U.S. 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW -BOTETOURT COUNTY- Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission June 2008 Acknowledgements

ROANOKE VALLEY AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) POLICY BOARD David Trinkle, Chair Billy Martin, Sr.

Richard Flora, Vice Chair Joe McNamara

Doug Adams J. Lee E. Osborne

Richard Caywood Howard Packett

Tony Cho Melinda Payne

Unwanna Bellinger Dabney Tom Rotenberry

Suzanne Lee Farmer Jackie Shuck

Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Ron Smith

William E. Holdren, Jr. Dave Wheeler

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Wayne G. Strickland

PROJECT TEAM Matthew Rehnborg Jake Gilmer

This report was prepared by the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Or- ganization (RVAMPO) in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation (VDOT). The contents of this report refl ect the views of the staff of the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO staff is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The con- tents do not necessarily refl ect the offi cial views or policies of the FHWA, VDOT, or RVARC. This report does not constitute a standard, specifi cation, or regulation. FHWA or VDOT acceptance of this report as evidence of fulfi llment of the objectives of this planning study does not constitute endorsement/approval of the need for any recommended improvements nor does it constitute approval of their location and design or a commitment to fund any such improvements. Additional project level environmental impact assessments and/or studies of alternatives may be nec- essary.

2 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1: TRAFFIC INFORMATION...... 5

Overview...... 6

Vehicle Type and Traffi c Volume...... 9

Accidents...... 13

Bridge Conditions...... 14

CHAPTER 2: LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT...... 17

Daleville...... 18

Rural Botetourt County...... 19

Future Land Use...... 21

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING...... 23

Non-motorized Facilities...... 24

Schools...... 25

Historic Resources...... 25

Endangered Species...... 26

Water Resources...... 27

Wetlands...... 29

TABLES

Table 1- Road Characteristics...... 8

Table 2- Current Traffi c Volumes...... 10

Table 3- Projected Traffi c Volumes...... 11

Table 4- Accident Data...... 13

Table 5- Bridge Conditions...... 15

Table 6- Culvert Conditions...... 15

MAPS

Map 1- Traffi c Information...... 12

Map 2- Current Zoning...... 20

Map 3- Southern Botetourt County Environmental Screening...... 31

Map 4- Northern Botetourt County Environmental Screening...... 32 4 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 TRAFFIC INFORMATION 1

US 220 IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE in connecti ng the localiti es of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region. Within the region, it extends through Franklin County, Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, Botetourt County, Clift on Forge, Covington, and Alleghany County. US 220 conti nues be- yond the region, from North Carolina all the way to the State of New York, with a total length of over 600 miles. The purpose of the US 220 Corridor Review is to collect data and infor- mati on for Botetourt County and the Virginia Department of Trans- portati on (VDOT) to use in their planning process. It examines the Botetourt County porti on of US 220, from I-81 to the Alleghany County line. The informati on col- lected will be used in developing the Botetourt County Comprehen- sive Plan and ‘Purpose and Need” statements for VDOT projects along the corridor. Environmental screen- ing data contained in the Review will also help VDOT identi fy issues early in the planning process that may need to be addressed under provisions of the Nati onal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Overview Botetourt County, Virginia’s highway transportation is served by three primary north-south routes. Two of these, Interstate 81 and U.S. Route 11, have close parallel routes that travel in a north-easterly di- rection from Roanoke County in the south to Rockbridge County in the north. The third, U.S. 220, also enters from Roanoke County in the south, at which point its route uses the I-81 corridor. Approximately three miles to the north of the Roanoke County border, at Exit 150, its route diverts from I-81 and travels north to Alleghany County.

This corridor review will focus on U.S. 220 beginning at a southern point of I-81 Exit 150 and terminating at a northern point of the Alleghany County border. In addition to its importance as a transportation corridor within Botetourt County, this section of U.S. 220 is a popular link between I-64 at Clifton Forge, Virginia (ap- proximately three miles north of the Alleghany/Botetourt bor- der) and I-81.

A brief description of the physical characteristics of the road is provided below. This data is summarized in Table 1. The sections presented in this document are unof- fi cial and have only been created for the purposes of this project.

I-81 EXIT 150 TO ROUTE 779N

Beginning at I-81 Exit 150 and traveling north, the initial 1.67 miles of U.S. 220 are classifi ed by the Federal Functional Classifi cation system as “Urban: Other Principle Arterial.” As its route diverts from I-81, the road has been given six lanes to accom- modate the traffi c that is merging from and exiting to I-81 at Exit 150. After less than .3 miles, however, the road is reduced to four lanes. The average lane width fl uctu- ates between 11 and 12 feet. The shoulders in this section have a gravel surface and a minimum width of 8 feet—with the exception of the initial six-lane portion, through which the shoulders have a width of six feet.

The speed limit is 35 mph during the six lane portion and increases to 45 mph after the road decreases to four lanes. A depressed median is present throughout. There are two traffi c sig- nals in this section. The fi rst is locat- ed at the intersection of U.S. 220 and Commons Parkway/ Wesley Road. The second is located at the intersec- U.S. 220 at Commons Parkway/Wesley Road tion with Route 779 North, otherwise known as Catawba Road. This inter-

6 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 section also marks the end of the section in which U.S. 220 has a functional classifi ca- tion of “Urban: Other Principle Arterial.”

