marc maintenance ea december 2014

January2015MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITYEnvironmentalAssessmentandDraftSection4(f)EvaluationSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActof1966CecilCounty,MarylandMarylandTransitAdministrationOfficeofPlanning6St.PaulStreetBaltimore,Maryland212021614

[Grabyourreadersattentionwithagreatquotefromthedocument or use this space to emphasize a key point To place

ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT

MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITY ENVIRONMENTALPERRYVILLEMD ASSESSMENT


i

EXECUTIVESUMMARYINTRODUCTIONAnEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)hasbeenpreparedinaccordancewiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)toevaluatethepotentialenvironmental,cultural,andsocioeconomiceffectsthatmayresultfromtheproposedMarylandAreaRegionalCommuter(MARC)NortheastMaintenanceFacilityinCecilCounty,Maryland.TheproposedprojectwilladdressMARCneedsonthePennLine,oneofthreeMARCoperatingcommuterlines,whichspansfromWashingtonD.C.sUnionStationtoPerryville,MD.TheMarylandTransitAdministration(MTA)initiatedtheNEPAprojectscopingprocessin2010andistheprojectsponsor.TheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)istheleadfederalagency.PURPOSEANDNEEDThepurposeoftheprojectistodevelopafacilitythatwouldefficientlyserveoperation,maintenance,inspectionandstoragerequirementsoftheMARCPennLineFleet.Anewfacilitywouldaccommodatecurrentoperationalneedsandprojectedridershipgrowth,andallowforfutureexpansion.TheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectwouldaddressfourspecificneeds:

1. NeedforadditionalMARCPennLinetrainstorage2. Needtoconsolidatemaintenance,inspectionandstoragefunctionsforthecurrent

MARCsystem3. Needtosupportridershipgrowthexpectedby2035andsystemexpansionnorthofthe

SusquehannaRiver4. NeedtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)growthplanandplannedexpansion

ofhighspeedrailbecauseofsharedrailroadfacilitiesALTERNATIVESDEVELOPMENTSiteselectioncriteriafortheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityweredevelopedtoevaluatesitesalongtheNEC.Thecriteriaincludedthefollowing:

Asite60acresorgreater DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead

tracksandtwopointsofconnection MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility

includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility AsitenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver


ii

Whilenotoriginally included in the site selectioncriteria, itwas later identified thata site isneedednorthof theSusquehannaRiver toaccommodate serviceexpansionaswellasavoidbottleneckingofhighspeedtrainsattheSusquehannaRiverBridge.WithlimitedMARCstorageattheMartinStateAirportFacilitymidwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,a facilityatthenorthendofthelinebettersupportscurrentandfutureMARCoperations,includingthepotentialexpansionofMARCservicenorth.FivesitesthatmettheminimalcriteriawereevaluatedanddocumentedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport(February2012),whichisavailableinAppendixA.Anadditional6siteswerealsoevaluatedaspartoftheNEPAprocess.Allsiteswereevaluatedindetailbasedontheabilitytomeettherequiredacreage,engineeringfeasibility,systemsrequirementsfortherailroadfacilities,Amtrakconnectionrequirements,andenvironmentalconsiderations.MTAspreferredlocation,PerryvilleA,islocatedinPerryville,MD,southofPrincipioFurnaceRoadbetweenFirestoneRoadandPrincipioStationRoad.ThisEAidentifiesthePerryvilleAsiteastheBuildAlternative.Theothersitesweredeterminednottomeettheprojectspurposeandneedand/orcontainsignificantenvironmental,socioeconomicorconstructionandoperationalconstraints,asfollows:

OpusTheOpussitedoesnothavetherequiredacreage(lessthan60acres)andislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.Therewouldbeengineeringissuesincludingtheconstructionoftwonewcrossovers,whichwouldaddsignificantcosttotheprojectandcouldresultinunacceptablesafetyandoperationalproblemswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC.Theprojectwouldresultinsignificantenvironmentalimpactsandwouldbeincompatiblewithexistingzoningrestrictions(withinthePerrymanWellfieldProtectionZone).

AberdeenProvingGround(APG)TheAPGsitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.TheAPGSiteislistedontheNationalPrioritiesList(NPL)DatabaseasaSuperfundcleanuplocationandcontainsUnexplodedOrdinance(UXO)whichwouldrequireremovalpriortolandclearance.Engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinanexistinginterlocking,wouldaddsignificantcost.Theprojectwouldimpact25acresofforest,13acresofForestInteriorDwellingSpecies(FIDS)habitat,inadditionto100yearfloodplainandwetlandimpacts.

PrologisThePrologissitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.Engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutinanexistinginterlocking,wouldaddsignificantcost.Theprojectwouldrequirestormwatermanagementpondrelocationandcause13acresofforestimpacts,100yearfloodplainimpactsandupto24acresofwetlandimpacts.Thissitewouldrequireacquisitionofanindustrialpropertyandseveralpartialresidentialproperties.


iii

PerryvilleBThePerryvilleBsitehastheappropriateacreage,buthasengineeringconstraints,includingthecompleterelocationofAmtraksMaintenanceofWayfacilityandconstructionoftwonewcrossoversinanexistinginterlocking,thatwouldaddsignificantcost.ThislocationwouldcauseunacceptablesafetyandoperationalissueswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC,andtherewouldbeimpactstotheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaanduptotwoacresofforestimpacts.

NewBengiesTheNewBengiessitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.ThissiteisnotcompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandtheengineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofa4thNECtrackandhighwaybridgereconstruction,wouldaddsignificantcost.Environmentalimpactsinclude44acresofforests,fouracresofwetlands,and51acresofFIDShabitat.Therewouldbe0.4acresofresidentialpropertyimpacts.

ChesapeakeTheChesapeakesitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.ThissiteisnotcompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandengineeringissues,includingtheconstructionoflongleadtrackswouldaddsignificantcost.ThissiteisalsolocatedonAPGandaccesswouldbedifficult.Theprojectwouldresultinimpactstounknownhazardousmaterials,53acresofforestimpacts,fiveacresofwetlandimpacts,22acresofimpactswithinthe100yearfloodplain,12acreswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaand47acresofFIDShabitat.

ChelseaTheChelseasitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.ThesitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandengineeringissues,suchasconstructionofadditionaltrack(4.4miles),wouldaddsignificantcost.Theprojectwouldalsoresultinimpactsto26acresofforest,oneacreofwetlands,19acresofFIDShabitat,oneacrewithinthe100yearfloodplain,and53acreswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalArea.

PerrymanThePerrymansitehastheappropriateacreage,butissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.Engineeringissues,includingbridgereconstruction,relocationofMD199(PerrymanRoad)andtheadditionofanewinterlocking,wouldaddsignificantprojectcosts.Theprojectwouldalsoresultinimpactstosixacresofforest,fouracresofwetlands,oneacreofFIDShabitatand27acresofahistoricdistrict.

