Chapter 4

BWI Rail Station Improvements and Fourth Track Project Environmental Assessment4-1

4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

This chapter summarizes the environmental consequences of the BWI Rail Station based onthe existing and future environmental conditions, and impacts of the Build Alternative, thatwere documented in Chapter 3. Section 4.2 discusses the unavoidable adverse impacts andproposed mitigation measures.

4.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This EA documents each environmental assessment measure analyzed in Sections 3.1through 3.16. Chapter 6 contains the Section 4(f) Evaluation. Table 4.1-1 summarizes thefindings of these assessments. Section 4.2 provides a more detailed discussion of the impactsand proposed mitigation measures for those resources where unavoidable adverse impactswere identified.

TABLE 4.1-1: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NEPA Environmental Measure Environmental Consequences

3.1 Regional and Local Transportation The project would improve rail operations and passenger service.Demolition and replacement of the Reece Road Bridge would occur overthe rail mainline; however, local traffic operations would be maintained. Noadverse impact on local or regional roadway system.

3.2 Land Use, Neighborhoods,Community Facilities

The project would have no direct impacts on existing and future land usesalong the project corridor. The project serves to focus development intoareas designated for growth, with 93 percent of the project length within theMaryland designated priority funding areas (PFAs). The improvementsrelated to the BWI Rail Station are consistent with land use plans envisionedfor this site.

Minimal slivers of right-of-way acquisition are anticipated along the projectcorridor for a total of 11 acres. No residences or businesses would bedisplaced by the project.

3.3 Socioeconomics, EnvironmentalJustice, and ChildrensEnvironmental Health and SafetyRisks

The project would have no impacts to population growth and demographictrends, or childrens environmental health and safety risks. Low-income andminority populations have been identified along the project corridor.However, since the project would be constructed primarily within theexisting right-of-way, the anticipated human and environmental adverseeffects of the project would not be disproportionately borne by minority orlow-income populations.

4 S U M M A R Y O F E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S E Q U E N C E S A N DU N A V O I D A B L E I M P A C T S




3.4 Air Quality Project construction activities would generate criteria air pollutant emissionswell below the general conformity de minimis thresholds. Construction ofthe project would be consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP).The project would have no substantial long-term, adverse operationalimpacts on air quality.

3.5 Noise and Vibration The project would have no significant increases in noise or vibration levelswould occur at nearby sensitive noise receptors. Nor would project-relatedconstruction activities adversely impact nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

3.6 Energy and Sustainable Design Overall, the project may result in a slight increase in energy usage duringconstruction and a slight increase in energy usage from the larger BWI RailStation. Increased train efficiency and an overall decrease in energyconsumption by Amtrak and Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC)trains would balanced the effect. Additionally, there may be energy savingsthrough reduction in automobile trips if the increased efficiency of Amtrakand MARC trains attracts more riders. Implementation of the fourth track ofthe project would need no additional transmission assets. The larger BWIRail Station could result in a slight increase in energy usage for lighting andclimate control due to the larger facility but use of the proposed Leadershipin Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) would offset the increasedenergy efficiencies.

3.7 Water Resources

3.7.1 Surface Water, Waterbodies,and Drainage Basins

Widening the existing rail embankment, existing bridges, and culverts wouldimpact surface waters. Avoidance and minimization measures alreadyincorporated into the preliminary design include 23 retaining walls, totalingapproximately 13,410 linear feet. Nine of these retaining walls, totalingapproximately 7,740 linear feet, would minimize impacts to delineatedwatercourses. Unavoidable stream relocations would occur using naturalstream design techniques. Compensatory mitigation requirements will bedetermined as a part of the permitting process with the United States ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) and Maryland Department of the Environment(MDE).

3.7.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers The NPS identified no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the state ofMaryland. The project corridor crosses the Severn River and watershed, anofficially designated Scenic river by the Maryland General Assembly. Theproject would not alter the landscape or viewshed, and the use of bestmanagement practices (BMP) will ensure the preservation of the ecologicalresources within the local watersheds.