ROUTE 779N TO FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA

North of the Route 779N intersection, U.S. 220 is functionally classifi ed as “Other Principle Arterial.” It stays in this classifi cation for the remainder of the studied corridor. Over the next 6.57 miles, the road continues as a four lane highway with a depressed median. Again, the average lane width fl uctuates between 11 and 12 feet. The shoulders have a gravel surface and a typical width of 6 to 10 feet. It should be noted, however, that about one-third of this section of the road has a shoulder width of 2 to 4 feet. The speed limit is 55 mph throughout. There are no traffi c signals in this section or any of the remaining sections along the studied corridor.

FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA

At the end of the second section, U.S. 220 enters the town of Fincastle. While in the town’s lim- its, the road is a four lane, undivided highway with curb and gutter shoulders. The average lane width in this section is 12 feet. The speed limit is decreased to 45 mph.

Entering Fincastle, Virginia from the south FINCASTLE, VIRGINIA TO STATE ROUTE 43Y

After the road leaves the town of Fincastle, it again becomes a four-lane divided highway with a depressed median. It remains this way for the next 11.2 miles. The average lane width again fl uctuates between 11 and 12 feet. The shoulders have a gravel surface, but have, on average, a narrower width than those along previous sections of the road. Most have a width of 2 to 6 feet. The speed limit in this section increases back to 55 mph.

STATE ROUTE 43Y TO 1.14 MILES NORTH OF ROUTE 696 NORTH

U.S. 220 is reduced from a four lane to a two lane highway shortly after its intersec- tion with State Route 43Y. The average lane width remains between 11 and 12 feet for the fi rst 4.84 miles of this section. The lane width then decreases to an average of 10 feet for the remaining 5.69 miles. The shoulders of both sections have a gravel surface and vary in width between 3 and 8 feet. The speed limit remains at 55 mph.

1.14 MILES NORTH OF ROUTE 696 NORTH TO ALLEGHANY COUNTY LINE

The fi nal 1.57 miles of U.S. 220 in Botetourt County pass through the rural residential ar- eas around the community of Iron Gate. The road is a two lane highway with 12 foot lanes and 3 foot gravel shoulders. The speed limit decreases to 40 mph in this section.

U.S. 220 north of State Route 43Y

CHAPTER 1 •TRAFFIC INFORMATION• 7 Table 1: Road Characteristics Lane Width Shoulder Speed Limit From To Lanes Median (ft.) Surface (mph) RTE 779 I-81 4 to 6 11 to 12 Gravel 35 to 45 Depressed North RTE 779 RTE 1211 4 11 to 12 Gravel 55 Depressed North Curb and RTE 1211 RTE 1204 4 12 45 None Gutter RTE 1204 RTE 43Y 4 11 to 12 Gravel 55 Depressed 1.14 Mi N RTE 43Y 2 10 to 12 Gravel 55 None RTE 696N 1.14 Mi N Alleghany CL 2 12 Gravel 40 None RTE 696N Source: Statewide Planning System. Virginia Transportation and Mobility Planning Division. Richmond, 2007.

8 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Vehicle Type and Traffic Volume

CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUME

In order to examine current traffi c conditions, 2006 Average Annual Daily Traffi c volumes (AADT), truck percentages, and 2005 Vehicles per Hour (VPH) statistics for U.S. 220 were obtained from VDOT. VDOT has broken the studied corridor down into 24 sections and has provided traffi c information for each section. This informa- tion is presented in Table 2.

Recorded traffi c volumes were highest at the southern end of the studied corridor and decreased sequentially as the study progressed to the north. The recorded vol- umes ranged from almost 25,000 vehicles per day immediately north of I-81 to about 6,300 vehicles per day south of the Alleghany County line. Trucks were reported to constitute 8% of the total traffi c throughout the entire corridor.

FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

VDOT uses historic traffi c-count information to chart traffi c levels and determine average annual growth rates along each studied section of roadway. By applying the resulting growth rate to their latest traffi c information, they are able to project future traffi c volumes.

Using the 2005 AADT counts and this annual growth rate, linear projections were used to estimate traffi c volumes along U.S. 220 in 2035. Annual growth rates were reported to be between 1.5% and 2.5% along most of the corridor. This information is available in Table 3.

Although these fi gures are not intended to be used as precise forecasts, the data can and should be used to identify broad trends in the expected traffi c volumes. Be- tween I-81 Exit 150 and Route 779, it would be reasonable to expect AADT volumes to approach 35,000 or 40,000 vehicles in 2035. Between Route 779 and Fincastle, this range will drop to 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles. Between Fincastle and State Route 43Y (at which point U.S. 220 currently decreases to two lanes), expected levels will be between 10,000 and 15,000 vehicles. Finally, between State Route 43Y and Alleghany County, the 2035 AADT range can be expected to be between 8,000 and 10,000 ve- hicles.

Current and future traffi c volumes for U.S. 220 are also shown on Map 1. This map identifi es the approximate locations at which the counts were recorded. In addi- tion to traffi c count information, 2005 Level of Service (LOS) data for U.S. 220 is also

CHAPTER 1 •TRAFFIC INFORMATION• 9 presented. “Level of Service” is a rating that is used to describe a road’s ability to accommodate the amount and type of traffi c that normally uses it. These ratings range from A (highest) to F (lowest). Most sections of U.S. 220 in the studied corridor received a rating between A and C in 2005.