CarpentersPointTheCarpentersPointsitehastheappropriateacreageandislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiver.However,thesitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.Engineeringissues,includingtheconstructionofa4thNECtrack,reconstructionoftwobridges,andrelocationoftheMARCturnout,wouldaddsignificantcost.Theprojectwouldresultinimpactsto53acresofforestand53acresofFIDShabitat.

MasonDixonTheMasonDixonsiteislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiverbutwouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.Inaddition,engineeringissuesincludingtheconstructionofa4thNECtrack,twomilesofleadtrack,andthereconstructionoftwobridgeswouldaddsignificantcosts.Therearealsounknownrisksassociatedwithanexisting750feetdeepmineralextractionpitthatwouldrequirefillsuitableforrailroadloading.Theprojectwouldresultinimpactsto32acresofforest


iv

impacts,16acresofwetlandimpacts,8,240linearfeetofwaterwaysand59acresofFIDShabitat.

TwoadditionalsiteslocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiverwereconsideredasaresultofpubliccommentsreceivedduringtheNEPAprocesstheNorfolkSouthernYardSiteandtheBurkheimerSite.Prohibitiveengineeringandenvironmentalconstraintswereidentifiedduringinitialscreeningwhichpreventedthesesitesfrombeingconsideredfordetailedevaluation.UndertheNoBuildAlternativeaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldnotbeconstructed.Thisalternativewaseliminatedearlyonintheplanningprocessbecauseitdoesnotmeetthepurposeandneed,butisconsideredasabaselineagainstwhichthePreferredAlternativeiscompared.TheNoBuildAlternativewouldresultinnoadverseimpactstoairquality,noiseandvibration,soils,wetlandsandstreams,vegetationandwildlife,culturalresourcesandcommunityresourcesattheproposedsite.However,ongoingandfutureplannedprojectswithinthestudyareamaybeimplemented,suchasvariousdevelopmentandredevelopmentprojects.Apositivegrowthtrendisexpectedtocontinue.IMPACTSThisEAidentifiestheimpactstosocioeconomic,cultural,andnaturalresources.TableES1summarizestheimpactthattheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldhaveonenvironmentalresourcesintheprojectarea,aswellasproposedavoidance,minimization,andmitigationmeasures.TABLEES1.SUMMARYOFEFFECTSTONATURAL,CULTURAL,ANDSOCIOECONOMICRESOURCES

EnvironmentalResource PreferredAlternativeEffects

Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures

AirQuality

TheoperationoftheproposedprojectsemissionsimpactonairqualityhasbeendeterminedbytheregionalMPO(WILMAPCO)toconformwithairqualityregulations.Thiscoversemissionsofozoneprecursorsaswellascarbonmonoxideandparticulatematter.

MTAwouldimplementtheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironments(MDE)dustandemissionscontrolmeasuresduringconstruction.MTAwouldmeettheEPAsstringentemissionsstandardswhichincludesthepurchaseofTier4locomotives.Inadditionwaysideelectricpowerwouldbeinstalledintheyardtoeliminatetheneedforlocomotivestoidlewhennotbeingplacedinservice.

Noise&Vibration Nonoiseandvibrationimpactswouldoccur.ConstructionspecificationswouldrequiretheContractortoadheretoapplicable


v



local,Stateandfederalnoiseemissionstandards,andtouseonlyequipmentwithnoisecontrols.

Geology&SoilsTopographywouldbepermanentlyalteredtolevelthefacilityandconstructlandscapedbermsaroundtheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility.

TheproposedfacilitywouldutilizeBestManagementPractices(BMPs)toprotectsoilsfromerosionanddepositioncausedbyhumanactivitiesduringconstructioninordertominimizeenvironmentaldisturbance.Erosionandsedimentcontrolmeasureswouldbeinstalledpriortobeginninglanddisturbancesandwouldnotberemoveduntilthedisturbedlandareasarestabilized.Suchpracticesincludeseedingormulchingforsurfacestabilization,siltfences,haybaledikes,andwaterqualityswales.

WaterResources

Therewouldbe4,050linearfeetofwaterwayimpactstoatributaryofMillCreek.

90.5acresofagriculturallandintheLowerSusquehannaRiverwatershedwouldbeconvertedtoUrbanland.

27.1acresofagriculturallandintheLowerFurnaceBaywatershedwouldbeconvertedtoUrbanland.

Theproposedfacilitywouldresultin22.5acresofnewimpervioussurfacesinthewatershed,whichwouldhaveslightnegativeimpactsonwaterquality.

NoinstreamworkwouldoccurduringtheperiodofMarch1stthroughJune15th,inclusive,duringanyyear.ASedimentandErosionControlPlanwouldbeimplementedduringconstructiontominimizesurfacerunoff.Anytemporarilydisturbedareaswouldberestoredandrevegetated.MTAwouldadheretoMarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)minimizationrecommendations,includingpreservingexistingriparianvegetationintheareaofthestreamchannelasmuchaspossibletomaintainaquatichabitatandprovideshadingtothestream,andavoidingimpactstothestreamandassociatedriparianvegetationinareasdesignatedfortheaccessofequipmentandfortheremovalordisposalofmaterial.


vi



WetlandsTheproposedfacilitywouldresultin35,879squarefeet(0.823acres)and3,361linearfeetofimpactstowaterways,and14,667squarefeet(0.336acres)ofimpacttowetlands.

Tomitigateshorttermimpactstowetlandsandwaterwaysduringconstruction,constructionactivitieswouldbecompletedusingtheBMPssetforthbyMDE,andaSedimentandErosionControlPlanwouldbeimplementedtominimizesurfacerunoff.ThisprojectwouldrequirethesubmittalofaJointFederal/StateApplicationfortheAlterationofAnyFloodplain,Waterway,TidalorNontidalWetlandinMaryland,asthisprojectwouldimpactnontidalwetlandandwaterways.MTAwouldmitigatewetlandandwaterwayimpactsinaccordancewiththeUnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineersrecommendations.

Vegetation&Wildlife

Approximately141,635squarefeet(3.256acres)offorestedareawouldbeimpactedbytheproject.

Theproposedfacilitywouldrestrictrowcropvegetationonapproximately98.18acres.

Theproposedfacilitywouldtemporarilydecreasewetlandsquarefootageandthereforeimpactaquaticwildlife.Impactstoterrestrialwildlifearenotexpectedtooccur.

AccordingtoDNRandUSFishandWildlifeServices,impactstoRare,ThreatenedandEndangeredspeciesarenotanticipatedasaresultoftheconstructionoroperationofthefacility.