3.7.3 Groundwater/ Aquifers/Wells The project corridor contains no groundwater supplies, aquifers or wells;therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

3.7.4 Stormwater Runoff/Water Quality

7.6 acres of new impervious areas could affect stormwater runoff.Preliminary Environmental Site Design (ESD) techniques include wet swalesand grass swales to satisfy stormwater management requirements withunderground filtration and storage at the BWI Rail Station. Erosion andsediment control measures include sediment traps and basins, super siltfence, and other construction BMPs designed in compliance with currentregulations.Fish species would be adequately protected by the Use I in-stream workprohibition time-of-year restriction, through sediment and erosion controlmeasures, and other best management practices.





3.8 Wetlands and Floodplains

3.8.1 Wetlands The project would impact approximately 6.98 acres of wetlands. Of thesewetlands, 1.52 acres are Maryland Wetlands of Special State Concern(WSSC). An estimated 10.28 acres of wetland mitigation would be requiredwith 3.22 acres of that being mitigation for WSSC.

A total of approximately 4,647 linear feet of streams would be displaced, thelargest single impact approximately 1,155 linear feet of Stony Run.

Compensation for unavoidable and necessary wetland and stream impactswill be provided, as required. A conceptual mitigation plan has beenprepared and coordinated with the regulatory and resource agencies andmitigation planning is ongoing. Final compensation acreages and locations willbe determined as a part of the permitting process with USACE and MDE.

3.8.2 Floodplains The project would impact approximately 19.6 acres within the mapped 100-year floodplain. The project would fill floodplain areas associated with StonyRun and its tributaries (15.3 acres), Herbert Run (0.5 acre), and the PatapscoRiver (3.4 acres). Lesser impacts would occur within Severn Run (0.3 acre)and Beaver Creek (0.1 acre) floodplains.Retaining walls will minimize floodplain impacts. Design of floodplaincrossings will minimize floodplain encroachments and possible flood levelincreases, to the extent practicable. All construction occurring within the100-year floodplain will follow Executive Order 11988, FloodplainManagement permitting procedures and guidelines.

3.9 Ecological Resources

3.9.1 Vegetation, Wildlife, Rare,Threatened, and EndangeredSpecies

The project corridor contains no federally listed rare, threatened orendangered species. The project would displace approximately 1,102 squarefeet of giant cane, a State-listed species. This impact representsapproximately 0.5 percent of the total 4.56-acre area of giant cane identifiedwithin the study limits. Ongoing coordination with DNR Wildlife andHeritage Service (WHS) throughout the later design and permitting phaseswill determine specific mitigation measures.

3.9.2 Forest Stand Delineation The project would impact approximately 17.3 acres of mapped forest stands.DNR approved the Forest Stand Delineation Survey Report on February 2,2012. MTA would take all practicable measures during final design to avoidand minimize impacts to forest resources at which time a ForestConservation Plan (FCP) will be developed in cooperation with DNR. A finalFCP will be required once final design is complete Approximately 20 acres ofreforestation will be required based on preliminary calculations. During finaldesign, MTA would investigate opportunities for reforestation areas withinthe Limits of Disturbance (LOD) and undisturbed portions of the right-of-way. However, if MTA cannot satisfy mitigation requirements wholly orpartially on-site, it will expand the search for a mitigation site (or sites) toareas within the projects watersheds or into the affected counties.





3.9.3 Coastal Zone Management andChesapeake Bay Critical Area(CBCA)

Marylands Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) is based on existing lawsand authorities and the consistency determination is incorporated withinother permit processes. The Coastal Zone Consistency determination willbe issued as part of the states wetlands authorization. The project will likelyinvolve unavoidable impacts to the critical area, and MTA would take allpracticable measures to avoid and minimize impacts. MTA will coordinatewith CBCA Commission (CBCAC) will be conducted to define project-specific mitigation.

3.9.4 Invasive Species Final design will reflect native revegetation and minimize invasiveestablishment in disturbed areas.

