Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement...Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement Hampton...

Hampton Roads Crossing Study

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

AASHTO SCOE/SCOD Joint Meeting | July 2017

Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement

Hampton Roads Crossing Study (HRCS)Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

July 20, 2017

Angel Deem, VDOTEric Almquist, RK&K



2

HRCS HISTORY

• 1991: Initial Federal funding

• 1997: I-64 Crossing Major Investment Study completed

• October 1999: HRCS Draft EIS published

• March 2001: HRCS Final EIS published

• June 2001: Record of Decision (ROD) issued for HRCS

• 2003: P3 proposal; Revised ROD

• 2012: HRBT Draft EIS published

• 2013: NEPA re-evaluation

• July 2015: Supplemental EIS




3

Funding

• Hampton Roads Transportation Fund

• Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission (HRTAC)

• Authorized to use HRTF monies and tolls for new construction projects

• Regional collaboration with Transportation Planning Organization

• Approximately $4 Billion identified for preferred alternative

Public is ready to move forward…




4

Supplemental EIS

• VDOT’s charge:• Revisit the EIS from 2001

• Identify a preferred alternative that USACE would agree is permittable

• Get approval from Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) within 18 months

• Obtain Record of Decision within 2 years

• Notice of Intent issued: July 2015

• ROD issued: June 2017




5

Study Area

MARYLAND

WESTVIRGINIA

VIRGINIA


NEWPORTNEWS

HAMPTON

SUFFOLK

NORFOLK

PORTSMOUTH

CHESAPEAKE



6

Purpose and Need

• Accommodate travel demand

• Improve transit access

• Increase regional accessibility

• Address geometric deficiencies

• Enhance emergency evacuation capability

• Improve strategic military connectivity

• Increase access to port facilities




7

Commonwealth Transportation Board | September 2016

Alternative A

• Includes improvements to I-64 between I-664 and I-564

• Widen I-64 to a consistent six-lane facility




8


Alternative B

• Same improvements considered under Alternative A

• Extend I-564 across the Elizabeth River with a new bridge-tunnel

• Construct new facility along the east side of Craney Island and widen Route 164




9


Alternative C

• Widen I-664

• Extend I-564 across the Elizabeth River with a new bridge-tunnel

• Construct new facility along the east side of Craney Island


* Selected Alternative from 2001 ROD



10


Alternative D

• Includes all sections considered in other alternatives




11

Community and Agency Involvement

Public

• Regionally important project

• Population – 1.7 million

• Issues broadly understood

• Familiarity with past studies

• Understanding of previous alternatives

Agency

• 60 agencies involved with scoping

• Federal Cooperating agencies:

•US Army Corps of Engineers

•US Coast Guard

•US EPA

• Federal Transit Administration

•Natl Marine Fisheries Service

•US Navy

Local Government

• 7 separate jurisdictions•City of Hampton

•City of Newport News

•City of Norfolk

•City of Portsmouth

•City of Suffolk

•City of Chesapeake

•City of Virginia Beach




12

Public Involvement

• Citizen Information Meetings – July 2015 and December 2015

• Location Public Hearings – September 2016




13

Public Involvement Schedule

• June 2015: Study initiated

• June 2015: Notice of Intent / Property owner letters mailed

• July 2015: Public Meetings / Scoping comment period

• December 2015: Public Meetings / Alternatives comment period

• August 2016: Draft SEIS / 45-day public comment period

• September 2016: Location Public Hearing

• December 2016: Commonwealth Transportation Board – Pref Alternative

• April 2017: Final SEIS / 30-day review period

• June 2017: FHWA Record of Decision




14

Key Stakeholders

• Informed and engaged

• Coordination and commitments to avoid:• Major ROW impact

• Historic Properties

• Military bases

• Parks

• Maintain flexibility for design / construction




15

Agency Coordination Plan

• Targeted scoping approach

• Concurrence milestones• Purpose and Need

• Retained Alternatives

• Preferred Alternative

• Incorporated concurrence steps for NEPA/Section 404




16

Environmental / Scoping


• Socioeconomic resources

• Historic properties

• Section 4(f)

• Wetlands

• Wildlife / T&E Species

• Hazardous Materials

• Noise

• Air Quality



17

Environmental Methodology

• Incorporated technical information directly from agencies into SEIS

• Obtained early methodology concurrence for:• Environmental Justice

• Indirect and Cumulative Effects

• WOUS / Wetlands

• Hydrodynamics



18

Local Governments

• City of Hampton

• City of Newport News

• City of Norfolk

• City of Portsmouth

• City of Suffolk

• City of Chesapeake

• City of Virginia Beach


NEWPORTNEWS

NORFOLK

PORTSMOUTH

CHESAPEAKE

VIRGINIABEACH

HAMPTON

SUFFOLK



19

Local Governments

• 14 meetings with• HRTPO / HRTAC• Local City Councils and Boards

• Open, collaborative approach• Meetings open to public• Presentations saved on website• Close relationship with VDOT District

• Inclusion as NEPA Cooperating Agencies

• Used concurrent materials from other agency/public meetings



20


Selected Alternative

• Refined from Alternative A

• $3.3 Billion Cost Estimate from Final SEIS

• Concurrence from USACE: likely the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) per Section 404




21

A Region Comes Together


• Unanimous agreement from regional officials

• Commonwealth Transportation Board approval

• VDOT advancing next steps toward design, construction



22

Thank you

Eric Almquist

Senior Manager, Transportation

RK&K

[email protected]

410-462-9135


Angel Deem

State Environmental Division Director

Virginia Department of Transportation

[email protected]

804-371-6756

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement...Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement Hampton...

Documents

Transcript of Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement...Accelerated Community and Agency Involvement Hampton...