ConstructionactivitieswouldbecompletedusingtheBMPssetforthbyMDE,andaSedimentandErosionControlPlanwouldbeimplementedtominimizesurfacerunoff.MTAwouldreforestapproximately8.5acresoflandlocatedinthenortheastportion,southwestportionandalongtheeasternboundaryofthepropertythatMTAispurchasingforonsitereforestation.ForestConservationPlanswouldbesubmittedDNRforreviewandcommentwhenfinaldesignplansaredeveloped.


vii



HazardousMaterials

ThePhaseIandPhaseIIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmentsidentifiedarseniccontaminationacrossthesite,potentiallyassociatedwithnormalbackgroundlevels.Thereisalsothepotentialforhydrocarboncontamination.

TheMTAwoulddevelopaHealthandSafetyPlanpriortoconstruction,asafetycapwouldbeinstalledforundisturbedarseniccontaminatedsoils,andadditionalsamplingandremediationwouldtakeplacefordisturbedarseniccontaminatedsoilspriortoconstruction.

Visual&AestheticEnvironment

Theproposedfacilitywouldresultinchangestotheaestheticenvironment.ItwouldreplacetheexistingrowcropfarmandmultiplesmallfarmstructureswiththeMARCfacility.

MTAwouldconstructbermsandprovidelandscapingthatwouldprovideavisualbufferaroundthefacility.Additionally,MTAwoulduselightingdesignedtominimizenuisancetonearbyresidents.

CulturalResources

FivearcheologicalsiteswereidentifiedwithintheAreaofPotentialEffects(APE).Onearcheologicalsite,theCoudonFarmSite(18CE383)hasbeendeterminedeligiblefortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP).Fourabovegroundproperties,whicharecurrentlylistedontheMarylandInventoryofHistoricPlaces(MIHP),withintheAPEhavebeendeterminedNRHPeligible.TheseincludetheAnchorage(MIHPNo.CE1230),theCrothersHouse(MIHPNo.CE1566),Lindenwood(MIHPNo.CE700),andtheWoodlandHistoricDistrict(MIHPNo.CE145).

Culturalresourceconsultation,includingeffectsdeterminations,isongoing.MTAiscurrentlyworkingwiththeMarylandHistoricalTrusttodevelopavoidance,minimization,andmitigationmeasurestoresolveadverseeffectstohistoricproperties.


viii



Socioeconomic&EnvironmentalJustice

Theproposedfacilitywoulddisplaceanapproximate120acreparcel,whichcontainsagriculturaloutbuildings,rowcrops,andtworesidences.

Theproposedfacilitywouldrequireanadditional1.34acresofprivatepropertyacquisitionfromatotalofthreeproperties.

Theprojectwouldnothavehighanddisproportionateeffectsonminorityandlowincomepopulations.

TheproposedprojectwouldintroduceanewvisualelementtopatronsandstaffoftheFurnaceBayGolfCourseandAllPawsAnimalWellnessClinic;however,daytodayoperationswouldnotbeaffected.

MTAwouldpurchaseprivatepropertyinaccordancewithfederalrequirementsincludingtheFederalUniformRelocationAssistanceandRealPropertyAcquisitionPoliciesActof1970.Fairmarketvaluewouldbeprovidedtoallpropertyownersascompensationforrightofwayacquisitions.Inadditionrelocationassistancewouldbeavailablefordisplacedresidents.MTAwouldworkwiththeSusquehannaWorkforceNetworktomaximizeemploymentopportunitiesforlocalresidentsandbusinesses.

LandUse&Zoning

Theproposedprojectwouldchangethelanduseofthesitefromhighdensityresidentialtoindustriallanduse.CecilCountyidentifiestheprojectsiteasadesignatedGrowthAreaandafutureemploymentarea.

Theproposedfacilitywouldincorporatescreeningandbufferingofemploymentareasfromadjacentresidentialuses,asrecommendedforDesignatedGrowthAreasbytheCecilCountyComprehensivePlan.

PublicServicesUtilities&Safety

Apowerlinecurrentlyrunsparalleltotherailwayline.Publicaccesstotheproposedfacilitywouldcreatesafetyissues.Aportionofthepowerlinewouldberelocatedtoallowconstructionandoperationofthefacility.

TheMTAwoulddevelopsecuritymeasurestopreventunauthorizedaccesstothemaintenancefacility,includingafencesurroundingtheentiretyofthefacility.


ix



Transportation

Theproposedmaintenancefacilitywouldrequire30employeesin2018.TheresultsofthetrafficstudyindicatethatallstudyintersectionsareprojectedtooperateatanacceptableLevelofService(LOS)ofDorbetterandtheCoudonBlvdapproachtoUS40isprojectedtooperateatLOSC.Furthermore,asignalisnotwarrantedattheintersectionofCoudonBlvdatMD7.

Althoughintersectionsareprojectedtooperateatacceptablelevelsofservice,MTAwouldconsultwithSHAtodetermineifsignaltimingscouldbeadjustedformarginalimprovements.

SUMMARYBasedontheresultsofthisEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)theproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacility,locatedatthePreferredAlternative(PerryvilleA),wouldnotcauseasignificantimpactonthenaturalorhumanenvironment.IncompliancewiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyActtheMTAhasundertakenconsultationwithallrelevantstakeholdersandwouldcontinuetoconsultwithstakeholdersthroughouttheprojectslife.ThisEAhasbeensignedbytheMTAandFTAanddistributedtofederal,stateandlocalagencies,aswellasorganizations,otherinterestedpartiesandthepublic.UponreviewoftheEAandcommentsreceived,theFTAsfindingwouldresultineitheraFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI)ortherequirementforanEnvironmentalImpactStatementtobeprepared.


x

TABLEOFCONTENTS1 IntroductionandProjectDescription.....................................................................................11.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................11.2 ProjectPurpose................................................................................................................11.3 NeedfortheProject........................................................................................................11.4 StudyAreaandBackground.............................................................................................41.5 ProjectDescription..........................................................................................................41.5.1 DetailedProjectDescription.....................................................................................5

1.6 ApplicableLawsandRegulations.....................................................................................61.6.1 Laws..........................................................................................................................61.6.2 Regulations...............................................................................................................61.6.3 ExecutiveOrders.......................................................................................................6

1.7 EANextSteps...................................................................................................................72 DescriptionofAlternatives.....................................................................................................82.1 SiteSelectionProcessandFindings.................................................................................82.1.1 Opus........................................................................................................................112.1.2 AberdeenProvingGround......................................................................................132.1.3 Prologis....................................................................................................................152.1.4 PerryvilleB..............................................................................................................152.1.5 PerryvilleA..............................................................................................................182.1.6 NewBengies............................................................................................................202.1.7 Chesapeake.............................................................................................................202.1.8 Chelsea....................................................................................................................232.1.9 Perryman.................................................................................................................252.1.10 CarpentersPoint.....................................................................................................272.1.11 MasonDixon...........................................................................................................292.1.12 AdditionalSitesConsidered....................................................................................31