Table 2: Current Traffi c Volumes From To 2006 AADT Truck % (VDOT) 2005 VPH I-81 .07 miles N I-81 24,589 8% 2,198 .07 miles N I-81 RTE 816 24,589 8% 2,210 RTE 816 RTE 779 North 24,589 8% 2,285 RTE 779 North RTE 720 15,078 8% 1,367 RTE 720 RTE 673 15,078 8% 1,251 RTE 673 .12 mi N RTE 670N 15,078 8% 1,296 .12 mi N RTE 670N .36 mi N RTE 670N 11,326 8% 1,321 .36 mi N RTE 670N .56 mi N RTE 670N 11,326 8% 1,321 .56 mi N RTE 670N RTE 676 11,326 8% 1,157 RTE 676 RTE 728 11,326 8% 1,157 RTE 728 RTE 1211 11,326 8% 1,157 RTE 1211 RTE T-630 11,326 8% 1,205 RTE T-630 RTE 1204 10,044 8% 745 RTE 1204 RTE 681 10,044 8% 753 RTE 681 RTE 744 7,307 8% 574 RTE 744 1.21 mi N RTE 695 7,307 8% 574 1.21 mi N RTE 695 RTE 662 7,307 8% 564 RTE 662 RTE 43Y 7,307 8% 564 RTE 43Y RTE 615 6,460 8% 532 RTE 615 RTE 43 6,598 8% 466 RTE 43 1.03 MI N RTE 43 6,281 8% 501 1.03 MI N RTE 43 RTE 622N 6,281 8% 501 RTE 622N 1.14 Mi N RTE 696N 6,281 8% 495 1.14 Mi N RTE 696N Alleghany CL 6,281 8% 495 Source: Statewide Planning System. Virginia Transportation and Mobility Planning Division. Richmond, 2007.

10 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Table 3: Projected Traffi c Volumes Projected 2035 From To 2006 AADT Annual Growth Rate AADT (Linear Analysis) I-81 .07 miles N I-81 24,589 1.37% 34,475 .07 miles N I-81 RTE 816 24,589 1.78% 37,646 RTE 816 RTE 779 North 24,589 2.44% 44,008 RTE 779 North RTE 720 15,078 1.22% 22,781 RTE 720 RTE 673 15,078 1.26% 21,043 RTE 673 .12 mi N RTE 670N 15,078 2.37% 27,043 .12 mi N RTE 670N .36 mi N RTE 670N 11,326 1.86% 20,984 .36 mi N RTE 670N .56 mi N RTE 670N 11,326 1.86% 20,984 .56 mi N RTE 670N RTE 676 11,326 1.81% 18,216 RTE 676 RTE 728 11,326 1.81% 18,216 RTE 728 RTE 1211 11,326 1.81% 18,216 RTE 1211 RTE T-630 11,326 2.53% 21,608 RTE T-630 RTE 1204 10,044 2.14% 15,103 RTE 1204 RTE 681 10,044 2.35% 15,846 RTE 681 RTE 744 7,307 1.85% 11,301 RTE 744 1.21 mi N RTE 695 7,307 1.85% 11,301 1.21 mi N RTE 695 RTE 662 7,307 1.69% 10,760 RTE 662 RTE 43Y 7,307 1.69% 10,760 RTE 43Y RTE 615 6,460 1.6% 10,363 RTE 615 RTE 43 6,598 1.39% 9,175 RTE 43 1.03 MI N RTE 43 6,281 1.7% 9,960 1.03 MI N RTE 43 RTE 622N 6,281 1.7% 9,960 1.14 Mi N RTE RTE 622N 6,281 1.49% 9,429 696N 1.14 Mi N RTE Alleghany CL 6,281 1.49% 9,429 696N Source: Statewide Planning System. Virginia Transportation and Mobility Planning Division. Richmond, 2007.

CHAPTER 1 •TRAFFIC INFORMATION• 11 Map 1: Traffi c Information

12 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Accidents Most of the accidents on US 220 that have been recorded during the most recent three-year period (2004-2006) are concentrated in the southern third of the corridor, near Daleville. Excerpted from VDOT accident data, Table 4 shows the locations along 220 that had at least 3 accidents or injuries during 2004 to 2006. At the time of this Review, information such as the type of collision or conditions was not readily available for each of the accidents.

Table 4: Accident Data Accidents People Injured Intersection 2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 I-81 SB Exit Ramp 1 1 3 Tinker Mountain Rd. 2 2 3 2 3 Stonedale Dr. 1 6 5 Valley Rd. 4 3 3 3 1 Catawba Rd. 1 1 1 4 Greenfield St. 4 1 2 3 1 Ashley Rd. 1 2 4 Country Club Rd. 1 1 4 Vine St. 2 3 Roanoke St. 1 3 Prices Bluff Rd. 2 1 1 2 10th St. 1 1 3 Source: Statewide Planning System. Virginia Transportation and Mobility Planning Division. Richmond, 2007.

CHAPTER 1 •TRAFFIC INFORMATION• 13 Part Four: Bridge Conditions Eleven bridges, as shown in Table 5, are identifi ed on U.S. 220 in the studied corridor. They vary in length from 18 feet to over 1,000 feet (Bridge 1021, south of Iron Gate, Virginia). Although none of these bridges were identifi ed as being structurally defi - cient in their latest inspections, four were classifi ed as functionally obsolete. These bridges, according to their Virginia Structure Numbers, are:

-Bridge 1071, passing over Big Creek

-Bridge 1072, passing over Big Creek

-Bridge 1075, passing over a sea- sonal stream and cattle pass

-Bridge 1076, passing over a branch of the James River

The Virginia Department of Transportation provides the Va Structure 1021 crossing CSX Railroad, the James River, and Route 700 following defi nition for a func- tionally obsolete bridge:

“A functionally obsolete bridge is one that was built to standards that are not used to- day. These bridges are not automatically rated as structurally defi cient, nor are they inherently unsafe. Functionally obsolete bridges are those that do not have adequate lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances to serve current traffi c demand, or those that may be occasionally fl ooded. “

In addition to these bridges, the Virginia Department identifi es sixteen large culverts in the studied corridor. Information about these culverts is presented in Table 6. None of the culverts were reported to have structural or functional defi ciencies in their most recent inspections.

