property, subject to an opportunity for public review, and written concurrence from the City of Norfolk that the proposed project would not adversely affect the functions and attributes of the property that qualify it for section 4(f) protection. No new Section 4(f) properties have been identified.

PERMITS

Compliance with E.O. 11990 (Wetlands)

Yes No N/A Review of revised engineering plans and

There have been no major regulatory changes related to project development.





Section 404 Permit (Clean Water Act)

Yes No N/A

Section 10 Permit (Rivers & Harbors Act)

Yes No N/A

Virginia Water Protection Permit Yes No N/A

Subaqueous Bed Permit Yes No N/A

Coast Guard Permit Yes No N/A

Compliance with the ESA Yes No N/A

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Yes No N/A

Compliance with Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act

Yes No N/A

Compliance with E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Yes No N/A

Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Act

Yes No N/A

Compliance with E.O. 11988 (Floodplains)

Yes No N/A

Compliance with Farmland Protection Policy Act

Yes No N/A

Compliance with Erosion & Sediment Control Laws

Yes No N/A

Compliance with SWA Yes No N/A

design changes. Review of 1996 FEIS; 2009 MLK Freeway Extension EA. Review of NEPA-related regulations.

Yes.

No significant changes to the affected environment have occurred that warrant additional study or change the findings of the previous NEPA documentation. Those permits or compliances required for the selected alternative in the MT FEIS remain valid. All applicable permits would be acquired prior to construction. Potential environmental justice concerns regarding tolls on the MT and DT were not addressed in previous NEPA documentation. Even though congestion pricing may appear to be inequitable, longer-distance commuters would still have a choice to use alternates such as Interstate 64 and Interstate 464. While it is expected that a higher proportion of higher-income drivers would use a tolled facility than lower-income drivers, the latter are still expected to also use the facilities. These facilities would experience less congestion and therefore provide a more reliable travel time. These results benefit all drivers regardless of income level because they provide better access and mobility. More information appears in Appendix A. Based on these considerations, tolls and/or congestion pricing are not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations.





MITIGATION MEASURES

Relocations Yes No N/A

Farmlands Yes No N/A

Noise Yes No N/A

Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species

Yes No N/A

Floodplains Yes No N/A

Wetlands Yes No N/A


Aquatic Resources Yes No N/A

Hazardous Waste Sites Yes No N/A

Construction Impacts Yes No N/A

Air Quality Yes No N/A


Maintenance & Control of Traffic Yes No N/A

Health & Safety Yes No N/A

Pollution Control Yes No N/A

A new noise analysis was conducted for this reevaluation (Appendix B)

Three noise barriers have been determined to be both feasible and reasonable to construct, Numbers 1, 4, and 5. One noise barrier that had been preliminarily recommended in the 2008 Noise Analysis Technical Report, Noise Barrier No. 2, was found to no longer be justified for construction and is not recommended. Noise Barrier No. 3 is intended to protect a non-residential site, thus per VDOT policy, the final determination of whether the noise barrier is justified would be made by the joint FHWA/VDOT Noise Abatement Committee.

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Environmental Assessment Martin Luther King Freeway Extension A-1

Appendix A Environmental Justice Data

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the proposed project has been analyzed to address the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations and communities. Minority persons include citizens or lawful, permanent residents of the US who are African-American, Latino, Asian-American, American Indian, or Native Alaskan. Low-income persons are defined as those whose median household income is below the US Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Minority or low-income communities are groups of minority or low-income persons who live in reasonably close proximity to one another.

In addition, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Title VI bars intentional discrimination as well as disparate impact discrimination (i.e. a neutral policy or practice that has an unequal impact on protected groups).

The Route 58/Midtown Tunnel FEIS included demographic data from the 1990 US Census and from the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. Since the publication of the FEIS, the 2000 US Census was completed and census tract data in this document is from this source. US Census population estimates at the city level for 2009 are also used for demographic information. The original study area for direct impacts in the FEIS included ten census tracts in Norfolk and Portsmouth. The demographic data of these census tracts were examined to determine the presence of any minority and low-income populations and any potential Title VI populations.

Both Norfolk and Portsmouth have experienced slight decreases in total population, have similar percentages of minorities, and have both experienced slight increases in total minorities between 2000 and 2009 (Table A-1). It is therefore not expected that dramatic changes have occurred within the individual census tracts since 2000.

Table A-1. City Demographic Data 2000 2009

Location Total

Population

Total Minority and

Latino % of Total

Total Population

Total Minority and

Latino % of Total

Total Population Change

Percent Change

Total Minority and Latino

Change Percent Change

Norfolk 234,403 124,423 (53.08%) 233,333

126,525 (54.23%)

-1,070 (-0.46%)

2,102 (1.69%)

Portsmouth 100,566 54,991

(54.68%) 99,321 57,684

(58.08%) -1,245

(-1.24%) 2,693

(4.90%) Sources: US Census 2000, SF3; US Census, 2009 Population Estimates. Note: Race data universe = 100 Percent Data.

Norfolk has experienced a decrease in the total number and percentage of persons with low-income between 2000 and 2009. Portsmouth has experienced an increase in the total number of persons with low-income. Taking into account the loss in total population, a corresponding increase in the percentage of low-income persons in the city has occurred (Table A-2). Due to the relatively minor changes in the number and proportion of low-income persons, it is not expected that dramatic changes have occurred within the individual census tracts since 2000.


Table A-2. Low-Income Data 2000 2008

Location Low-Income

Persons % of Total

Low-Income Estimates

% of Total

Total Change

Percent Change

Virginia 656,641 9.59% 766,852 9.84% 110,211 16.78% Norfolk 40,857 19.40% 40,407 17.22% -450 -1.10% Portsmouth 15,471 16.16% 16,990 17.07% 1,519 9.82%

Sources: US Census 2000, SF3; US Census Small Area Estimates Branch, 2009. Note: Low-income data universe = Population for whom poverty status is determined.

It should be noted that almost all of the census tract boundaries are along existing roadways (i.e. sides of the same street are in separate census tracts) and may not give the most accurate picture of a community. The census tracts have minority populations ranging from 5.97 percent to 18.28 percent of the population in Norfolk and from 23.6 percent to 90.40 percent in Portsmouth (Table A-3). Only one of the census tracts, 2105 in Portsmouth, has a proportion higher than its respective city. The percentage of low-income persons in the census tracts in Norfolk ranges from 4.44 percent to 15.96 percent and from 10.15 percent to 36.09 percent in Portsmouth. Again, only one of the census tracts, 2105 in Portsmouth, has a proportion higher than its respective city.

Table A-3. Census Tract Demographic Data in 2000

Location Total Minority

and Latino % of Total Population

Low-income Population

% of Total Population

Norfolk 124,423 53.08% 40,857 19.40% Census Tract 36 110 17.68% 72 12.27% Census Tract 37 406 18.28% 292 13.15% Census Tract 38 367 14.50% 163 6.84% Census Tract 39 21 5.97% 12 4.44%

Census Tract 40.01 180 15.19% 106 8.95% Census Tract 40.02 374 13.70% 435 15.96%

Portsmouth 54,991 54.68% 15,471 16.16%

Census Tract 2102 556 23.60% 298 12.80% Census Tract 2103 709 32.08% 222 10.15% Census Tract 2105 1573 90.40% 625 36.09% Census Tract 2106 541 30.93% 199 11.48%

None of these census tracts are expected to have any physical impacts as a result of this project. Therefore, even though there are high proportions of both minorities and low-income persons in one of the census tracts, no disproportionately high and adverse physical are expected.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) conducted for the Route 58-Martin Luther King Freeway Extension (MLK) determined that no disproportionately high and adverse impacts would occur as a result of the project. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in February of 2009 for the MLK. Physical impacts on environmental justice populations as well as the potential impacts of tolls on these populations were investigated in the MLK EA. Nineteen residences and nine businesses are expected to be displaced by the MLK. By locating the facility on structure, displacements and potential impacts were minimized. The presence of adequate,


safe, and sanitary replacement housing in the area was assessed and found to be readily available for those residents being displaced.