2.2 NoBuildAlternative.......................................................................................................322.3 BuildAlternative(PerryvilleA).......................................................................................32

3 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequencesNoBuildAlternative..............343.1 AirQuality......................................................................................................................34


xi

3.2 NoiseandVibration.......................................................................................................343.3 GeologyandSoils...........................................................................................................343.4 WaterResources............................................................................................................343.5 Wetlands........................................................................................................................353.6 VegetationandWildlife.................................................................................................353.7 HazardousMaterials......................................................................................................353.8 Visual&AestheticEnvironment....................................................................................353.9 CulturalResources.........................................................................................................353.10 SocioeconomicandCommunityResources...................................................................353.11 EnvironmentalJustice....................................................................................................363.12 LandUseandZoning......................................................................................................363.13 PublicServices,UtilitiesandSafety...............................................................................363.14 Transportation...............................................................................................................36

4 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequencesBuildAlternative....................374.1 AirQuality......................................................................................................................374.1.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................374.1.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................374.1.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................38

4.2 NoiseandVibration.......................................................................................................394.2.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................394.2.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................404.2.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................44

4.3 GeologyandSoils...........................................................................................................444.3.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................444.3.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................444.3.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................46

4.4 WaterResources............................................................................................................464.4.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................464.4.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................474.4.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................50

4.5 Wetlands........................................................................................................................51


xii

4.5.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................514.5.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................514.5.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................54

4.6 VegetationandWildlife.................................................................................................544.6.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................544.6.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................554.6.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................58

4.7 HazardousMaterials......................................................................................................604.7.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................604.7.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................604.7.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................61

4.8 Visual&AestheticEnvironment....................................................................................634.8.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................634.8.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................634.8.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................64

4.9 CulturalResources.........................................................................................................644.9.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................644.9.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................674.9.3 ProposedMitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................71

4.10 SocioeconomicandCommunityResources...................................................................714.10.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................714.10.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................724.10.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................774.10.4 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................774.10.5 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................78

4.11 LandUseandZoning......................................................................................................804.11.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................804.11.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................804.11.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................83

4.12 PublicServices,UtilitiesandSafety...............................................................................834.12.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................83


xiii

4.12.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................834.12.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................83

4.13 Transportation...............................................................................................................844.13.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................844.13.2 AffectedEnvironmentandEnvironmentalConsequences.....................................844.13.3 Mitigation,Commitments,andMinimizationMeasures.......................................86

4.14 Section4(f)Resources...................................................................................................864.14.1 StudyAreaandMethodology.................................................................................87

4.15 IndirectandCumulativeEffects.....................................................................................884.15.1 Methodology...........................................................................................................884.15.2 EnvironmentalResourcesofInterest.....................................................................884.15.3 GeographicBoundary.............................................................................................894.15.4 TemporalBoundary................................................................................................894.15.5 ReasonablyForeseeableDevelopment..................................................................894.15.6 IndirectEffectsAnalysis..........................................................................................904.15.7 CumulativeEffectsAnalysis....................................................................................90

4.16 ConstructionImpacts.....................................................................................................944.16.1 DescriptionofProposedConstructionActivities....................................................944.16.2 EnvironmentalEffects.............................................................................................94

5 CoordinationandConsultation...........................................................................................1006 AbbreviationsandAcronyms..............................................................................................1017 References..........................................................................................................................104LISTOFTABLESTableES1.SummaryofEffectstoNatural,Cultural,andSocioeconomicResources..................ivTable1:MARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitySiteSearchMatrix...........................................10Table2:2018FacilityAnnualOperationalEmissions..................................................................38Table3:ReceptorLocations,ExistingNoiseLevelandPredictedImpacts..................................43Table4:SummaryofWetlandImpacts........................................................................................54Table5:SummaryofPhaseIfindings..........................................................................................60Table6:NRHPListedorEligiblePropertiesintheHistoricPropertyAPE...................................68Table7:DeterminationofEffectsfortheMARCMaintenanceFacilityonAboveGroundNRHPHistoricProperties........................................................................................................................69


xiv

Table8:SummaryofRightofWay(ROW)Acquisitions.............................................................74Table9:MinorityandLowIncomePopulations..........................................................................79Table10:ReasonablyForeseeableDevelopmentwithintheICEBoundary................................89Table11:ProjectCoordinationSummary..................................................................................100LISTOFFIGURESFigure1.1 AmtrakNortheastCorridor...................................................................................2Figure2.11 PotentialSitesalongAmtrakNortheastCorridor.................................................9Figure2.12 AlternativeSite:Opus..........................................................................................12Figure2.13 AlternativeSite:APGEdgewood.........................................................................14Figure2.14 AlternativeSite:Prologis.....................................................................................16Figure2.15 AlternativeSite:PerryvilleB................................................................................17Figure2.16 AlternativeSite:PerryvilleA................................................................................19Figure2.17 AlternativeSite:NewBengies.............................................................................21Figure2.18 AlternativeSite:Chesapeake..............................................................................22Figure2.19 AlternativeSite:Chelsea.....................................................................................24Figure2.110 AlternativeSite:Perryman..................................................................................26Figure2.111 AlternativeSite:CarpentersPoint.......................................................................28Figure2.112 AlternativeSite:MasonDixon.............................................................................30Figure2.17 ProposedProjectSite..........................................................................................33Figure4.21 NoiseSensitiveAreasandReceiverSites............................................................40Figure4.22 VibrationScreeningArea.....................................................................................42Figure4.3 SoilGeology.........................................................................................................45Figure4.4 WaterResources.................................................................................................48Figure4.5 Wetlands..............................................................................................................53Figure4.61 Vegetation...........................................................................................................56Figure4.62 ReforestationArea..............................................................................................59Figure4.7 HazardousMaterials............................................................................................62Figure4.9 CulturalResources...............................................................................................65Figure4.101 CensusTracts&GrowthAreas............................................................................73Figure4.102 Socioeconomic.....................................................................................................75Figure4.111 ExistingLandUse.................................................................................................81Figure4.112 Zoning..................................................................................................................82Figure4.14 Transportation.....................................................................................................85Figure4.15 IndirectandCumulativeEffects..........................................................................91APPENDICESAppendixA:MARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport


xv

AppendixB:NoiseAssessmentReportAppendixC:AgencyCoordinationAppendixD:Section106CoordinationAppendixE:StandingStructuresReportAppendixF:MHTConcurrenceAppendixG:Section4(f)AppendixH:PublicOutreach