14 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Table 5: Bridge Conditions Va. Struc- Length Year Deck Super Sub Sufficiency Functionally Crossing ture No. (ft.) Built Condition* Condition* Condition* Rating Obsolete 1022 132 Sinking Creek 1981 7 7 7 83.2 1123 212 Catawba Creek 1978 7 7 7 99.6 1076 18 Branch of James River 1932 6 6 7 65.7 FO 1026 212 Catawba Creek 1979 7 7 7 99.4 James River, CSX RR, 1021 1005 1992 6 7 7 82.6 Rte 700 1023 152 Mill Creek 1980 7 7 7 83.2 1017 523 Craig Creek 1979 6 5 7 88.5 1071 18 Big Creek 1932 6 5 6 53.9 FO 1072 22 Big Creek 1932 5 5 6 53.9 FO Seasonal Stream and 1075 18 1932 6 6 5 47.5 FO Cattle Pass James River and CSX 1083 815 1979 7 5 7 87.4 RR Source: “Bridge and Culvert Conditions: Salem District.” Virginia Department of Transportation. 2008. Table 6: Culvert Conditions Year Built/ Recon- Va. Structure No. Crossing Culvert Condition* Sufficiency Rating structed 1059 Branch of James River 1979 7 95.2 1064 Stream 1989 7 84.1 1077 Branch of James River 1932 7 83.9 1082 Branch and Cattle Pass 1932/ 1986 8 69.9 1086 Slate Branch 1980 7 98.9 Branch of Catawba 1087 1980 6 84.1 Creek Branch of Catawba 1090 1979 6 85 Creek 1097 Branch 1932 7 0 1098 Branch 1932 7 84 1120 Buffalo Creek 1963/ 1987 6 80.6 1084 Branch and Cattle Pass 1980/ 1990 7 84.3 1074 Cattle Pass 1932 8 81.9 1025 Lapsley Run 1983 7 83.7 Branch of Catawba 1088 1980 7 83.2 Creek 1060 Branch of James River 1979 7 95.3 1124 Slate Branch 1980 7 98.9 Source: “Bridge and Culvert Conditions: Salem District.” Virginia Department of Transportation. 2008. *Condition ratings range from 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent) CHAPTER 1 •TRAFFIC INFORMATION• 15 16 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT 2

FEW FACTORS HAVE MORE INFLUENCE on a roadway than its sur- rounding land uses. They play a large role in determining the type and amount of traffi c that will use the road, as well as the need for traffi c safety and control measures. In this corridor of U.S. Route 220, the surround- ing land use can reasonably be conceptualized in two secti ons. The fi rst secti on is the area around the communiti es of Daleville and Am- sterdam, which will collecti vely be referred to here-in as “Daleville.” The land use around Da- leville is primarily suburban in nature. The second secti on, which contains the majority of the corridor, encompasses the area between Daleville and Alleghany County. This area will be referred to as “Rural Botetourt County.” The land use in this secti on is primarily agricultural and rural residenti al.

Aerial view of U.S. 220 in Daleville, Virginia Daleville

BUSINESS PROPERTIES

Nearly all of the properties with frontage along U.S. 220 in this section are devel- oped or are zoned for development as a “business” or “shopping center.” Most are classifi ed as B1 or B2, which, according to the Botetourt County Zoning Code, are intended to be small and mid-sized businesses, respectively. These businesses are not expected to generate large amounts of traffi c by themselves. Almost all have individual driveways with direct access to U.S. 220. A depressed median is located directly across from most of these driveways, thus eliminating left-turning move- ments in or out of the parking lots.

A large shopping center is located on the north-west corner of the intersection of U.S. 220 and Commons Parkway/Wesley Road. This center has one driveway with direct access to U.S. 220, but a solid median across from the driveway limits this ac- cess point to cars that are coming or going in the southbound lanes of the road. A second driveway for the shopping center provides access to Commons Parkway. This driveway indirectly serves as the access point for vehicles coming or going on the northbound lanes of U.S. 220.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

Several large residential subdivisions have been developed on the land that is adja- cent to the aforementioned business properties. According to the 2000 Census, 467 single family homes were located in the community of Daleville. Considering the age of the data and the fact that the census designated boundaries of Daleville do not include all the subdivisions in the area, the current total number of homes is likely to be greater than that reported number. Very few, if any, residential homes have been given direct driveway access to U.S. 220. Instead, the subdivisions provide a series of arterial and collector roads that offer neighborhood residents one or two access points to U.S. 220. When major collector streets intersect U.S. 220, a brief section of paved median is created to allow left turns in and out of the subdivisions. These in- tersections typically provide designated turning lanes on the shoulder and/or in the median of the road to allow cars to safely decelerate to a proper turning speed.