3.10 Parklands and Recreational Areas Patapsco Valley State Park property is adjacent to both the east and westsides of the existing rail corridor in the vicinity of the rail bridge crossing ofthe Patapsco River. The project would require three narrow strips of parkproperty totaling approximately 0.65 acre. DNR currently uses the area asvegetative buffer for Patapsco Valley State Park with no planneddevelopment. DNR concurred on February 6, 2012 that the project wouldnot adversely affect the activities, features and attributes of the PatapscoValley State Park.

3.11 Visual Impacts and Light Emissions The project would not change the overall landscape. The experience ofvisual resources and the general aesthetic conditions of the area would alsoremain unchanged.

3.12 Cultural Resources Archeological Sites: Four archeological sites are located in the revised LOD.The Build Alternative will have an adverse effect on the Harmans Site (Site18AN29B), the Telegraph Dorsey Prehistoric Site (Site 18AN1478), and theOKeefe Site East (Site 18AN1482). It will have no adverse effect on theHiggins Site (Site 18AN489). Although an additional site, Selby Grist Mill-MillDam Site (Site 18AN1209) is located outside of the LOD, no adverse effectis expected due to protective fencing and field orientation for constructionpersonnel, which is warranted because of its proximity to projectconstruction.

3.12 Cultural Resources (Continued) Architectural Properties: Three previously recorded NRHP-eligiblearchitectural properties are located in the Area of Potential Effect (APE).The project would have an adverse effect on one resource, Bridge No.0207500 (Reece Road Bridge), due to demolition. The project would haveno adverse effects to Bridge No. 3011 or the Harmans Post Office.

MTA and FRA will continue to coordinate with MHT and the Section 106consulting parties throughout the Section 106 process.

The FRA/MTA is developing the MOA in consultation with MHT and theSection 106 consulting parties. In addition, the MTA invited the AdvisoryCouncil on Historic Preservation to consult on the project, but the ACHPdeclined. With a signed and executed MOA, there would be no significantimpacts to cultural resources as defined under NEPA, and the execution andimplementation of the MOA will conclude the Section 106 process underthe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).





3.13 Geology, Soils and Farmland The project would have no long-term effects on geology and topography.

Construction of the project would have short-term impacts on soils.Sediment and erosion control plans will be prepared in accordance with theMaryland Department of the Environments Standards and Specifications forSoil Erosion and Sediment Control (2011).

As the project is located within an area identified as an Urbanized Area (UA)on United States Census Bureau mapping, there is no impact on primefarmland soils as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Acts definitionof prime farmland.

3.14 Hazardous Materials Three recorded hazardous material sites are within 0.2-mile of the projectright-of-way. No additional right-of-way would be required from theseproperties. Amtrak is not aware of any contamination within the Amtrakright-of-way within the project corridor. A Phase I and/or Phase IIEnvironmental Site Assessment (ESA) will be required for additional right-of-way.

3.15 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Beneficial cumulative effects include improved mobility and accessibility forresidents, commuters, and intercity rail and air passengers who travel toWashington, D.C., Baltimore, and the communities in between. This projectwould also support development in the areas designated by localjurisdictions.Due to minimization and mitigation efforts to resources directly impacted bythe project (wetlands, streams, floodplains, cultural resources, forests, andpublic parkland), the Build Alternative would have little, or no, indirectimpacts.The project could possibly contribute to cumulative effects to wetlands,streams, and floodplains. The relative contribution of the project to theoverall cumulative effects on these resources would be small.

3.16 Safety and Security Amtrak has current safety-related programs and policies for the safety of itspassengers and employees. The project would upgrade the existing physicalconditions of this portion of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which wouldresult in improved infrastructure, a higher level of maintenance, andenhanced safety. Improvements at the BWI Rail Station would improve safepedestrian flows by providing more area for pedestrian circulation, andexpected reductions in potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts.

4.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

Based on the results of the environmental assessment described in Chapter 3, the projectwill have unavoidable adverse effects on wetlands, streams, floodplains, forests, state rare,threatened and endangered species, a National Register-Listed historic bridge, and publicparkland. The following sections discuss the measures to avoid or minimize adverseimpacts and commitments to reduce potential effects of the project.