1

1 INTRODUCTIONANDPROJECTDESCRIPTION

1.1 INTRODUCTIONThisEnvironmentalAssessment(EA)waspreparedinaccordancewiththeNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)toevaluatethepotentialenvironmental,cultural,andsocioeconomiceffectsthatmayresultfromaproposedMarylandAreaRegionalCommuter(MARC)northeastfacilityinCecilCounty,Maryland.TheproposedprojectwilladdressMARCneedsonthePennLine,oneofthreeMARCoperatingcommuterlines,whichstretchesfromWashingtonD.C.sUnionStationtoPerryville,MD.TheMarylandTransitAdministration(MTA)initiatedtheNEPAprojectscopingprocessin2010andistheprojectsponsor.TheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)istheleadfederalagency.MARC,knownpriorto1984asMarylandRailCommuter,isacommuterrailsystemcomprisingthreelinesintheBaltimoreWashingtonMetropolitanArea.ThethreeMARCoperatinglinesaretheBrunswickLine,CamdenLineandPennLine.MARCisadministeredbytheMTA,aMarylandDepartmentofTransportation(MDOT)agency,andisoperatedundercontractbyBombardierTransportationServicesUSACorporationandAmtrakovertracksownedbyCSXTransportationandAmtrak.TheproposedprojectwouldaddressMARCcurrentandfutureneedsonthePennLine(seeFigure1.1).

1.2 PROJECTPURPOSEThepurposeoftheprojectistodevelopafacilitythatwouldefficientlyserveoperation,maintenance,inspectionandstoragerequirementsoftheMARCPennLineFleet.Thenewfacilitywouldaccommodatecurrentoperationalneeds,projectedridershipgrowthontheMARCPennLine,andallowforfutureexpansion.

1.3 NEEDFORTHEPROJECTTheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityprojectwouldaddressfourspecificneedsoftheMARCsystem,asdescribedbelow:

1. NeedforadditionalMARCPennLinetrainstorage.2. Needtoconsolidatemaintenance,inspection,andstoragefunctionsforthecurrentMARC

system.3. Needtosupportexpected2035ridershipgrowthandsystemexpansionnorthofthe

SusquehannaRiver.4. Becauseofsharedrailroadfacilities,needtosupportAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)

growthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail.

AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDORFIGURE 1.1LEGEND

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR USED BY MARC

NOTE: MAP NOT TO SCALE

jwolfers-lawrenceTypewritten TextMARC Northeast Maintenance Facility

jwolfers-lawrenceTypewritten Text



3

NeedforadditionalMARCtrainstorage:Currently,MARCstoresandservicessixofthePennLinetrainsetsatPennsylvaniaStationinBaltimore,MarylandandtheremainingtwotrainsetsarebeingstoredattheMARCMartinStateAirportFacility.BothfacilitiesareatstoragecapacitywithnoroomforanticipatedMARCgrowthinservicealongtheexistinglineandpotentialfutureexpansiontoWilmington.Requirementsforasitetosupportadditionalstorageincludeasitecomprisingaminimumof60acres,locateddirectlyadjacenttotheNortheastCorridor(NEC)andasitethatallowsforAmtrakconnectionwhichincludesaminimumlengthofleadtracksandtwopointsofconnection.Needtoconsolidatemaintenance,inspection,andstoragefunctionsforthecurrentMARCsystem:ThecurrentdependenceonAmtrakformaintenanceandinspectionoftheMARCtrainsstoredatPennsylvaniaStationresultsininefficiencies,schedulingconflicts,delaysingettingequipmentbackonline,andhighlaborcosts.NormallyAmtraksvehicleshavepriorityregardingcleaning,repairsandmaintenance.Inaddition,thePennsylvaniaStationworkspacesareexposedtotheweather,andbecausethereislimitedtrackcapacity,nonewequipmentcanbeaccommodated.AnMTAcontrolledfacilitywouldallowMARCtoprioritizerepairsandimprovecosteffectivenessbycompetitivelybiddingfortheoperationofthefacility.NeedtosupportprojectedridershipgrowthandsystemexpansionnorthoftheSusquehannaRiver:TheMARCGrowthandInvestmentPlan(MGIP)isprojectingridershiptodoubleby2035.ThePreferredAlternativewouldaccommodatethestorageandmaintenanceoftheneededadditionalequipmenttomeettheanticipatedridershipgrowth.GrowthinridershipisanimportantcomponentoftheWilmingtonMetropolitanAreaPlanningCoordinatingCouncilairqualityplanningandtheMTAsplansforthereductionofgreenhousegasemissionsneededtomeettheGovernors2020emissiongoals.TheabilitytoexpandMARCserviceisconstrainedbyoperatingonAmtraksNECtracksandlackofadditionalstorageandmaintenancefacilitycapacitytoaccommodateadditionalMARCtrainequipment.TheMTAisaddressingthepotentialforexpansionofMARCservicenorthofPerryvillethroughcoordinationwiththeDelawareDepartmentofTransportation(DelDOT)andtheSoutheasternPennsylvaniaTransportationAuthority(SEPTA).WithstorageandmaintenancefacilitiescurrentlyatPennStationandMartinStateAirport,anewstorageandmaintenancefacilitylocatedwithin20milesofNewark,DelawareisexpectedtoprovidetherequiredadditionalcapacityfortheexistingserviceareaaswellasalocationconducivetopotentialexpansionoftheMARCservicenorthbyreducingoperationalcostsassociatedwithsignificantdeadheadtravel.TheSusquehannaRiverislocatedapproximately21milessouthofNewark,Delawareandprovidesanappropriategeographicboundaryforconsiderationofpotentialsites.NeedtosupportAmtraksNECgrowthplanandplannedexpansionofhighspeedrail:AmtraksVisionfortheNortheastCorridor(2012)proposesexpansionoftransportationcapacityalongtheNortheastCorridor,includinghighspeedrailserviceprovidedbyAcelaExpress.AsaresultofAmtrakandMARCsharingtracks,expansionwouldincludeinvestmentininfrastructurethatwouldallowoperationalseparationbetweeninterstate,regional,andlocalservices.TheneedtosupportAmtraksNECgrowthplanincludesconsiderationofprojects


4

outlinedintheAmtrakNortheastCorridorInfrastructureMasterPlan(2010).TheMasterPlanidentifiesthreebridgesinnorthernMarylandwhichrequirerehabilitationorreplacementduetolimitedcapacityandupgraderequirements.TheSusquehannaRiverRailBridgeisoneofthethreebridgesrequiringreplacementorrehabilitationandiscurrentlyunderenvironmentalandengineeringanalysis.