In addition to traditional “suburban” neighborhoods, there are two large “communi- ty-oriented” residential developments on the west side of U.S. 220 in Daleville. One, which opened in 2005 on the north side Glebe Road, is a large retirement community known as “The Glebe.” The Glebe offers traditional nursing home and assisted- living accommodations, as well as independent apartments and cottages. The main entrance to The Glebe is located on Glebe Road. There is one access road that con- nects directly to U.S. 220, but it is only used for emergencies.

The second development, entitled “The Daleville Town Center,” is currently under construction on a 118 acre property directly south of The Glebe. The Daleville Town Center is a mixed-use development that will feature residential, commercial, and offi ce properties. The main entrance for the development, which will primarily provide access to its commercial portion, will be found on U.S. 220. Secondary en- trances, which will primarily serve the residential portions of the development, will be available on Glebe Road to the north and Catawba Road to the south.

18 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES

North of Daleville, on the west side of U.S. 220, is a very large offi ce and industrial park known as the Botetourt Center at Greenfi eld. In addition to the 600 acres avail- able for offi ce and manufacturing developments, the Greenfi eld Center also features an education and training center that provides class- room and meeting facilities. The training center is avail- able for use to the businesses that are located in the park, as well as community colleges and various community or- ganizations. Vehicles enter- ing and exiting the Botetourt Center at Greenfi eld from U.S. 220 do so from a single road, known as International Park- Main entrance to the Botetourt Center at Greenfi eld way.

CIVIC PROPERTIES

Lord Botetourt High School in Daleville is one of Botetourt County’s two public high schools. It is located on the west side of U.S. 220, a short distance to the south of Catawba Road (Route 779N). It is bordered by Tinker Mill Road to the south and Azalea Road to the north. Directly across U.S. 220 from the high school is a relatively large commercial development that contains several small businesses. The combi- nation of the traffi c going to the school and the neighboring businesses creates high levels of congestion here. A school zone has been established on U.S. 220 through this area with a posted speed limit of 35 mph during school hours. Rural Botetourt County The 2000 Census designated the area between I-81 Exit 150 and Route 779N (Cataw- ba Road) as “Urbanized.” North of Route 779N, however, the land that the road trav- els through is exclusively designated as “Rural.” Although some development can be found immediately north of Route 779N (including The Daleville Town Center, The Glebe, and the Botetourt Center at Greenfi eld), agriculture is the predominant land use along the remainder of the studied corridor. There are two areas of notable exception to this rule, however.

The fi rst is the town of Fincastle. According to the 2000 Census, Fincastle had a population of less than 400 people. Several businesses and restaurants are located directly along U.S. 220 within the town’s boundaries. The road also borders the Fin- castle Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The second area of note is at the far northern end of the corridor in the community of Iron Gate. At this point, U.S. 220 is a two lane highway. Again, this community is very small. It is distinct, however, because of a concentration of rural residential development directly along U.S. 220. Many homes are given direct access to the highway.

CHAPTER 2 •LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT• 19 Map 2: Current Zoning

20 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Future Land Use According to a Future Land Use map produced by Botetourt County, the nature of land-use along the U.S. 220 corridor is not expected to change dramatically in the fu- ture. Growth will continue to be concentrated along the southern end of the corridor. Most of the land that is currently developed with low-density residential homes is expected to accommodate medium-density residential development in the future. Rural low-density housing is expected to expand out from this area into some parts of the county that are currently undeveloped or used for agriculture. This includes all the land on the western side of U.S. 220 between the Botetourt Center at Green- fi eld and the Town of Fincastle. Finally, the current rural residential area around the community of Iron Gate is expected to become a medium-density residential area.

CHAPTER 2 •LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT• 21 22 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 3

ON JANUARY 1, 1970 the Nati onal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was signed into Law. NEPA established a nati onal environmental policy and provides a framework for environmental planning and deci- sion-making by Federal agencies. When federal agencies are planning, funding, or issuing permits for projects, NEPA directs them to conduct environmental reviews to consider the potenti al impacts on the human and natural environment by their proposed acti ons. NEPA also estab- lished the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is charged with the administrati on of NEPA. The NEPA process consists of a set of fundamental objecti ves that include interagency coordinati on and co- operati on and public parti cipati on in planning and project development decision-making.

U.S. 220 passes between a fl oodplain of the James River (left) and a historic home (right) The NEPA process is now strongly embedded in the federal project development process and continues to have broad-based legislative support; however, there have been concerns about its effect on the timely completion of projects. These concerns led to the signing of Executive Order 13274 in 2002 and to language in the 2005 fed- eral transportation legislation, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Effi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which emphasizes the importance of expedited transportation project delivery while being good stewards of the environ- ment. As a result, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has worked with States to implement an environmental streamlining process that requires transpor- tation agencies to work together with natural, cultural, and historic resource agen- cies to establish realistic time-frames for the environmental review of transportation projects. FHWA has also encouraged transportation planning agencies (State DOT’s, MPO’s and RPO’s) to link planning and environmental review in order to streamline both processes.

This section attempts to provide such a linkage by identifying human and natural resources that could be affected by future transportation projects along US 220 in Bo- tetourt County. Unless stated otherwise, an environmental resource was included in this group if it was located within 500 feet of the road. This is not a comprehensive review of such resources and includes only those with which the MPO can reliably and consistently identify their location and signifi cance. Maps 3 and 4 show the locations of many of these resources along the U.S. 220 corridor. Endangered spe- cies locations and archaelogical sites are not included on the maps due to the fragile nature of these resources. Specifi c information about any of the resources discussed in this section can be obtained by contacting the RVARC. Non-motorized Facilities Walkable and bikeable communities offer a high quality of life and positively impact mobility, safety, and recreational opportunities. The desire for effi cient motorized travel must be balanced with community development patterns as well as the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Preserving a well-planned and well-maintained non- motorized system, which provides recreational opportunities and connects commu- nity activity centers, is key to overall transportation goals.