Toll Collection for the project would utilize the latest technologies designed to maximize convenience for the user as well as provide efficient traffic flow unimpeded by traditional toll booths. Known as Open Road Tolling or ORT, a combination of electronic toll collection and video monitoring of vehicles is done from an overhead structure while vehicles flow at regular speeds without stopping or pausing.

As in many states in the Northeast US, Virginia offers E-ZPass™ for convenient payment of tolls. Customers establish an account and obtain a transponder from the Virginia Department of Transportation. The transponder mounts easily on the inside of the windshield and then tolls are deducted from the account whenever that vehicle uses any participating toll road from Virginia to Maine and as far west as Illinois. E-ZPass™ account registration and transponders would be offered through local stores in Norfolk and Portsmouth. Service through a toll-free phone number and online would also be provided.

For drivers who don’t yet have an E-ZPass™ or do not wish to participate, a video image would be taken of each vehicles license plate as it passes the tolling point. An invoice for the tolls due would be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle. The owner can settle the invoice by mail, in person, or over the phone or internet. Regular users would be encouraged to enroll in E-ZPass™ since paying by license plate would be more expensive.

ORT provides many benefits and options for both drivers and the operators of the project and only enhance the reduction in traffic congestion offered by the new MT and the MLK Extension.

Time-of-day or “congestion” pricing would be used to establish the toll charges for users of this project. Under this program, traffic congestion is reduced by encouraging users to travel during off-peak times when traffic is lower by offering a lower toll for doing so. Time periods for congested or “peak” pricing are typically during the morning and evening rush hours when traffic demand is highest.

Regarding the potential effects of tolls, public outreach was conducted during the previous MLK NEPA studies to address any concerns that the community had about tolling operations. Tolls are being kept as low as possible but at a level sufficient to cover costs. Free (non-tolled) routes would still be available to the public as alternatives to using MLK.

In addition, since the increasing implementation of tolls on limited-access roadways throughout the United States, there has been new research and analysis on the effects of all forms of congestion pricing on environmental justice populations. Even though there are no physical effects to populations along the corridor, potential effects on environmental justice populations among commuters using Interstate 264, the MLK Freeway, and US 58 were assessed.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed a series of seven primers on congestion pricing in order to explain the rationale behind congestion pricing and discuss key aspects of it. One primer specifically addresses the issue of equity in congestion pricing (Income-Based Equity Impacts of Congestion Pricing, FHWA, 2008). At first glance, use of a toll facility by higher-income users may be more prevalent than by lower-income users. Expending federal tax dollars on a facility that appears to benefit one group over another is then perceived as inequitable. Equity issues are examined and their potential impacts discussed, including: general issues; implementation options; and public outreach. The primer references independent research and articles on multiple projects throughout the United States.


The FHWA primer notes that funding transportation infrastructure through “regressive taxes, such as car-registration fees, sales taxes, and the gas tax” is in fact inequitable. Lower-income users tend to drive older cars that are less fuel efficient and are therefore buying more fuel. In addition, car registration fees and sales taxes are not differentiated based on income. Using tolls on facilities such as the Downtown and Midtown tunnels and the MLK Freeway directly assesses all of the users of the facility, regardless of income level or any other socio-economic factor. In order to address any perceived or actual inequity, most toll facilities have turned over surplus toll revenues for transit or travel demand management improvements. Public perceptions of the tolled facilities tend to be more favorable if the transit improvements then occur in the same general corridor as the tolled facility. In addition, public opinion polls in some states have shown that a higher portion of lower-income users are in favor of tolls versus taxes. The reverse was true for higher-income users, who favored taxes over tolls.

An example of perceived inequity in implementation is the use of cashless technology such as credit cards or bank accounts to set up and use a transponder toll device. Credit cards and bank accounts may not always be used by lower-income users. Both Puerto Rico and Texas have addressed this issue by allowing users to purchase transponders with cash and to add value to their transponders with cash at convenient locations. However, there are some portions of the population that may not be able to purchase a transponder at all and therefore would not be able to take advantage of this service or to receive the benefits of discounts usually applied to those with transponders versus paying at a toll booth. For this project, electronic tolling is proposed. Those vehicles without a transponder (e.g., E-ZPass) would receive a bill for the toll due based on license plate data. Accounts could be set up for frequent users who do not wish to obtain E-ZPass transponders.

The first implementation of tolls or congestion pricing in an area usually requires the most public outreach, and substantial outreach is planned for this project. Nine states currently operate facilities with some form of tolls or congestion pricing, including Virginia. In addition, the Hampton Roads area is already familiar with tolls that were previously assessed on VA 44 (I-264) and the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel. In addition, the original Downtown Tunnel and Midtown Tunnel were both constructed with toll-generated funding and operated for years with manual collection of tolls at toll booths. Therefore, tolling at the tunnels and on limited-access facilities is not a new concept.

A Communications Plan has been developed that includes outreach to both general and minority media outlets and minority interest groups. VDOT is committed to hosting two community briefings, one each in Norfolk and Portsmouth, to provide a project update and discuss the benefits of the project, as well as highlighting the project, milestones and accomplishments, procurement schedule, congestion pricing and electronic toll collection. Media will be invited. VDOT will host a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/ Small, Women- and Minority-owned Businesses (SWaM) outreach event to highlight the project and potential subcontracting opportunities. VDOT will reach diverse community members via churches and religious community leaders. Civic leagues and local organizations are a part of the stakeholder process. VDOT will host a community business outreach activity.

Throughout the country, data to date show that users of tolled facilities have a wide range of income but use varies amongst income sectors. Use is not just dependent on income but also on adjustments to personal schedules and availability of alternate routes. However, all users highly value the reliability of travel time on a tolled facility. On other projects, there is some reluctance on the part of the public to fully embrace congestion pricing at the outset. Within the first year,


the perception of the facility shifts. The most important lesson from other projects appears to be to establish a determined effort to gather data, to conduct polls/surveys of users, and to disseminate this information back to the public.

Even though congestion pricing may appear to be inequitable, longer-distance commuters would still have a choice to use alternates such as Interstate 64 and Interstate 464. While it is expected that a higher proportion of higher-income drivers would use a tolled facility than lower-income drivers, the latter are still expected to also use the facilities. These facilities would experience less congestion and therefore would provide a more reliable travel time. These results benefit all drivers regardless of income level because they provide better access and mobility. The actual use would depend on the availability of adjustments to other personal choices within a particular commute, such as joining a carpool, flexibility of working hours, and/or flexibility of child care.

Based on these considerations, tolls and/or congestion pricing are not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse effects on environmental justice populations.

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Environmental Assessment Martin Luther King Freeway Extension B-1

Appendix B Noise Analysis

A noise report was prepared to assess the potential noise impacts of the DT/MT/MLK project. Because improvements to the DT would not significantly change either the horizontal or vertical roadway alignment nor increase the number of through traffic lanes, VDOT and FHWA determined that the DT portion of this project, including the toll plaza, is not a Type 1 project pursuant to the noise regulations contained in 23 CFR 772. Thus, a noise study of this portion of the project is not required. A detailed Noise Abatement Design Report that was prepared for the project is summarized here.