1.4 STUDYAREAANDBACKGROUNDTheMTAisproposingtoconstructamaintenancefacilityandtrainstorageyardalongAmtraksNortheastCorridor(NEC)tosupportMARCoperations(seeFigure1.1).TheNEC,whichcloselyparallelsI95formostofitslength,isafullyelectrifiedrailwaylinethatservestheNortheastmegalopolisoftheUnitedStates.OwnedprimarilybyAmtrak,itrunsfromBostonthroughNewYorkCity,Philadelphia,andBaltimoretoWashington,D.C.ThecorridorisusedbyalargenumberofAmtraktrains,includingthehighspeedAcelaExpress,intercitytrains,andseverallongdistancetrains.Mostofthecorridoralsohasfrequentcommuterrailservice,oneofwhichisoperatedbyMARC.TheMTAidentifiesMARCfutureandstrategicneedsandprovidesjustificationforfundingintheMTAsannualcapitalandoperatingbudget,submittedtoMDOT. MTAoriginallyevaluatedabroadstudyareaalongtheNEC,betweenBaltimoreCityandtheDelawareStateLinetoaccommodatethisfacility.TheinitialstudyareawasdeterminedtomeetMARCfuturestrategicneedsasdefinedintheannualcapitalandoperatingbudget.Thesestrategicneedsareupdatedregularlybasedonchangingridershipconditions.Duetochangingneedsandridershipgrowthpatternsitwasdeterminedthatanewmaintenancefacilitywouldneedtobelocatedwithin20milesofNewarkDelawarealongtheNECwithinMarylandinordertosupportfutureexpansionnorth.InadditiontheexistingSusquehannaRiverBridgeservesasabottleneckforhighspeedpassengerandcommuterrailduetolimitedcapacitythussupportingtheneedtolocatetheMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitynorthoftheSusquehannaRiver.

1.5 PROJECTDESCRIPTIONTheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldprovideMARCwiththecapabilityofstoring,servicingandinspectingcompletecommuterrailtrainsetsdailyandofperformingscheduledandunscheduledmaintenanceandrepairworkonbothlocomotivesandpassengercars.Theprojectwouldsupporttheexistingeighttrainsets(10locomotivesand53coaches,includingacombinationofmultiandsinglelevelcoaches)currentlyoperatingonMARCsPennLinewithapotentialexpansionofthefacilitytosupporta2035MARCoperatingfleetof25locomotives,181multilevelandsinglelevelcoaches,andonedieselswitchlocomotivetoservicethePennLine.


5

1.5.1 DetailedProjectDescriptionFacilitiesattheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldinclude:

Serviceandinspectionpitthatconsistsoftwotracks,afulltrainlengthopenpitandmultilevelinspectionplatformslocatedwithintwoofthetrainsetstoragetracks;thepitwouldbecoveredwithasemiopenshedtoprovidesomeprotectionfromweather

Semipermanentbuildingforthestorageofparts,supplies,andconsumables Atleasttwosemipermanentbuildingsfortraincrews,supervisors,andmaintenance

andinspectionpersonnel Locomotiveservicingstationequippedwithspillcontainmentforfuelingdiesel

locomotivesandnonrevenuevehiclesthatmayoperatefromorcyclethroughtheproposedfacility,andforfillingoflocomotivesandboxes

Parkingarea Fuelingandsandingpad Commercialpowersubstation Two20,000gallon,abovegrounddieselfuelstoragetanksandfueltruckdeliverypad

withspillcontainment AccessroadfromPrincipioFurnaceRoadtothemaintenancefacility,aswellasaccess

roadwayswithinthefacility Stormwatermanagementfacilitydesignedasanextendeddetentionshallowwetland.

ActivitiestobeperformedattheproposedMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldrequireaworkforceof90duringconstructionofthefacilityandapproximately30employeesduringoperationofthefacilityforjobsincludingtraincrewmembers,inspectors,carcleaners,administrativestaff,andshopandmaintenancestaff.Duringoperation,thefacilitywouldoperate24hoursperdaywithpeakoperationsduringnighttimehours.Activitieswouldinclude:

Dailyandperiodicinspectionsandservicingoflocomotivesandcoaches,includinginspectionofwheelsandbrakes,cabsignalsandsandersoflocomotives,dumping/servicingofonvehicletoiletsystems,andreplenishingpotablewatersupplies

Dailylocomotivefuelingandsandingandinspectionofcabsignalsandbrakes Maintenanceforcoacheswouldincludeinteriorcoachcleaning,replenishingof

consumablesandtheperiodicemptyingofonboardwastewatertreatmentsystems Dailyinspectionsofbrakes,wheelsandtruckframesoncoaches Longerperiodinspectionswouldbedoneat180and365dayintervalsforcoachesand 30,180and365dayintervalsforlocomotives MiddayStoragefortrainsetsreceivinginspectionandservicing Overnightstorageoftrainsets Dailyassignmentsoftraincrews


6

Periodicdeliveriesofdieselfuel,sand,parts,suppliesandconsumables

1.6 APPLICABLELAWSANDREGULATIONS1.6.1 Laws

NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969(42U.S.C.4321etseq) NationalHistoricPreservationActof1966(16U.S.C.470etseq) EndangeredSpeciesAct16(16U.S.C.1531etseq) CleanAirActAmendmentsof1990(42U.S.C.12511376) FederalTransitLaws[49U.S.C.5301,5323(b),] U.S.DepartmentofTransportationActof1966(49U.S.C.303and23U.S.C.138) RiversandHarborsActof1899(33U.S.C.401) LandandWaterConservationActof1956(16U.S.C.460) UniformRelocationAssistanceandRealPropertyActof1970(42U.S.C.4601etseq) TitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964(42U.S.C.2000d2000d4) AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(42U.S.C.12101etseq) CleanWaterActof1972(33U.S.C.1251etseq) UrbanForestPreservationActof2002(D.C.Law14309;D.COfficalCode8651.01et

seq.)1.6.2 Regulations

CEQRegulationsforImplementingtheProceduralProvisionsoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(40CFRParts15001508)

AdvisoryCouncilonHistoricalPreservationProtectionofHistoricandCulturalProperties(36CFRPart800)

FHWA/FTAEnvironmentalImpactandRelatedProcedures(23CFRPart771 FHWA/FTAParks,RecreationAreas,WildlifeandWaterfowlRefuses,andHistoricSites

[Section4(f)](23CFRPart774) FTACircular4703.1(EnvironmentalJustice) StateofMarylandTidalWetlandsAct StateofMarylandNontidalWetlandsProtectionAct1.6.3 ExecutiveOrders

EO11988,FloodplainManagement.42FR26951,SignedMay24,1977 EO11990,ProtectionofWetlands.43FR26961,SignedMay24,1977 EO12898,FederalActionstoAddressEnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityPopulations

andLowIncomePopulations.59FR7629,SignedFebruary11,1994 EO13166,ImprovingAccesstoServicesforPersonswithLimitedEnglishProficiency.