Possible impacts on nonmotorized facilities should be considered during the plan- ning, design, construction, and maintenance of transportation projects. Nonmotor- ized facilities are considered impacted if they are removed, if travel patterns are changed to the detriment of pedestrian/bicyclist safety, or if existing nonmotorized pathways are bisected (e.g., by a bridge not accessible to non-vehicular traffi c) there- by reducing connectivity along the pathway or between destinations. (Semcog)

BIKE ROUTES

In 2005, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) prepared a bikeway plan for the Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Area. In this plan, U.S. 220 was identifi ed on the “Priority List” (presented for immediate consideration) as a cor- ridor for bicycle accommodation between I-81 Exit 150 and Glebe Road and on the “Vision List” (presented for future consideration) between Glebe Road and County Club Road, which marks the border of the Metropolitan Planning Area.

Later, in 2006, the RVARC prepared a bikeway plan for the rural areas within its region. In this plan, the section of U.S 220 between State Route 43 and Craig Creek

24 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Road was identifi ed as a Rural Bikeway Corridor.

These Bikeway Plans do not contain specifi c instructions or requirements for the cor- ridors they identify as bicycle routes. Rather, they encourage the improvement of the existing road facilities (or the addition of new facilities) in ways that will safely accommodate bicycle traffi c. The methods used for this are expected to vary from road to road. For U.S. 220, this could include (but is not limited to) the addition of paved shoulders or designated bike lanes.

APPALACHIAN TRAIL

The Appalachian National Scenic Trail, commonly known as the Appalachian Trail, is a popular hiking trail in the eastern United States that runs continuously for over 2,000 miles from Georgia to Maine. Its path crosses U.S. 220 at the far southern end of the studied corridor, just to the north of I-81 Exit 150.

In 2005, the FHWA Eastern Lands Highway Division published the “Appalachian National Scenic Trail Highway Crossing Safety Assessment.” In this review, the crossing of U.S. 220 was specifi cally identifi ed as being dangerous for hikers. Their assessment of the location included the following comments:

“Safety Concerns- There are no hiker warning signs for motorists approaching from either direction or at the crossing points. Peak traffi c times and operating speeds prevent hikers from fi nding a suitable gap to cross. Eastbound traffi c is however periodically stopped by a traffi c signal approximately 1000’ to the west providing an occasional gap during peak times.

Recommended Improvements – Items to implement immediately include:

-Place fl uorescent yellow-green hiker warning signs at 300’ in each direction as well as at the crossing points.

-Place a standard AT logo on each side at the crossing point or as a plate on the warn- ing signs.”

To date, neither of these improvements have been made. Schools Lord Botetourt High School- This high school is located directly adjacent to U.S. 220 on the western side of the road a short distance to the south of Catawba Road. A school zone with a posted speed limit of 35 mph has been established on U.S. 220 as it passes by the high school.

Eagle Rock Elementary School- This elementary school is located a short distance to the west U.S. 220 between State Route 43 and State Route 43Y. The school’s location is far enough from the road to prevent the need of a school zone on U.S. 220. Historic Resources Preservation of key historic resources contributes to stronger communities, econom- ic development and tourism, and an overall higher quality of life for citizens. Under- standing and developing a future consistent with the past is essential. The ultimate goal is integrating historic preservation into all aspects of current and future com-

CHAPTER 3 •ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING• 25 munity and transportation planning, so that, ultimately, there is a balance.

Historic resources are generally considered to be any building, district, archeological site, structure, or object that is at least fi fty years of age and is either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Possible impacts on histor- ic resources should be considered during the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of transportation projects. A historical resource is considered impact- ed if the resource and/or its site features are damaged, relocated or destroyed; altered inconsistent with preservation standards; exposed to incompatible vi- sual, atmospheric, or audible elements; or neglected. (Semcog)

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

One-hundred and eleven structures that have been identifi ed as eligible for con- sideration to become historic places are located within fi ve-hundred feet of the studied corridor. A majority of these structures are homes.

Santillane Three of the structures have offi cially been recognized on the Virginia and National Register of Historic Places. They are: Santillane (a home near Fincastle), the Fincastle Historic District, and the Bessemer Archaeological Site (near Eagle Rock).

HISTORIC BRIDGES

Four bridges located on U.S. 220 in the studied corridor are more than fi fty years old. All were built in 1932, and all have been classifi ed as functionally obsolete by the Virginia Department of Transportation. These bridges are:

-Bridge 1071, passing over Big Creek

-Bridge 1072, passing over Big Creek

-Bridge 1075, passing over a seasonal stream and cattle pass

-Bridge 1076, passing over a branch of the James River

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Twenty-eight archaeological sites are located within two-hundred and fi fty feet of the studied corridor. This includes the Bessemer Archaeological Site, which is also a Virginia and National Historic Registered place. Although these sites are scattered all along the corridor, a majority are concentrated to the north of State Route 43 where U.S. 220 is currently a two lane highway. If it is ever expanded to four lanes, special care may be needed to properly accommodate these sites. Endangered Species U.S. Route 220 passes through or near the designated range for several species that have been listed by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as “endangered.”