4.2.1 Wetlands

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, mandates that each Federal agency avoid, tothe extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the



destruction or modification of wetlands. It seeks to avoid direct or indirect support of newconstruction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.

The analysis of wetlands defined its study area as land within 125 feet on either side of theexisting outside tracks. Ninety-four wetlands totaling 61 acres were delineated within thestudy area, including wetlands within and outside the railroad right-of-way. The projectavoids the majority of individual wetlands delineated. The project would impact a total ofapproximately 4,647 linear feet of streams. The largest single impact would beapproximately 1,155 linear feet of Stony Run.

The project would impact approximately 6.98 acres of wetlands, for which permits will berequired. Table 4.2-1 provides a summary of wetland impacts. The affected wetlands areboth Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC) and non-WSCC.

TABLE 4.2-1: SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS (ACRES)

Impacts Non-WSSC WSSC Total

Palustrine Forested 1.57 0.18 1.75

Palustrine Scrub Shrub 0.03 0 0.03

Palustrine Emergent 3.86 1.34 5.20

Total 5.46 1.52 6.98

Analyses of alternatives to reduce or avoid impacts were coordinated with resource andregulatory agencies, and the project reflects specific alternative and design choices made tominimize impacts to wetlands and address agency comments and concerns, particularlyregarding minimization of impacts to high quality WSSC. Appendix A contains minutes ofagency meetings documenting this coordination and Appendix B contains the AlternativesReport with details of the alternatives analyses conducted to minimize impacts to sensitiveresources. MTA substantially avoided or reduced potential wetland impacts duringpreliminary engineering through use of alignments shifts, reduced limits of disturbance,and retaining walls. The use of retaining walls reduced impacts to 17 wetlands, includingfour WSSC.

Compensation for unavoidable wetland impacts from the project will be provided, whererequired, in cooperation with USACE and MDE. Potential wetland mitigation could includeenhancement/restoration of existing wetlands or wetland creation onsite or offsite, or use ofcredits from an approved wetlands mitigation bank. FRA and MTA initiated early andongoing coordination through the MDOT Interagency Review Meeting process. MTAdeveloped a conceptual mitigation plan as the first milestone in the mitigation planningprocess and the resource agencies reviewed, and accepted, potential sites at the conceptuallevel. FRA and MTA will continue to meet with the resource agencies during subsequentfinal design and permitting to coordinate final mitigation measures and meet stream andwetland mitigation requirements. With the avoidance and minimization measuresincorporated in the current design of the Build Alternative and the preliminary mitigationmeasures identified in cooperation with the regulatory agencies, MTA and FRA anticipate



that the Build Alternative will not result in significant impacts to wetlands and other Watersof the U.S.

4.2.2 Floodplains

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and Protection, regulates floodplains. Asidentified in Section 3.8, the project traverses extensive areas of floodplain.

The project would require fill within the 100-year floodplain, including two designatedfloodways, to widen the rail embankment to support a fourth track through low-lying areas.Based on preliminary project design and analysis, the project would disturb approximately19.6 acres within the mapped 100-year floodplain. The project would primarily fillfloodplain areas associated Stony Run and its tributaries (15.3 acres), Herbert Run (0.5 acre),and the Patapsco River (3.4 acres). Lesser impacts would occur at Severn Run (0.3 acre), andBeaver Creek (0.1 acre).

Retaining walls will minimize floodplain and floodway impacts. MTA has designedcrossings to minimize floodplain encroachments and possible flood level increases, to theextent practicable. MTA would consider and incorporate restoration and preservation of thenatural and beneficial value of floodplains in the project corridor, wherever feasible. Basedon the current design of the Build Alternative and current guidelines, MTA does notanticipate an increase in the base flood elevation of greater than one foot in the floodwayscrossed by the project. All construction occurring within the 100-year floodplain will followproper permitting procedures and guidelines in accordance with Executive Order 11988,Floodplain Management.