The noise analysis included conducting field noise measurements, developing a traffic noise model to predict future noise levels, and evaluating noise barriers at sites where traffic noise impacts were predicted. This last point includes summarizing the potential effectiveness of candidate noise barriers (feasibility), as well as the cost-benefit evaluation of feasible noise barriers (reasonableness).

Methods and Criteria All predicted noise levels were estimated using the FHWA computer prediction model for highway traffic noise – Traffic Noise Model (TNM®) Version 2.5, February 2004. The noise levels presented in this report are expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA). Environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, thus it is common practice to characterize the fluctuating level by a single number called the equivalent sound level (Leq). For traffic noise assessment, Leq is evaluated over a one-hour period, and may be denoted as Leq(h).

The potential noise impact of the Build Alternative was assessed in accordance with FHWA and VDOT noise assessment guidelines. The FHWA guidelines are set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. VDOT’s regulations are contained within the State Noise Abatement Policy, and are consistent with the FHWA guidelines.

When predicted traffic noise levels during the loudest hour of the day either approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), or when predicted traffic noise levels increase substantially from existing levels, FHWA requires that noise abatement measures be considered. VDOT defines “approach” as being within one decibel of the NAC (or 66 dBA for a Category B receptor), and a substantial increase occurs if noise levels are predicted to increase 10 dBA Leq or more as a direct result of the transportation improvement project. Noise abatement, such as noise barriers, that would be effective in reducing noise impact will be considered for feasibility and reasonableness unless it is found that such mitigation measures would cause adverse social, economic, and environmental effects that outweigh the benefits received.

Noise Model Inputs and Assumptions Input parameters to the model include detailed roadway geometry, noise barrier locations, receptor locations, propagation path characteristics, acoustic shielding, and traffic data. Final roadway and bridge design plans and cross-sections were used to develop roadway geometry. These and other parameters were entered separately for three model configurations: (1) Existing Condition, (2) Future No-Build Alternative, and (3) Future Build Alternative.


The model included assumptions regarding: vehicle speed and lane distribution; receiver heights; existing noise barriers; and detailed aspects of the physical environment (e.g. sidewalks, topography, and vegetation). Complete details appear in the Noise Abatement Design Report.

Traffic Data Noise level predictions are made for the traffic characteristics that yield the loudest traffic noise hour on a regular basis. This peak-traffic-noise-hour was determined by identifying the hour with the highest bi-directional mainline traffic volume in which vehicles were predicted to be traveling at or above the posted speed in both directions. Because daily traffic patterns vary throughout the study area, the peak-traffic-noise-hour was determined separately for I-264, US 58, and the Midtown Tunnel.

The peak-traffic-noise-hours for I-264, US 58, and the MT were determined to be 6 PM, 4 PM, and 7 PM, respectively. Vehicle mix (heavy trucks, medium trucks, and buses) were provided hourly or as a percentage of average daily traffic (ADT), depending on the roadway segment. The proposed posted mainline traffic speed limit of 55 mph was used for I-264 and 45 mph for US 58.

Identification of Noise-Sensitive Sites A noise-sensitive site is any property where frequent exterior human use occurs and where a reduced traffic noise level would be of benefit. The sites include residential dwellings, churches, day care centers, playground, active sport areas, and a cemetery, and were considered representative of typical conditions within the study area. In general, a single noise receptor was assigned for each noise-sensitive site for the purpose of the model.

Existing Conditions In October 2010, short-term ambient noise measurements were conducted for 15-minute periods at ten locations, which are representative of noise-sensitive sites within the study limits. The measurement sites were chosen so that each noise sensitive area (NSA) was represented. The purpose of the measurements was to describe the existing noise environment, identify major noise sources in the study area, validate the noise prediction model, and document weekday background noise levels.

Traffic count and vehicle speed data obtained during the measurements were entered into the model and the computer-predicted noise levels were then compared to the noise levels measured in the field. A difference of 3 dBA or less between measured and predicted noise levels is considered by FHWA to be a sufficient level of accuracy and validates a traffic noise model. At all measurement locations where model validation was feasible, the difference was less than or equal to 3 dBA, thus the noise model was validated for this study area.

Modeled noise levels were estimated at 414 noise-sensitive sites within the study area. These sites include single-family residences, multi-family residences (duplex/triplex), apartment buildings, townhome units, public recreational areas, churches, and a cemetery (Table B-1). For the purpose of the noise study, the sites were grouped into nine NSAs based on proximity and geographic relationship to one another.


Table B-1. Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA) Noise-

Sensitive Area Location Land Use

Number of Sites

NSA 1 I-264 Interchange with US Route 337 to Interchange with US Route 17 –

South of I-264

Single and multi-family residences, school, and

recreational facility

52

NSA 2 I-264 Interchange with US Route 337 to Interchange with US Route 17 –

North of I-264

Single and multi-family residences

32

NSA 3 I-264 East of the Interchange with US Route 17 – South of I-264

Apartment and townhome units 73

NSA 4 I-264 East of Interchange with US Route 17 to Elm Avenue – South of I-

264

Single-family residences, multifamily residences, cemetery, and a church.

119

NSA 5 I-264 East of Interchange with US Route 17 to Elm Avenue – North of I-

264

Single-family residences, townhomes, and apartment units

46

NSA 6 US Route 58 Extension South of London Boulevard – West

Single-family residences 28

NSA 7 US Route 58 Extension South of London Boulevard – East

Single-family residences and churches

26

NSA 8 US Route 58 North of London Boulevard – East

Single-family residences behind an existing 6 to 18-foot tall noise

wall and a church

19

NSA 9 Midtown Multi-family residences, apartment units, and recreation

facility

19

Future Conditions In accordance with FHWA and VDOT procedures, noise levels under the Existing Condition must be compared to those predicted for the Build Alternative. The levels for the Build Alternative must also be compared to the applicable NAC for traffic noise assessment.

The model predicted noise impacts that occur either when predicted noise levels for the Build Alternative approach or exceed the applicable NAC, or the relative increase above the Existing Condition noise levels is greater than 10 decibels (Table B-2).

The noise level at one non-residential receptor (the cemetery in NSA 4) is predicted to exceed VDOT’s NAC for Activity Category B exterior use (Table B-2). For all other non-residential receptors included in this analysis (churches, schools, and recreational facilities), noise impacts are not predicted to occur under the Build Alternative. The more stringent NAC for Activity Category B exterior use (66 dBA Leq) was used for all receptors. Thus, once the exterior areas of noise-sensitive uses are predicted to have no noise impacts, then no other noise impacts are expected and further analysis is not necessary.


Table B-2. Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts

NSA Receiver Type

TNM Receiver Number

No. of Dwelling

Units

2010 Existing (dBA)

2032 No-Build

(dBA)

2032 Build (dBA)

Number of

Impacts

Multi-Family Resid. 319 3 63 64 66 3 Multi-Family Resid. 320 3 65 66 68 3

NSA 1

Multi-Family Resid. 321 2 64 65 66 2 NSA 2 Single Family Resid. 348 1 65 66 66 1

Cemetery 97 * 70 70 71 1 Single Family Resid. 164 1 67 68 66 1 Single Family Resid. 180 1 65 66 66 1 Single Family Resid. 181 1 68 69 69 1 Single Family Resid. 182 1 66 67 67 1

NSA 4

Single Family Resid. 196 1 65 66 66 1 Townhome 224 6 67 67 66 6 Townhome 225 6 65 66 66 6

Single Family Resid. 227 1 66 66 66 1 Single Family Resid. 228 1 65 66 66 1 Single Family Resid. 382 1 65 66 68 1

NSA 5

Single Family Resid. 383 1 65 66 68 1 NSA 6 Single Family Resid. 266 1 67 68 66 1 Note: *Number of equivalent units to be determined by the joint FHWA/VDOT Noise Abatement Committee.