26 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Most of these species are located in or around water bodies, including the James River, Craig Creek (near Eagle Rock), Catawba Creek, and Buffalo Creek (near Da- leville). Another endangered species area is identifi ed approximately 3 miles south of Fincastle.

The resources available for this study did not specifi cally identify these species or any restrictions placed on human activity as a result of their presence. It would most likely be necessary to collect this information should specifi c projects arise in these areas, however. Water Resources Surface waters, including lakes and streams, are a vital component of all communi- ties—contributing to agriculture and industry, recreation and tourism, and overall quality of life—and their preservation should, therefore, be a priority. Possible im- pacts on water resources should be considered during the planning, design, construc- tion, and maintenance of transportation projects. Water resources are considered impacted if polluted stormwater runoff reaches rivers and lakes, area vegetation is removed, damage to the stream beds or banks is caused by heavy equipment, or accidental spills (e.g., paint, solvent, fuel, salt) run directly into water bodies. (Sem- cog)

RIVERS AND STREAMS

U.S. Route 220 passes over or near numerous streams and rivers in this studied corri- dor. Five of these are classifi ed by the Virginia Department of Environmental Qual- ity as impaired waterways. They include:

Tinker Creek (Middle 1)

Tinker Creek passes within 500 feet of U.S. Route 220 near Daleville, Virginia. It has been listed as an EPA Category 4A impaired waterway because of Escherichia coli levels. Water bodies in this category are impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses but do not require a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) because the TMDL for the specifi c pollutant is complete and US EPA approved. The pos- sible sources of Escherichia coli are listed as follows: Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations); Municipal (Urbanized High Density Area); Sanitary Sewer Overfl ows (Collection System Failures); Unspecifi ed Domestic Waste; Wastes from Pets; Wild- life Other than Waterfowl.

Catawba Creek (Upper, Middle, and Lower)

Catawba Creek passes under U.S. 220 a short distance to the north of Fincastle, Virginia. The Virginia Department of Environmental Qual- ity (DEQ) has divided the creek into three sections. The designated divi- sion between Upper Catawba Creek and Middle Catawba Creek is located a short distance to the east of the U.S. 220 overpass. Approximately fi ve miles to the north of this bridge, the U.S. 220 passes over Catawba Creek

CHAPTER 3 •ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING• 27 road again passes within 500 feet of the creek, which at that point is listed as Lower Catawba Creek. All three sections are listed as Virginia Category 5A impaired wa- terways because of Fecal Coliform levels. Water bodies in this category are impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by the pollutant and require a TMDL (303d list). The possible sources of Fecal Coliform are listed as follows: Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations); On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems); Unspecifi ed Domestic Waste; Wastes from Pets; Wildlife Other than Waterfowl.

James River (Upper and Lower)

U.S. 220 passes over the James River at two points; once near the town of Eagle Rock and again near the town of Iron Gate. In addition to these overpasses, the road’s path closely parallels that of the river for approximately fi ve miles near the Eagle Rock bridge. The Virginia DEQ lists the James River as a Virginia Category 5A im- paired waterway because of Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments. This list- ing means that the river is impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by the pollutant and requires a TMDL (303d list). The possible sources of Benthic- Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments are listed as follows: Industrial Point Source Dis- charge; Municipal Point Source Discharges; Upstream Source.

Mill Creek (Lower)

U.S. 220 passes over Mill Creek approximately two miles north of the James River bridge near Eagle Rock. The Virginia DEQ lists Mill Creek as a Virginia Category 5A impaired waterway because of Fecal Coliform levels. This listing means that the creek is impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by the pollutant and requires a TMDL (303d list). The possible sources of Fecal Coliform are listed as follows: Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations); On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems); Unspecifi ed Domestic Waste; Wildlife Other than Waterfowl.

Jackson River (Lower)

For the fi rst three quarters of a mile (approximate) south of the Alleghany County Line, the route of U.S. 220 is parallel to the Jackson River. The road is located within 500 feet of the river for much of this distance. The Virginia DEQ lists the Jackson River as a Virginia Category 5A impaired waterway because of Benthic-Macroinver- tebrate Bioassessments. This listing means that the river is impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses by the pollutant and requires a TMDL (303d list). The possible sources of Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments are listed as fol- lows: Industrial Point Source Discharge; Municipal Point Source Discharges; Up- stream Source.

WATERSHEDS

U.S. 220 travels through two watersheds in Botetourt County. The far southern por- tion of the county is part of the Roanoke River Watershed, which eventually deposits its water into the Atlantic Ocean along the North Carolina coast. From a point about half-way between the towns of Fincastle and Daleville to Alleghany County, U.S. 220 is located in the James River Watershed. The James River Watershed is also part of the larger Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Although some portions of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are subject to strict land use and water quality guidelines, the dis- tance between Botetourt County and the Bay is great enough to exclude the county

28 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 from many of these regulations. To date, work and development sites in the county are only subject to Virginia’s state-wide Erosion and Sediment Control Laws. Future amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Act or other environmental regulations may change that situation in the future, however.

FLOODPLAINS

Use of the land adjacent to a stream has a major impact on protecting water quality, avoiding fl ood damage, maintaining fi sh and wildlife habitat, and accessing water- related recreation. Also known as the fl oodplain, this area adjacent to the stream channel serves as a natural reservoir for storing excess water during a fl ood. When the main stream channel cannot accommodate the level of runoff from precipitation, the spreading of fl oodwaters into the fl oodplain helps reduce the amount of damage incurred by fl ooding.