The MTA will identify mitigation measures during final design in coordination with theregulatory agencies and in conjunction with mitigation development for wetland andwatercourse impacts, as wetlands can offer flood storage functions. The project would notexacerbate known downstream flooding issues. Stormwater measures developed inaccordance with environmental site design will help to minimize any post-constructionincreases in runoff from the new impervious areas. The Patapsco River, located just east ofthe project, is a tidal waterway. Its flood characteristics in the project corridor may be lessinfluenced by stormwater runoff volume than by downstream tidal effects.

4.2.3 State-listed Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Sensitive species at the state level are regulated under the Nongame and EndangeredSpecies Conservation Act (Annotated Code of Maryland 10-2A-01) and supported byregulations set forth in COMAR Title 08.03.08, which contains the official state list of speciesconsidered endangered, threatened, and in need of conservation (COMAR 1985). The DNRWHS is responsible for protecting resources under these provisions.

As stated in Section 3.9, the LOD of the Build Alternative would impact approximately 1,102square feet (0.025 acre) of an existing population of giant cane, a state-listed rare species.The impact would be due to grading adjacent to the terminus of the relocated access road,



stormwater treatment and right-of-way drainage swales, and temporary sediment anderosion control measures south of Old Stoney Run Road. The impact has been minimizedduring preliminary engineering by eliminating a portion of the track-side access roadthrough this area and further minimization efforts will be investigated during later phasesof design. Other potential impacts to rare species and their habitats were avoided orminimized through the alternatives analysis and selection process during the developmentof the Build Alternative with extensive input from regulatory and resources agencies (SeeAppendices A and B).

Impacts to rare state species do not typically require mitigation once all practicable efforts tominimize impacts are implemented. However, ongoing coordination with DNR WHSthroughout the later design and permitting phases, when final LODs are available, willdetermine specific mitigation measures, if required.

4.2.4 Forests

DNR regulates forest resources in Maryland under the Maryland Forest Conservation Act(FCA). Forests, as defined by DNR, include a biological community dominated by trees andother woody species that are at least 50 feet wide and 10,000 square feet in area (COMAR15.15.03.02).

The FCA aims to protect forest resources and requires submittal of a Forest StandDelineation (FSD) and a Forest Conservation Plan (FCP) to the DNR Forest Service forapproval for any project requiring a grading permit or erosion and sediment control plan ona tract of 40,000 square feet or more. The FSD characterizes environmental features andexisting forest cover within the project boundaries, while the FCP documents the projectsproposed forest clearing, forest protection measures, and proposed reforestation to mitigateforest impacts.

Of the 44 forest stands delineated within the corridor as shown in Section 3.9, all but twocontained priority resources such as streams or wetlands, making these forests a priority forretention under the FCA. MTA also identified 70 specimen trees throughout the projectcorridor. The MTA submitted the FSD for this project to DNR, which approved it onFebruary 2, 2012.

4.2.5 Cultural Resources

According to state and federal law, federal agencies are required to consider archeological,architectural, and Native American resources in their project planning. These laws includethe National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), most notably Section 106 of theact and its enabling legislation found at 36 CFR 800; Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985(as amended), and the State Financial and Procurement Article 5A-325 and 5A-326 of theAnnotated Code of Maryland. In compliance with these laws, FRA established the Area ofPotential Effects; completed determinations of eligibility; and executed assessments ofeffects.



As a result of these assessments, FRA determined that there are three historic architecturalproperties within the APE: Bridge No. 0207500 (AA-2125); Bridge No. 3011 (BA-2782), andthe Harmans Post Office (AA-2298). They are all eligible for listing on the National Registerof Historic Places (NRHP). The project will have no adverse effect on Bridge No. 3011 or theHarmans Post Office. However, the project will require the demolition and replacement ofBridge No. 0207500, referred to as Reece Road Bridge. The replacement of Reese RoadBridge is necessary because the current bridge span cannot accommodate the projectsfourth track. The SHPO is expected to concur that this demolition will result in an adverseeffect to the historic bridge.