The Noise Abatement Design Report includes the full results of the predicted noise levels and noise impact analysis. There are 16 locations, representing 28 residences and 2 cemetery sites, which are predicted to approach or exceed VDOT’s NAC under the existing condition. Under the No-Build Alternative, 36 locations, representing 60 residences and 3 cemetery sites, are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC in 2032.

The proposed Build Alternative would affect 17 locations, representing 31 residential properties and 1 cemetery, which are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC in design year 2032. With the exception of the Mount Calvary Cemetery Complex, noise impacts under the Build Alternative are not predicted for any other non-residential receptors (churches, schools, and recreational facilities). No noise-sensitive sites are predicted to experience a substantial increase (i.e. an increase of 10 dBA or more above existing noise level) as a result of the proposed Build Alternative.

Noise Abatement FHWA guidelines set forth in 23 CFR Part 772 require that, when the noise levels attributed to a proposed roadway project approach or exceed the NAC, noise abatement measures must be evaluated. Because noise levels along the study corridor were determined to exceed NAC for some Activity Category B receptors, noise abatement measures such as traffic system management, alignment modifications, and noise barriers were evaluated for this project. Neither traffic management, nor alignment modifications were determined to be applicable for this project. Noise barriers were determined to be applicable.

FHWA and VDOT policies require that noise barriers be both feasible and reasonable to be recommended for construction. To be feasible, a barrier must reduce noise levels at impacted/ affected noise-sensitive sites by at least 5 dBA, thereby protecting/benefiting the property. A residential property is considered protected if it would be exposed to future noise impact and


would receive at least 5 dBA of noise reduction from a barrier. A residential property is considered benefited if it would not be exposed to future noise levels exceeding the NAC, but would still receive at least 5 dBA of noise reduction from a barrier designed to protect impacted properties.

Barrier reasonableness is evaluated by determining the cost-effectiveness to build the barrier with respect to noise abatement for individual dwelling units. To be reasonable, a barrier cannot cost more than $30,000 per protected or benefited residential property.

When a barrier exceeds the VDOT’s Noise Abatement Policy cost-effectiveness criteria, third-party funding is required for the barrier to continue towards construction. FHWA and VDOT contribute the first $30,000 for each protected or benefited property. The remainder must come from a source other than FHWA or VDOT. Final approval of barriers would take into account the views of the affected property owners. The noise barrier unit cost used in this analysis was $36 per square foot.

Noise barriers have been considered for the 31 residences and one cemetery site for which a traffic noise impact was predicted under the 2032 Build Alternative. In total, eight noise barriers were evaluated for acoustical feasibility and cost-reasonableness. Noise Barrier No. 1 (at NSA 1), Noise Barrier No. 4 (at NSA 4), and Noise Barrier No. 5 (at NSA 5) have been found to be both feasible and reasonable. Noise Barrier No. 2 (at NSA 2) and Noise Barrier No. 6 (at NSA 5) have been determined to be feasible but not reasonable to construct. At NSA 6, Noise Barriers No. 7 and 8 were evaluated and neither was determined to be feasible. Per VDOT policy, because Noise Barrier No. 3 is intended to protect a non-residential site, the final determination of whether the noise barrier is justified would be made by the joint FHWA/VDOT Noise Abatement Committee.

Construction Noise Construction activities associated with the Build Alternative would have short-term noise effects on receptors in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Some construction processes such as impact pile driving and certain equipment used for demolition such as pavement breakers and hydraulic chisels (hoe rams) generate higher noise levels than typical conventional construction activity. Actions may be taken to reduce the annoyance from these types of activities, but substantial intermittent, relatively short-term, elevated noise levels would still occur in the vicinity of these construction operations. The Comprehensive Agreement between VDOT and the PPTA partner on the implementation of the project would include the contractor’s responsibilities regarding construction noise.

Conclusions Using FHWA’s TNM® model (ver. 2.5), Existing, Future No-Build, and Future Build traffic noise levels were predicted at 414 noise-sensitive sites throughout the study area. The results of the noise assessment indicate that 17 locations, representing 31 residences and a cemetery, would approach or exceed the NAC for Activity Category B receptors as a result of the proposed Build Alternative. Noise barriers have been considered for each of the 32 affected sites. Noise Barrier No. 1 (at NSA 1), Noise Barrier No. 4 (at NSA 4), and Noise Barrier No. 5 (at NSA 5) have been found to be feasible and reasonable, and are thus recommended for construction. Four other noise barriers were determined not to be feasible or were not reasonable and, thus are not recommended for construction. Noise Barrier No. 3 is intended to protect a nonresidential site, thus per VDOT policy, the final determination of whether the noise barrier is justified would be made by the joint FHWA/VDOT Noise Abatement Committee.

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Environmental Assessment Martin Luther King Freeway Extension C-1

Appendix C Air Quality Analysis

Introduction Air quality is defined by ambient atmospheric concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be of concern with respect to human health and welfare. A quantitative analysis of Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations was conducted using computerized emissions and dispersion models. Generally, local air quality is assessed on a micro-scale by evaluating CO concentrations at the project level. High concentrations of CO tend to occur in areas of high traffic volumes or areas adjacent to a stationary source of the pollutant. In addition, a qualitative mobile source air toxics (MSAT) analysis has been conducted in accordance with regulations and guidance from EPA and FHWA. The findings of the analyses are presented in an Air Quality Analysis Report which is summarized here.

Highway agencies are also required to consider the impacts of transportation improvement projects on a regional level by metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and at a statewide level in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Regional air quality, when located in nonattainment and maintenance areas, is assessed by the MPO performing conformity analyses to ensure that transportation plans and programs proposed for funding conform to the SIP for attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Since the project is considered regionally significant, the status of the conformity evaluation has also been documented.

Alternatives No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build (2032) Alternative, no improvements associated with the project would be implemented and each roadway configuration would remain consistent with present day conditions. For this alternative, the existing transportation system in addition to all other projects funded for construction in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) region is assumed to be in place. The HRTPO travel demand model was used to forecast design year (2032) traffic volumes for this project. Therefore, the No-Build (2032) traffic volumes assume all projects included in the Long Range Transportation Plan and FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) would be constructed and open to traffic by 2032.

Proposed Build Alternative The specific improvements associated with the DT include safety, lighting, ventilation, and signage as well as cosmetic and traffic management elements. As such, no horizontal or vertical geometric shifts are anticipated to the DT.

The specific improvements to the MT project area include a new two-lane tunnel under the Elizabeth River generally parallel to the existing MT. Approaches and tunnel portals are not expected to change as a result of this improvement. Other improvements include minor roadway changes at the Brambleton Avenue/Hampton Boulevard interchange. Minor vertical and horizontal geometric changes are expected within the existing interchange, and other modifications are needed to accommodate the new westbound approach lanes from the MT. The study area consists of lands surrounding the proposed project elements on which there are human activities that could potentially be affected by the project, including the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.