65FR50121,SignedAugust11,2000


7

EO13423,StrengtheningFederalEnvironmental,Energy,andTransportationManagement.72FR33504,SignedJanuary24,2077

EO13514,FederalLeadershipinEnvironmental,Energy,andEconomicPerformance.74FR52117,SignedOctober5,2009

1.7 EANEXTSTEPSThisEAhasbeensignedbytheMTAandFTAanddistributedtofederal,stateandlocalagencies,aswellasorganizationsandotherinterestedparties(refertoDistributionListinAppendixCforacompletelistofrecipients).Therewillbea30dayreviewperiodfortheEA;thecommentdeadlineispostedontheprojectwebsite(http://mta.maryland.gov/marcmaintenancefacility).Duringthis30dayreviewperiod,theEAisavailableinthelocalPerryvilleLibrary,thePerryvilleTownHallandontheprojectwebsite.Followingthe30dayreviewperiod,theFTAwillconsiderthecommentsreceivedontheEAandwillprepareafinding.ThefindingwillresultineitheraFindingofNoSignificantImpact(FONSI)documentortherequirementforanEnvironmentalImpactStatementtobeprepared.IfaFONSIisissuedthedocumentwillsummarizethecommentsreceivedduringthe30dayreviewperiodandaresponsetothosecommentsaswellasdiscussthepreferredalternativeincludingthecriteriausedduringtheselectionprocessandhowthecriteriawereweighed.


8

2 DESCRIPTIONOFALTERNATIVESThischapterdescribesthesiteselectionplanningprocessusedtoidentifyanddevelopalternativesandprovidesasummaryoftheevaluatedsitesandtheselectionprocess.

2.1 SITESELECTIONPROCESSANDFINDINGSBetween2012and2014MTAevaluatedelevenpotentialsitesalongtheNECcorridortoaccommodatetheproposedMARCMaintenanceFacility(seeFigure2.11).BasedonMARCneeds,criteriaweredevelopedtoidentifyasitetoaccommodateaMARCmaintenancefacility.Minimalcriteriaincluded:

Asite60acresorgreater DirectlyadjacenttotheNEC AllowforAmtrakconnectionrequirementswhichincludeaminimumlengthoflead

tracksandtwopointsofconnection MinimumstoragecapacityforcurrentandfuturePennLinetrains Enoughspacewithinthe60acreorgreatersitetoaccommodateashopfacility

includinginspectionpitandsandingfacility AsitenorthoftheSusquehannaRiver

AsitenorthoftheSusquehannaRiverisrequired,becauseitwouldprovideastoragefacilitynearthecurrentterminusofthePennLine.WiththeMARCMartinStateAirportFacilitymidwaybetweenBaltimoreandPerryville,afacilityatthenorthendofthelinewouldbettersupportcurrentandfutureMARCoperations.PotentialsiteswereevaluatedbasedontheminimalcriterialistedaboveaswellastheengineeringandenvironmentalrequirementsnecessarytoaccommodatetheproposedMARCMaintenanceFacility.Costswereaconsiderationinpotentialalternativelocations,butcostswerenotusedasanabsolutemeasureforfeasibilityoflocations. Anevaluationoffivepotentiallocationsidentifiedin2012wasdocumentedintheMARCMaintenanceFacilitySiteSelectionReport(February2012)forthefollowingsites:Opus,AberdeenProvingGround(APG),Prologis,PerryvilleBandPerryvilleA(seeAppendixA).Anadditional6siteswereidentifiedandevaluatedin2013and2014:NewBengies,Chesapeake,Chelsea,Perryman,CarpenterPoint,andMasonDixon.AllelevensitesaresummarizedinTable1.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

DELAWARE

CECIL COUNTY

KENT COUNTY

HARFORD COUNTY

BALTIMORE COUNTY

Perryville A(PreferredSite)

Carpenter Point

PR INC I P

IO FUR N A

C E RD (M

D 7 )

AIKE N

AV E

P ER R

Y VI L

L E R

D

IK E A WA Y

C OU D O N B L V D

B A YS C A P E

D R

C E D A R C O R N E R R D

P R I N C I P I O S T A T I O N R D

MAR

Y LA N

D A V

E

G ILL E Y R D

PU LAS K I H

WY

I 95

I-95

I-695

PULASKI HWY

US HWY 1

FAIRLEE RD

STATE HWY 136

US HWY 40

J F K MEMORIAL HWY

BELAIR R

D

RIVER RD

STATE HWY 22

I 895 S

HARFORD

RD

I 95

TURKEY

POINT RD

AUGUST

INEHER

MANHW

Y

STATE HWY 155

HARKINS RD

MASSE

YRD

CONOWINGO RDSTATE HWY 623

TELEGRAPH RD

LOCUST GROVE RD

NORRISVILLE RD

MORGNEC

RDCYP RESS RD

FALLSTON RD

YORK RD

EAST WEST HWY

S WEET AIR RD

CRYSTAL BEACH RD

EASTERN B

LVD

ADY RDLOC

H RAVE

N BD

N MAIN ST

I-695

Opus

ChelseaPrologis

Perryman

Chesapeake

New Bengies

Mason Dixon

Perryville B

APG Edgewood

SITES EXAMINED ALONGAMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDORFIGURE 2.1-1

LEGEND!. Examined Site

NORTHEAST CORRIDORCOUNTY BOUNDARY

1 INCH = 6 MILES0 6 123 MILESSCALE:





10

TABLE1:MARCNORTHEASTMAINTENANCEFACILITYSITESEARCHMATRIX

OpusAberdeenProvingGround

Prologis PerryvilleBPerryville

ANew

Bengies ChesapeakeChelseaRoadSite

PerrymanSite

CarpentersPoint

MasonDixonSite

ProvidesadditionalMARCtrainstorage

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

AllowsConsolidationofMaintenance&Storage

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Supportsexpectedridershipgrowth,NECgrowthplan,&islocatednorthofSusquehannaRiver

No No No No Yes No No No No No No

ImpactstoprotectedZones Yes No No No No No No No No No No

Impactstowetlands(acres) No 3.3 24 No 0.336 4.4 4.6 1.1 3.7 0.2 15.9

SuperfundSite No Yes No No No No No No No No NoSitecanbedoubleended Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

InterfereswithAmtrakoperations

Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

ImpactstoHydrology(streams&wetlands)

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Impactstoforests(acres) 3.4 25.1 13.2 2.3 3.3 43.9 52.7 25.8 5.9 52.7 32.0

Impactstoculturalresources No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No

Significantsoilcontaminationpresent

Potentially Yes Potentially Potentially No No Potentially No No No Potentially

ImpactstoRare,Threatened,orEndangeredSpeciesFIDSHabitat(acres)

No 13.4 No No No 51.3 47.3 19.2 1.2 53.4 59.0

ImpactstoCriticalArea(acres)

No No No 1 No No 12.2 52.7 No No No


11

OpusAberdeenProvingGround

Prologis PerryvilleBPerryville

ANew

Bengies ChesapeakeChelseaRoadSite

PerrymanSite

CarpentersPoint

MasonDixonSite

Impactsto100yearFloodplains(acres)

No 1.8 4.5 No No No 21.9 1.3 No No No

SignificantNoiseImpacts No No Potentially No No No No No No No No

Significantearthmovingrequired No No No No Yes Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Yes Yes

Accesstohighways Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

SiteAccessrestrictions No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No

ConstructiontimeframeinlinewithMTAneeds

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Requiresconstructionofturnout

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Requiresreconstructionofroadways/bridges

No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Belowarebriefdescriptionsandlocationmapsfortheelevenevaluatedsites,aswellaseachsiteslanduse,spacecharacteristicsandprosandconsaspresentedintheSiteSelectionReportanddeterminedinsubsequentinvestigations.