Possible impacts to fl oodplains should be considered in the planning, design, con- struction, and maintenance of transportation projects. Floodplains are considered impacted if fi ll is added, vegetation is removed, or heavy equipment is placed in the fl oodplain. (Semcog)

U.S. Route 220 passes through or within 250 feet of the 100-year fl ood plains of Tin- ker Creek, Catawba Creek, Craig Creek, Mill Creek, the James River, and the Jackson River, as well as a handful of small tributaries. While all of these could impact future road projects, three areas deserve special note due to their potentially large impact on road projects.

Catawba Creek and tributary, Fincastle, Virginia

U.S. 220 enters the fl ood plain of Catawba Creek (and one of its tributaries) near Fin- castle, Virginia and remains in or near it for approximately 1.7 miles.

The James River, Craig Creek, Mill Creek, and tributary, Eagle Rock, Virginia

As U.S. 220 travels north, it enters the fl ood plain of the James River near State Route 43Y. It remains continuously in or directly alongside the fl ood plains of the James River, Craig Creek, and Mill Creek for approximately 6.2 miles.

The James River and the Jackson River, Iron Gate, Virginia

U.S. 220 again converges with the James River approximately 1.5 miles south of Al- leghany County. The road’s remaining 1.5 miles in Botetourt County are in or along- side the fl oodplains of the James River and the Jackson River. Wetlands Wetlands play a vital role in water resource protection, recreation, tourism, and the economy. Specifi cally, they provide:

-Flood and storm control via hydrologic absorption and storage capacity

-Wildlife habitat for breeding, nesting, feeding grounds, and cover for many forms of wildlife, specifi cally waterfowl (including migratory waterfowl) and rare, threat- ened, or endangered species

-Protection of subsurface water resources, valuable watersheds, and recharge for

CHAPTER 3 •ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING• 29 groundwater supplies

-Pollution treatment by serving as a biological and chemical oxidation basin

-Erosion control by serving as a sedimentation area and fi ltering basin, absorbing silt and organic matter

Wetlands are defi ned by Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994, PA451 as “land characterized by the presence of water at a frequency and duration suffi cient to support, and that under normal circumstances does support, wetland vegetation or aquatic life, and is commonly referred to as a bog, swamp, or marsh.”

Possible impacts on wetlands should be considered during the planning, design, construction , and maintenance of transportation projects. Wetlands are considered impacted if fi ll is added to the wetland, soil or minerals are dredged or removed from the wetland, polluted stormwater runoff enters a wetland, surface water is drained from the wetland, vegetation is removed, or heavy equipment is placed in the wetland. (Semcog)

Information about the location of wetlands can be obtained from the National Wet- lands Inventory. They have divided the data into map quadrants. U.S. 220 passes through fi ve of these quadrants. Each of these (presented from south to north) and a summary of the wetlands located within 500 feet of the road in them is listed be- low:

Daleville- Six freshwater ponds and two freshwater emergent wetlands are found within the 500 foot buffer. The largest wetland feature (pond or emergent wetland) is approximately .53 acres in size. None of the other features are larger than one-half of an acre.

Salisbury- Nine freshwater ponds and one riverine area (Catawba Creek) are found within the 500 foot buffer. The largest pond is approximately 1.21 acres in size. None of the other ponds are larger than one-half of an acre.

Oriskany- Five freshwater ponds and one riverine area (Catawba Creek) are found within the 500 foot buffer. The largest pond is approximately .75 acres in size. None of the other ponds are larger than one-half of an acre.

Eagle Rock- Three freshwater ponds, four freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, three freshwater emergent wetlands, and two riverine areas (The James River and Mill Creek) are found within the 500 foot buffer. Most of the features (excluding riverine areas) are between one-half and three and one-half acres in size.

Clifton Forge- One freshwater pond, one freshwater forested/shrub wetland, one freshwater emergent wetland, and four riverine areas (The James River, The Jackson River, Cowpasture River, and unknown) are found within the 500 foot buffer. The freshwater forested/shrub wetland is approximately 4.84 acres in size, while the pond and emergent wetland are both smaller than one acre.

30 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 Map 3: Southern Botetourt County Environmental Screening

CHAPTER 3 •ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING• 31 Map 4: Northern Botetourt County Environmental Screening

32 •U.S. ROUTE 220 CORRIDOR REVIEW• JUNE 2008 SOURCES

Botetourt County, Virginia. “Botetourt Center at Greenfi eld.” Retrieved May 2008 from

Botetourt County, Virginia. Code of the County. “Zoning.” Municiple Code Corpo- ration: Tallahassee, Florida. 1985.

Botetourt County, Virginia. Envision Botetourt: Botetourt County Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved May 2008 from

Daleville Town Center. “Daleville Town Center Master Plan.” Retrieved May 2008 from

“The Glebe.” Viewed May 2008 on

Santillane Historic Home. “Welcome to Santillane: Step Back in TIme.” Retrieved May 2008 from < http://www.santillane.com/>

SEMCOG. “Integrating Environmental Issues in the Transportation Planning Pro- cess: Guidelines for Road and Transit Agencies.” The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. January 2007.

U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 2000: Summary of General Demographic Characteristics: Daleville, Virginia.

Virginia. Transportation and Mobility Planning Division. Statewide Planning System. Richmond, 2007.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. “2006 Impaired Waters (303D Data).” Retrieved May 2008 from

Virginia Department of Transportation. “Bridge and Culvert Conditions: Sa- lem District.” Retrieved May 2008 from

CHAPTER 3 •ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING• 33