The specific improvements associated with the MLK include the extension of the existing freeway at London Boulevard south as a four-lane facility on new alignment to I-264. Vertical and horizontal roadway shifts would be required to satisfy clearance issues with structures and visual concerns. The majority of the proposed facility would be on structure with varying vertical heights along the alignment. In addition, a new half interchange is proposed with existing High Street as well as a new full interchange and associated ramps with I-264 at the southern terminus of the project. In addition to the proposed improvements, tolling would also be implemented. The human activities that could potentially be affected by the project include several residential areas adjacent to the proposed alignment.

Existing Conditions The study area is best categorized as a humid subtropical climate that averages approximately 46 inches of precipitation per year. The average daily high temperature in July is 87 degrees Fahrenheit while the average daily low temperature in January is 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

Traffic forecasts were developed for the project for Existing (2010), Interim / Opening Year No-Build (2016), Interim / Opening Year Build (2016), Design Year No-Build (2032) and Design Year Build (2032) conditions for all locations within the project corridor. The traffic volumes used in the CO analysis are based on the preliminary AM and PM peak traffic volume projections used by the Project Team for the traffic analysis and were derived from the VDOT ENTRADA database. All projected volumes have been reviewed and approved (validated).

The DT, MT, and MLK would all become tolled roadways under the Build Alternative. As opposed to the typical use of traditional toll plazas, these roads would have electronic or open-road tolling, in which the tolls are collected electronically via sensors and cameras mounted to overhead gantries. There are no planned toll plazas and drivers would travel through at posted speeds with no need to slow down, or stop and pay cash. Consequently, vehicles would continue through at posted speeds, with no queuing conditions expected.

A project level air quality analysis has been performed to assess the air quality impacts of the project, document the findings of the analysis, and make the findings available for review and comment.

Criteria As implemented by the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and welfare. Federal actions must not cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, or delay timely attainment of any standard or required interim milestone. The six principal pollutants identified by the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards are called criteria pollutants. The project is located in the Cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, which are in attainment for all pollutants in accordance with the NAAQS, but is located in a maintenance area for the 8-hour ozone standard. Therefore, the project is subject to conformity requirements for ozone.

Based on FHWA and VDOT guidance and agreements, project-level air quality (hot-spot) analyses are conducted for CO for projects that meet traffic and related criteria as specified in the revised agreement. Based on traffic volumes for this project, a quantitative CO analysis is required and has been performed as part of the detailed air quality study. An MSAT analysis is also required based on specific criteria for determining which projects are to be considered exempt from MSAT analysis requirements and which may require a qualitative or quantitative analysis.


Carbon Monoxide Analysis The purpose of this study is to identify worst-case carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations throughout the project corridor. Computer modeling can be used to assess both existing and future CO concentrations along the project corridor at selected sensitive receptors. Worst-case sensitive receptors were selected for the analysis. The modeling inputs and procedures are in accordance with FHWA and VDOT guidelines.

The air quality modeling approach includes the use of computer programs. Based on traffic data and historic climatic data, CO emissions are calculated using the EPA MOBILE6.2. In addition, FHWA’s Easy Mobile Inventory Tool (EMIT) model was used to calculate CO emission rates at varying speeds for each analysis year. The projected worst-case CO emission rates are then applied to the CAL3QHC computer model. This program is used to determine dispersion of CO from highway sources to air quality sensitive receptors. Factors taken into account in this model include pollutant source strength, wind speed, wind angle, atmospheric stability, roadway length and width, surface roughness, vehicle volume, emission factor, and background CO concentrations.

After modeling CO concentrations under all scenarios, the CO levels are then compared to the NAAQS. These standards are 35 ppm and 9 ppm for the second highest one-hour and eight-hour periods, respectively.

CO Receptor Locations Each receptor represents an area where the public would have continuous access to the project. Areas were selected based on generalized assessments of where human activity is likely to coincide with the highest CO concentrations. Typical areas selected for the analysis include residential yards, open areas, and select locations near the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital. The study area includes a wide variety of land use types, roadway features, and areas where the public has continuous access adjacent to the proposed improvements. The project area is comprised of an urban environment, which consists of local street systems as well as collector-distributor roads that parallel the project corridor. Potential traffic queues can occur as a result of congestion at interchange locations or heavy traffic volumes. Potential traffic queues can also develop on the ramps to and from the highways as well as local arterial roadways and other merge areas. Several factors were taken into account to identify potential CO receptors, including land use type, human activity levels, location of geometric improvements and projected traffic volumes.

Although traffic volumes are slightly higher near the Pinners Point interchange, the land uses are comprised of industrial areas with no sensitive receptors present. Therefore, the Brambleton Avenue/Hampton Boulevard interchange area was selected for the CO hot-spot analysis since several sensitive receptors are adjacent to the interchange, including the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital (Table C-1).

For the MLK project area, the proposed improvements guided the selection of the sensitive receptor locations. All three interchange locations were incorporated into the air quality model for dispersion purposes. As expected, the largest increase of ADT (17% increase from No-Build (2032) to Build (2032) conditions) is located along the new MLK. The sensitive receptors selected for the analysis are adjacent to all portions of the proposed improvements, including both interchange locations and adjacent to the new alignment (Table C-1).


Table C-1. Sensitive Receptor Locations for CO Analysis

Project Location

Receptor Location Receptor ID Land Use

Receptor Site Description

Pedestrian Activity

Level

MT1, MT2 Sentara Norfolk General Hospital

Southeast quadrant; traffic queues on ramp or interchange

High

MT3, MT 4 Residential Area

Northeast quadrant; traffic queues on ramp

Moderate to High

Midtown Tunnel

Norfolk Interchange

MT5 Parking Lot/Open Space

Southwest quadrant; traffic queues on ramp

Low

MLK/London Blvd/High Street Interchange

MLK1, MLK2 Residential Area

Traffic queues on the on/off ramps

Moderate

MLK MLK3, MLK4 Open Space Area

New alignment Moderate Martin Luther King Freeway

MLK/I-264 Interchange

MLK5-MLK10

Open Space or Residential Area

Traffic queues on the on/off ramps

Moderate to High

Martin Luther King Freeway

Detail Signalized Intersection Analysis

I1-I18 Open Space or Residential Area

Possible signalized intersection

Moderate to High

In addition to the free-flow conditions, a potential signalized intersection may be warranted for the new half interchange at High Street under the Build condition. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that this intersection would be signalized for all analysis years (including the Opening Year (2016) and Design Year Build (2032) conditions) and was modeled using the worst-case default modeling parameters. It is assumed that if the signalized intersection CO concentrations would be below the NAAQS using default modeling parameters, CO concentrations also would be below the NAAQS under a real world operating scenario where the traffic signal would operate under less exaggerated conditions (Table C-1).

For the DT, lower projected traffic volumes under Build (2032) conditions (when compared to No-Build (2032) conditions) coupled with no anticipated roadway improvements to the project corridor, it was concluded that sensitive receptors selected as part of the improvements to the MT and MLK project areas would satisfy worst-case conditions for the project study area. It is also concluded that the implementation of all electronic tolling would have no adverse affect on air quality for any of the project areas, since traffic would continue to move through the toll gantries at posted speeds, minimizing any potential traffic queues. For the purposes of the CO hot-spot assessment, it was concluded that the MLK and MT project areas represent worst-case air quality conditions amongst all three of the project corridors.