The project could affect four archeological sites in the current LOD: Harmans Site(18AN29B), Higgins Site (18AN489), Telegraph Dorsey Prehistoric Site (18AN1478), andOKeefe Site East (18AN1482). The Build Alternative will have an adverse effect on three ofthe four sites: the Harmans Site (Site 18AN29B), the Telegraph Dorsey Prehistoric Site (Site18AN1478), and the OKeefe Site East (Site 18AN1482). It will have no adverse effect on theHiggins Site (Site 18AN489).

One additional archeological site, Selby Grist Mill-Mill Dam Site (18AN1209), is locatedadjacent to, but outside of, the LOD. While the project would not directly impact this site,MTA and FRA acknowledge that its proximity to the LOD introduces the potential forconstruction impacts, if appropriate measures are not deployed to protect it. Although thissite is located outside of the LOD, protective fencing and field orientation for constructionpersonnel is warranted because of its proximity to project work.

Consultation with Native American groups is ongoing, although MTA has not identifiedany sensitive Native American resources in the APE. Consultation with the Oneida Nationand other potentially interested tribes will continue as the Phase II investigations of theprehistoric components of 18AN29A, 18AN1478, and 18AN1482 are completed.

Proposed Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources

As there will be adverse effects to NRHP-eligible historic properties, MTA wouldinvestigate potential measures to minimize or mitigate these adverse effects. Thesemeasures may include additional archeological testing; implementing protective measuresduring construction; and photographic documentation of Bridge No. 0207500. Afteradditional discussions with MHT and consulting parties, the FRA and MTA will developthe projects MOA, which will include the final agreed-upon mitigation measures, alongwith information on the timing of the measures and which agency will be responsible forimplementation.

4.2.6 Section 4(f) Resources

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C.138) prohibits use of land from a publicpark, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge or any significant historic site unless it



can be demonstrated that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid theproperty and that the project included all possible planning to minimize impacts.

The Build Alternative would have a Section 4(f) use of two parkland and historic properties:Patapsco Valley State Park and the Reece Road Bridge. DNR concurred on February 6, 2012that the Build Alternative would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributesof the Patapsco Valley State Park and a Section 4(f) de minimis use has been determined. TheBuild Alternative, which would require the demolition and replacement of the Reece RoadBridge, and have a Section 4(f) use of the bridge, includes all possible planning to minimizeharm to this Section 4(f) property resulting from such use. The Section 4(f) Evaluation isincluded in Chapter 6.

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

This section summarizes the identified commitments and mitigations measures for long-term operation and short-term construction-related impacts to environmental resources asidentified in Chapter 3.

4.3.1 Land Use, Neighborhoods, and Community Facilities

All land acquisitions will be completed according to the requirements of the UniformRelocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended; Title49, Part 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 24); and all applicable Marylandregulations and policies.

4.3.2 Air Quality

Construction of the project would be consistent with the State Implementation Plan (SIP).However, the MTA would consider reasonable short-term construction mitigationmeasures. Such measures include dust suppression, proper equipment maintenance andtuning, and appropriate placement of stationary internal-combustion-powered equipment.

4.3.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United States and Floodplains

MTA will prepare a Joint Federal/State Application for the Alteration of any Floodplain,Waterway, Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in Maryland permit application during final design.This application will comply with both the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

MTA will coordinate, again, with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) regarding thepotential need for a Bridge Permit under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ifthe project is not constructed within five years.

Mitigation measures employed to compensate for unavoidable project effects to Waters ofthe U.S., including wetlands, will follow federal and state mitigation regulations andguidelines, as well as other recommendations from federal and state resource agencies.



MTA would mitigate for permanent impacts to streams at a ratio determined incoordination with USACE and MDE to provide functional replacement of impacted streams.A replacement ratio of 1:1 linear feet of stream improvement is anticipated; however, theresource agencies may adjust this ratio as exact ratios can only be determined during finaldesign of a selected mitigation site.