Analysis Results Based on review of the supplied traffic data, the CO modeling analysis for the project corridor focused on the PM peak conditions. Maximum CO concentrations, calculated by adding


together the background concentration to the CO concentration projected for all years considered in the analysis area, appear in Table C-2.

Table C-2. CO Analysis: 1-Hour and 8-Hour CO Level Summary


Adjacent to the MT, the highest 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations under all scenarios were projected to be 4.5 and 3.2 ppm, respectively, including the assumed background concentration of 3.6 ppm for the 1-hour standard. It is under the Design Year Build (2032) conditions. The highest CO concentration for Existing (2010) was projected at receptor site MT1 which represents an open area near the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital. The highest CO concentrations for Interim / Opening Year No-Build (2016), Interim / Opening Year Build (2016), Design Year No-Build (2032) and Design Year Build (2032) conditions were projected at receptor site MT3, which represents an open area near a residential area.

For the MLK study area, the highest 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations under all scenarios were projected to be at 5.0 and 3.5 ppm, respectively, including the assumed background concentration of 3.6 ppm for the 1-hour standard. It is under Existing Conditions (2010) at receptor site MLK10. The highest CO concentration for all analysis years was projected at site MLK10, which represents an open area adjacent to a few residences just south of I-264.

In addition to the free-flow conditions modeled above, one detailed signalized intersection was also included in the study. To represent worst-case conditions, the intersection was assumed to be signalized for all analysis years. The modeling was characterized by using worst-case default assumptions/parameters for total signal length, red time, saturation flow rates, etc. Therefore, as a result, all CO projections modeled adjacent to this intersection are assumed to be worst-case.

For the High Street intersection, the highest 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations under all conditions were projected at 4.7 and 3.3 ppm, respectively. These were under Existing (2010) and Design Year No-Build (2032).

Under all scenarios for each project location, the highest 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations are projected to be below the standards of 35 ppm and 9 ppm, respectively. Additionally, in all cases, the 1-hour CO projections are below the 8-hour standard. Therefore, since the projected 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations do not exceed the NAAQS as a result of the proposed improvements, no mitigation measures are required.

Fine Particulate Matter Analysis Particle pollution is comprised of a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the atmosphere. Particulate matter (PM) is a combination of several items including dust, dirt, soot, and smoke and can vary in size and is a NAAQS criteria pollutant. Particle pollution includes “inhalable coarse particles” with diameters larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers, PM10, and “fine particles,” with diameters 2.5 micrometers and smaller, PM2.5.

The project is located in Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, an area designated as attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, no hot-spot analysis is necessary since the area has not been identified as nonattainment or maintenance and is in compliance with the NAAQS. Furthermore, the project is not considered to be a project of air quality concern.

Mobile Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources, and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. Based on EPA requirements and FHWA and VDOT guidance on MSAT assessment, the DT portion of the project would be best characterized as “exempt” from a qualitative MSAT analysis. Based on the nature of the improvements to the MT and MLK project areas, both locations are best


characterized as “low potential MSAT effects”. All three components of the project are discussed qualitatively.

Downtown Tunnel In accordance with the Federal and State guidance, no analysis is required since the project would not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, or changes in the facility relative to the No-Build (2032) alternative. As such, FHWA has determined that the DT project would generate minimal air quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.

Midtown Tunnel and Martin Luther King Freeway In accordance with the updated guidance, these portions of the project are best characterized as a project with “low potential MSAT effects” since design year traffic is projected to be less than 140,000 to 150,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT). As a result, a qualitative assessment of emissions projections was prepared.

For the Build Alternative, the amount of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. As an alternative to VMT, ADT was determined to be an appropriate surrogate for a qualitative analysis and was recommended by VDOT staff. Because ADT on the roads within the study area is projected to be only slightly higher for the Build Alternative as compared to the No-Build Alternative, higher levels of MSAT are not expected from the Build Alternative compared to the No Build. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions would likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of the EPA’s national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations.

Under the Build Alternative there may be localized areas where VMT would increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that localized increases and decreases in MSAT emissions may occur. The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced along the new MLK Freeway Extension and at the new I-264 / MLK Freeway interchange areas. However, even if these increases do occur, they too would be substantially reduced in the future due to implementation of EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific MSAT Health Impacts Analysis

Information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.

The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts - each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevent a more complete differentiation of the


MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e. 70-year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. The results produced by the EPA’s models in forecasting MSAT emissions are highly inconsistent.

Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis.

Construction Impacts The temporary air quality impacts from construction are not expected to be significant. Emissions would be produced during the construction of this project by heavy equipment and vehicle travel to and from the site. Earthmoving and ground-disturbing operations would generate airborne dust. Construction emissions are short term or temporary in nature. The Comprehensive Agreement between VDOT and the PPTA partner on the implementation of the project would include the contractor’s responsibilities regarding construction impacts to air quality.

The project lies in an area designated by VDEQ as an emissions control area for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (9VAC5-20-206). In addition, for work in this area, the following DEQ air pollution regulations must be adhered to during the construction of this project: 9VAC 5-130, Open Burning restrictions; 9VAC 5-40-5490, Cutback Asphalt restrictions; and 9 VAC5-40-90, Fugitive Dust precautions.

Conformity Status of the Project The project has also been evaluated with respect to regional air quality concerns. The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 mandate improvements to the nation’s air quality. The final conformity regulations promulgated by the EPA in 1997, as part of 40 CFR Part 93, require that transportation plans and programs conform to the SIP. The final conformity rule requires that transportation plans in ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas are consistent with the most recent estimates of mobile source emissions; provide for the expeditious implementation of transportation control measures in the applicable implementation plan; and contribute to annual emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas.

Based on the CAAA and most recent EPA classifications, the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth have been designated as maintenance for ozone; therefore, the project is subject to regional conformity requirements. The DT-MT–MLK project was included in the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization’s (HRTPO) Transportation Conformity Analysis for the financially constrained 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) and FY 2009-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which has been found to conform to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, since the project is part of a conforming CLRP and TIP, it has met all conformity requirements as outlined by the CAAA of 1990.

Conclusions Based on the results of the air quality analysis, CO concentrations with the Build Alternative are predicted to be well below the NAAQS in both the Interim / Opening Year (2016) and Design Year (2032) conditions. Therefore, since projected CO levels are below the NAAQS under


Build conditions, no exceedances are anticipated as a result of the proposed improvements and no mitigation measures are required. Additionally, the Cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk have been designated as attainment for PM2.5, and no analysis is required as part of the air quality assessment since the project is considered exempt. The project has been determined to generate minimal air quality impacts for the CAAA criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns.

The proposed new Midtown Tunnel with its currently specified ventilation system would maintain in-tunnel CO concentrations at under 35 ppm for both routine (peak-hour traffic) and non-routine (idling traffic) worst-case conditions. Therefore, it can also be concluded that under routine non-peak hour traffic conditions, in-tunnel CO levels would be maintained at well under the 35 ppm threshold.

The project is regionally significant and regional conformity requirements apply; it originates from a regional financially constrained long-range transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program that have been found to conform to the SIP. The project completion schedule, design concept, and scope are correctly reflected in the currently conforming transportation plan and program. Finally, the project is not expected to cause or contribute to any violations of the NAAQS or to interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the applicable NAAQS.

Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Environmental Assessment Martin Luther King Freeway Extension D-1

Appendix D Section 4(f) – Elizabeth River Trail

Section 4(f) applicability Under Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303(c)), as amended by Section 6009 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may approve a transportation project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park or recreation area only if: (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and, (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) resource resulting from the use, unless the criteria for de minimis Section 4(f) involvement can be met.

The de minimis criteria include the following:

1) The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f);

2) The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource; and,

3) The official(s) with jurisdiction over the property are informed of FHWA’s intent to make the de minimis impact finding based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f).

The public is hereby notified that FHWA intends to make a de minimis finding with respect to the project’s Section 4(f) involvement with the publicly owned Elizabeth River Trail property in the City of Norfolk, subject to an opportunity for public review and comment, and contingent upon receipt of the aforementioned written concurrence from the City of Norfolk.

Elizabeth River Trail Description The Elizabeth River Trail (ERT) is a bicycle and pedestrian trail owned by the City of Norfolk. The northern terminus is at the intersection of Hampton Boulevard and Cloncurry Road (see graphics at the end of this appendix for location and extent of the trail and the project’s involvement with it). The southern terminus is Harbor Park Stadium in Downtown Norfolk. The trail runs along existing roads, sidewalks through Old Dominion University, a former Norfolk Southern Railway right of way, and sidewalks through downtown Norfolk. It is 9.8 miles in total length. Trail identification signs and wayfinding occur only sporadically along parts of the trail. Interpretive markers begin along the rail-to-trail portion in West Ghent and continue through Downtown Norfolk.

The trail connects with multiple recreational facilities within the city including: the Hermitage Museum Playground, Hermitage Museum and Gardens, Larchmont Library, Old Dominion University’s Brick Field, Old Dominion University’s Foreman Field, Bluestone Playground, Jeff Robertson Park (Blue Bird Park), Weyanoke Bird and Wildflower Sanctuary, Fergis Reid Tennis Courts, Plum Point Park, Fort Norfolk Historic District, West Freemason Street Area Historic District, Pagoda and Oriental Garden, Nauticus, Town Point Park, Portsmouth Ferry Terminal, and Harbor Park Stadium. The trail is along the main north-south sidewalk through the Old Dominion University campus and turns west along the southern edge of campus accessing the


baseball, soccer, lacrosse, and football complexes and practice fields. The southern portion of the ERT, southeast of the crossing of US 58, runs concurrently with a portion of the Cannonball Trail, a three-mile walking trail connecting landmarks within Downtown Norfolk.

Other than existing sidewalks and streets, the ERT is the city’s first large-scale pedestrian and biking facility. The trail is expected to be the backbone of future trail developments throughout its length. The current draft of the City of Norfolk Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan shows the trail terminating beyond Harbor Park Stadium at Norfolk State University.

Portions of the trail that would be impacted by the project are on land donated by the Norfolk Southern Railway Company in October 2000 (see copy of deed at end of this appendix) specifically “for a recreational pedestrian/bicycle trail for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the public….” A portion of the trail that would be affected by the project is on a permanent easement across VDOT right of way, including a section that is on the former railroad bridge across the “boat section” (the sunken portion of the roadway between the tunnel portal and the ground surface) of the MT, approximately 50 feet east of the existing MT portal.

Impacts The project includes widening US 58 by providing an additional tunnel section to the northwest of the existing tunnel to carry westbound traffic under the Elizabeth River. For the proposed new crossing, VDOT would acquire the land required for construction of the tunnel, the approach roadway, and access road. Approximately 0.116 acres would be acquired. The existing trail within the acquisition would be demolished to make way for the new construction. The trail would then be replaced on a permanent easement in a manner similar to the existing permanent easement. The portion of trail across the boat section of the new tunnel approach roadway would be on a bridge. The existing bridge over the existing tunnel boat section would be replaced as well. Additionally, the grade of the trail would be raised several feet. Further, a 10-inch waterline and a 4-inch sewer force main would be installed as part of the fire suppression system and utility adjustments; these would be turned over to the City of Norfolk for operation and maintenance. For safety concerns and to facilitate construction, the trail would be relocated during construction. Upon completion, the ERT would continue to be used as a recreational pedestrian/bicycle trail for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the public.

Measures to Minimize Harm Even though land would be acquired from the ERT and a permanent easement granted to the ERT, the project would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities of the ERT. The ERT would be diverted from its existing route to a separate route that already appears as a part of the ERT in the City of Norfolk Recreation, Parks and Open Space Master Plan. The trail would remain along the Elizabeth River in West Ghent and the Hague and connect to the main route in Freemason at the underpass of the ERT under Brambleton Avenue. The new bridge over the new tunnel portal area and the replacement bridge over the existing tunnel portal area would be designed to have an appearance similar to other nearby bridges on the trail (e.g., the bridge railings).

Coordination Coordination with the City of Norfolk, including the City Trail Committee, has been ongoing throughout the DT/MT/MLK Freeway Extension project development process. The City has agreed to lengthen the crossing of US 58. City of Norfolk representatives have indicated that the project as currently proposed, with further mitigating design details to be developed as the project goes forward to final design, would not adversely affect the ERT or its recreational functions. Formal written concurrence from the City of Norfolk to this effect is being sought by


VDOT. VDOT will continue to coordinate with the City of Norfolk representatives to ensure the incorporation of project features that would minimize harm to ERT property and the trail itself.

Conclusion There would be no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts and no interference with the purpose of the ERT or the activities along it. The nature and magnitude of changes to the trail would not permanently diminish the function or appearance of the trail. The land disturbed by construction would be fully restored. Therefore, the impacts are not adverse to the ERT. Based on the above, subject to an opportunity for public review and comment, and contingent upon receipt of the aforementioned written concurrence from the City, FHWA intends to make a Section 4(f) finding of de minimis impact for the ERT.


Appendix E Cultural Resources Management Summary

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Downtown Tunnel – Midtown Tunnel – Martin Luther King (MLK) Freeway Extension

(DT-MT-MLK) PPTA Project VDOT Project Nos. 0058-965-102, P101; 0058-965-107, P101

UPC 76642 VDHR File No. 2007-0602

Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth 1. Project Description The Downtown Tunnel/Midtown Tunnel/Martin Luther King (MLK) Freeway Extension (DT-MT-MLK) Public-Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Project consists of transportation improvements in the Cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth. The overall project is comprised of several component parts, which have been individually reviewed per the Section 106 process, but have been consolidated to be administered as a PPTA project. The proposed project is intended to increase capacity, reduce congestion, and provide safe and efficient operations; develop a multi-modal transportation facility that may be integrated into the operations of a regional transportation network; and coordinate with adjacent land uses and support the anticipated growth in personal and commercial traffic. The Midtown Tunnel project consists of modifications to the existing tunnel and construction of a new immersed tube tunnel under the Elizabeth River, running parallel to the existing Midtown Tunnel; maintenance and safety improvements to the existing Midtown Tunnel; and minor modifications to the interchange at Brambleton Avenue/Hampton Boulevard in Norfolk. The Downtown Tunnel on I-264 crosses the southern branch of the Elizabeth River and links the City of Portsmouth with the City of Norfolk. Improvements anticipated at the Downtown Tunnel include safety, lighting, ventilation, and signage, as well as cosmetic and traffic management elements. No improvements outside the footprint of the existing Downtown Tunnel are anticipated. The MLK Freeway Extension consists of extending the existing freeway south from its current terminus at London Boulevard to a new interchange at Interstate 264. An interchange from the Martin Luther King Freeway at High Street also will be constructed. 2. NEPA/Administrative History On November 8, 1996, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Route 58/ Midtown Tunnel Project was approved and a Record of Decision (ROD) was issued March 17, 1997. On May 9, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) completed a re-evaluation of the EIS previously prepared for the project and concluded that a supplemental EIS would not be required. A revised ROD was issued on July 10, 2007 for location approval of remaining segments to be constructed for the Midtown Tunnel. In 2008, an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation was prepared for the MLK Freeway Extension project and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued on February 26, 2009. In 2009, Programmatic Categorical Exclusions were prepared for the Downtown Tunnel, Midtown Tunnel, and Hampton Boulevard/Brambleton Avenue Interchange projects.