MTA would comply with mitigation requirements under the Clean Water Act Section 404 todetermine the ratio of wetland acres replaced to wetland acres lost to achieve functionalreplacement of impacted wetlands. Mitigation for emergent wetlands typically occur on a1:1 replacement basis, while mitigation of forested and scrub-shrub wetlands typically occuron a 2:1 replacement basis, although these ratios may be adjusted during final mitigationsite selection and design. WSSC are typically mitigated on a 3:1 replacement basis; however,this also could increase during development of the final mitigation plan. The regulatoryagencies will determine the final replacement ratio for WSSC based on the functionalreplacement of impacted resources.

The USACE, EPA, and MDE have developed and accepted a Phase I Conceptual MitigationPlan (Appendix F). A Phase II Final Mitigation Plan will be developed in compliance withthe Federal Mitigation Rule and state mitigation guidelines as part of the final design andpermitting phase of the project.

The MTA would install wetland protection fencing to protect wetlands and wetland buffersduring construction. All construction occurring within the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) designated 100-year floodplain will comply with FEMA approved localfloodplain construction requirements.

4.3.4 Stormwater Runoff and Water Quality

Sediment and erosion control plans will be prepared in accordance with the MarylandDepartment of the Environments Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and SedimentControl (2011).

MTA would design stormwater management facilities required to address water qualityand quantity requirements consistent with environmental site design (ESD) criteria to themaximum extent practicable in accordance with the requirements under the StormwaterManagement Act of 2007, and guidance by MDE in 2010 and 2011 on the technicalprocedures and calculations for ESD requirements.

MTA would address potential effects through the MDE stormwater and sediment anderosion control permitting process as required under Marylands Erosion and SedimentControl (E&SC) (COMAR 26.17.01) and Stormwater Management regulations (COMAR26.17.02).



4.3.5 Ecological Resources

Aquatic species will be protected with the Use I in-stream work prohibition time-of-yearrestriction, through sediment and erosion control measures, and other best managementpractices. Coordination with DNR WHS during final design will determine specificmitigation measures for impacts to the giant cane, as State-listed species.

Forest Conservation Plans, or similar will be prepared during final design and would detailadditional impact avoidance and minimization techniques to be applied duringconstruction. MTA will submit Forest Conservation Plans to DNR for review and approvalduring final design.

During final design, MTA will identify forest mitigation sites in cooperation with DNRwithin the LOD, and identify undisturbed portions of the right-of-way. If mitigationrequirements cannot take place wholly or partially on-site, the MTA would expand thesearch for a mitigation site (or sites) to areas within the projects watersheds or into theaffected counties.

Tree protection fencing will be installed along the outside edge of the limit of disturbancewhere necessary to prevent access by construction equipment, staging, and stockpiling ofmaterials within forest retention areas.

4.3.6 Chesapeake Bay Critical Area

MTA will coordinate with CBCAC to define the project-specific mitigation related to the 10-Percent Rule requirement for any new impervious area within the Critical Area and/or anyplanting requirements.

4.3.7 Cultural Resources

Proper safeguards (e.g., protective fencing, field orientation/education for constructionpersonnel, and on-site archeological monitoring will reduce potential effects to the Higginsarcheological site. Where impacts to other archeological sites in the LOD are unavoidable,additional Phase II archeological investigations would evaluate sites for National Registereligibility. As project planning proceeds, FRA and MTA will continue to identify designmodifications that could further avoid or minimize potential effects on archeologicalresources.

MTA will record, in coordination with MHT, to Historic American Engineering Record(HAER) Standards prior to construction or demolition of the Reece Road Bridge. FRA andMTA will continue to consult with Section 106 consulting parties and MHT to develop andexecute the MOA. MTA will develop provisions for continued coordination and siteprotection during construction in consultation with MHT and other consulting parties,which will be included as commitments in the MOA.



4.3.8 Hazardous Materials

A Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will be required foradditional right-of-way areas needed for the project. During final design and construction, ifthe project encounters contaminated soils, MTA would evaluate off-site remediation,chemical stabilization, or other treatments and disposal options.

Chapter 4

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 4