1

The proposed PPTA project is composed of various component projects that have independently been reviewed for Section 106 compliance. A review of the Section 106 compliance process for each component of the overall project is provided in the next section.

3. Cultural Resource Studies The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has completed efforts to identify affected historic properties for the DT-MT-MLK Project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800. Cultural resource investigations associated with proposed transportation studies for the Midtown Tunnel and MLK Freeway Extension project were undertaken during the late 1980s. At the time, the projects were reviewed as independent projects. Currently, the three projects are combined as the DT-MT-MLK Project. Downtown Tunnel Based upon background research and field investigations, it was determined that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed Downtown Tunnel project. As a result, in 2009, it was determined by the FHWA that the subject project met the criteria for Programmatic Categorical Exclusions. Midtown Tunnel During the late 1980s, several cultural resource surveys were undertaken for the proposed Midtown Tunnel project, then known as the Route 58/Midtown Tunnel (Including Pinners Point Interchange) project. In 1991, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by the FHWA, VDOT, Virginia SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The MOA addressed impacts of the Pinners Point Interchange (since constructed) on the Port Norfolk Historic District (124-0051). The MOA did not include any stipulations for the Midtown Tunnel component of the project, reflecting the fact that there were no effects on historic properties for that component. In 2000, the VDOT conducted a cultural resource survey as part of the Pinners Point Sewage Treatment Plan (VDHR File No. 116 PM/NR), which encompasses the study area for the Pinners Point Interchange (since constructed) for the Route 58/Midtown Tunnel project. In 2009, it was determined by the FHWA that proposed safety and operations improvements for the existing Midtown Tunnel project would not result in effects to any historic properties and the subject project met the criteria established for Programmatic Categorical Exclusions. In June 2010, a Phase I architecture survey was conducted by the VDOT in response to modifications in the vicinity of the Brambleton Avenue interchange, as part of the DT-MT-MLK Project. The Phase I was undertaken by VDOT staff and two (2) properties 50 years or older were identified within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) established for the Midtown Tunnel project: Metro Machine Shop (122-5424) and Cooper Vision (122-5425). The Virginia SHPO concurred on June 29, 2010 that both properties were not individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor were they contributing resources to any potential historic district. Martin Luther King Freeway Extension Project The Section 106 review process has been completed for the proposed MLK Freeway Extension project through the implementation of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between FHWA,

2

VDOT, and Virginia SHPO. As noted in the PA, cultural resource studies for the MLK Freeway Extension were completed through the preparation of the Cultural Resource Survey: Archaeological and Architectural Surveys, Route 58, Martin Luther King Freeway Extension Project, City of Portsmouth, Virginia (McCormick Taylor, Inc. 2007). Investigations identified four (4) properties eligible for or listed in the NRHP were identified within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) established for the proposed project: Calvary Baptist Church (124-5129), Mt. Calvary Cemetery (124-5125)/Mount Olive Cemetery Potter’s Field (44MP0062), and Cottage Place Neighborhood Historic District (124-5124). The PA established stipulations to take into account the effects of the proposed project on historic properties. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act was executed on December 11, 2008 between the FHWA, the Virginia SHPO, and the VDOT for the MLK Freeway project. The MOA provided stipulations to mitigate for effects of the proposed project and provide minimization efforts to avoid adverse effect. On December 3, 2009, the VDOT submitted recordation documentation of all properties located within the Cottage Place Neighborhood Historic District, including completion of reconnaissance level DSS forms, black and white photographs, site plans, contact sheets, and reference mapping as part of mitigation proposed in the MOA. Minimization measures included the inspection of the Calvary Baptist Church prior to construction activities to ensure the maintenance of the property’s current condition, design changes to eliminate all ground disturbances within the boundaries of the Mount Calvary Cemetery Complex, and the erection of safety fencing along the boundaries of the Mount Calvary Cemetery Complex prior to construction. The VDOT has instituted the minimization measures regarding the Calvary Baptist Church and Mount Olive Cemetery Potter’s Field as stipulated in the MOA. 4. Project Modifications Project modifications for each of the three component parts of the overall DT-MT-MLK Project have been proposed since the completion of the Section 106 process, Environmental Assessment (EA), and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Project modifications at the Downtown Tunnel include safety, lighting, ventilation, signage, as well as cosmetic and traffic management elements. Tolls will be imposed to fund the improvements for the DT-MT-MLK Project. No improvements outside the footprint of the existing Downtown Tunnel are anticipated. The Midtown Tunnel will require a new curvilinear alignment due to the depth of dredging. The parallel alignment presented for the new tunnel sections in 1996 and 2007 cannot be realized without compromising the structural integrity of the existing tunnel. Consequently, a new curvilinear alignment will be required. While the approaches and tunnel portals will not materially change, the curvilinear alignment between portals will increase the dredging “footprint,” but still remain within the previous APE. The VDOT cultural resource staff has carefully examined the previous underwater assessment for the Midtown Tunnel and concluded that no additional work is necessary for tunnel alignment changes since the assessment covered a sufficient area to reach that conclusion. Also, VDOT cultural resource staff has examined the archaeological record for those areas on land where minor modifications to the tunnel

3

approaches may be constructed and concluded that such areas are likely to be disturbed in a manner consistent with previous findings and that no additional work is required. Improvements to the Norfolk Interchange (Brambleton Avenue and Hampton Boulevard) will include minor geometric modifications within the existing interchange, and the existing access road must be relocated as the new two-lane westbound approach will be constructed at the location of the existing access road. Additional project improvements include the introduction of tolling to fund the improvements for the Project. Currently, there are no tolls on the existing tunnel facilities. Other changes to the MT include changes in time of year restrictions, dredging practices, dredge material disposal, ventilation, tunnel construction techniques, dredge material estimates, relocation of utilities and sewer lines, and integration of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). The proposed modifications will not affect any historic properties and it was therefore concluded that no further studies would be required. Modifications to the MLK Freeway Extension project include vertical and horizontal geometry changes, including an increase in vertical clearance for the MLK crossing of the CSX railroad yard. The current proposal assumes an integrated ITS for the MLK Freeway Extension project. The proposed modifications will not affect any additional historic properties, and it was therefore concluded that no further studies would be required. 5. Conclusions Cultural resource investigations have concluded for each of the component parts of the DT-MT-MLK Project, including project modifications. Subsequent investigations have determined that the level of effort in identifying historic properties for each of the component projects has been adequately addressed, and no further investigations are required. No historic properties were determined to be affected as part of the Downtown Tunnel or Midtown Tunnel projects. The MLK Freeway Extension project was determined to have effects on historic properties as described elsewhere in this Management Summary. The VDOT, in consultation with the Virginia SHPO and other parties, has implemented most of the commitments defined in the Section 106 PA and will complete all remaining mitigation measures. No further work is necessary beyond the commitments defined in the PA.

4

Documents

DT-MT-MLK EA rev3-23-11 - Elizabeth River Tunnels · The tolling system would utilize time-of-day congestion pricing that promotes congestion relief at peak periods, while also providing