2.1.1 Opus TheOpusSiteislocatedontheeastsideoftheNEC,southofMarylandBoulevard(MD715)andnorthofEastMichaelsvilleRoadinPerryman,MarylandinHarfordCounty(seeFigure2.12).Thesiteisapproximately57acresandboundontheeastsidebytheAberdeenProvingGround(APG)property.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately48acres,includinganaccessroadthatwouldconnectthestatehighwaysatthenorthend.TheOpusSitewouldrequiretheconstructionoftwonewcrossoversinPerryinterlocking.ThissitelocationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithproposedfutureAmtrakcapacityimprovementwork(additionaltracks).Theseconditionsarenotconsistentwiththeprojectpurposeandneed,specificallyAmtraksNECgrowthplan.TheOpusSitewouldrequirepropertyeasements.ThetotalestimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$446Million,notincludingrightofwaycosts.

CRAN B

ERRY RUN

RO MNEY

CREEK

A

A

CHELSEA RO

AD

Iy

TEST HW

Y

POST RD

SPESUTIA RD

MARYLAND BLVD

STATE HWY7

PHILLIPS FIELD RDCHELSE

A RD

CHANNEL P L

OLD STE

PNEY RD

LOFLIN R

DCRAN

BERRY RD

CIRELLI C

T

PERRYM

AN RD

ALTERNATIVE SITEOPUSFIGURE 2.1-2

1 INCH = 2,000 FEETSCALE:0 2,0001,000 FEET

LEGENDAPPROX. SITE LOCATIONNORTHEAST CORRIDORPERRYMAN WELLFIELDPROTECTION DISTRICT

WATERWAY

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITEDNR OR NWI WETLAND

100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPOTENTIAL FIDS HABITATCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICALAREA

Constraint Factors:1. Does not meet purpose and need.2. Located in the Perryman Wellfield Protection District which has zoning restrictions.3. Amtrak does not support location.4. Second longest deadhead time from Penn Station of all alternatives.5. Construction of two interlockings, each requiring at least two crossovers, pose major cost factors.

OPUS

SUSQUEHANNARIVER





13

TheOpusSiteislocatedinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardousmaterialssubsurfacecontaminationriskandwouldrequirebothPhaseIandPhaseIIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmentspriortoselectionofthesite.Additionalpotentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactsto3.4acresofforestedarea(requiring11.9acresofreforestation).ThesiteislocatedwithinthePerrymanWellfieldProtectionZoneandisnotcompatiblewithHarfordCountyzoningrestrictions.AlthoughtheOpusSitehastheappropriateacreagerequiredfortheMARCMaintenanceFacility,thesitelocation(southoftheSusquehannaRiver)doesnotmeettheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,thereareengineeringissuesthatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,unacceptablesafetyandoperationalproblemswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC,theprojectwouldresultinsevereenvironmentalimpactsandwouldbeincompatiblewithWellfieldZoningrestrictions(seeTable1).

2.1.2 AberdeenProvingGround TheAPGEdgewoodSiteislocatedonthesouthsideoftheNEC,northofMagnoliaRoad(MD152)andsouthofEmmortonRoad(MD24)(seeFigure2.13).Thesiteisapproximately6,800feetlong,rangesfromapproximately30feetwideontherailroadtrackstoapproximately800feetwide,andhasatotalsiteofapproximately74.1acres.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsfacilitywouldbeapproximately59acres.TheproposedsiteislocatedentirelywithinAPG,whichisfederallandandcurrentlyundermilitaryuse.TheAPGSiteislistedontheNationalPrioritiesList(NPL)DatabaseasaSuperfundcleanuplocationandcontainsUnexplodedOrdinance(UXO)whichwouldrequireremovalpriortolandclearance.TheAPGSitewouldrequireconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutintheexistingMagnoliaInterlocking.TheAPGSiteislocatedwithinthevicinityofmilitary/industriallandusesthatmayposeahazardousmaterialssubsurfacecontaminationrisk.Thesitewouldrequire60acresfromAPGthroughanEnhancedUseLease(EUL).ThisprocesswouldrequirecoordinationwithanapprovalfromAPGforsecurityclearances;therefore,constructiontimeisunknown.Asatenantofasuperfundsite,theMTAmaybesubjecttoliabilityconcerns.Anadditional15.1acresoflandwouldbeacquiredforutilityrelocationsand1.9acreswouldbetemporarilyimpactedduringconstruction.ThetotalestimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$529Million,notincludingrightofwaycosts.Additionalpotentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactstohazardousmaterials;wetlandareas;100and500yearfloodplains;25.1acresofforestedarea(requiring25.4acresofreforestation);and13.4acresofForestInteriorDwellingSpecies(FIDS)habitat.AlthoughtheAPGSitehastheappropriateacreage,thereareengineeringissuesthatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheprojectanditcausessevereimpactstoenvironmentalresourcesprotectedunderFederalstatutes,includingSuperfundhazardousmaterialsconcerns.In

Canal Cre

ek

Emmord

Branch

New turnout and crossing requiredat the Magnolia Interlocking.A

?

WESTWOOD RD

HOADLEY ROAD

SIEBER

T RDIGLOO ST

LAGOON RD

MAGNOLIA ROAD

NUTTAL AVEF O

RTHO

YLERD

CARMEN RD

ATKISS

ONRD

ALLEY

RD

AUSTIN R

D41ST ST 37

TH ST

11THS

T

REIDER CT

34THST

ALTERNATIVE SITEAPG EDGEWOODFIGURE 2.1-3

1 INCH = 1,000 FEETSCALE:0 1,000500 FEET

LEGENDAPPROX. SITE LOCATIONNORTHEAST CORRIDORWATERWAY

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITEDNR OR NWI WETLANDPOTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

100-YEAR FLOODPLAINCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

Constraint Factors:1. APG is a federally-designated Superfund Site, posing potential HAZMAT issues.2. Potential access difficulties during national security events due to route through military base.3. Construction of a new crossover and turnout in the interlocking may be required.4. Time to construction is unknown due to Enhanced Use Lease from APG.5. Site requires importing substatial amounts of fill material.6. Potential issues with floodplain, forests, wetlands, and waterways.7. Relocation of the existing BGE aerial power transmission lines.8. No direct access to highways.9. Does not meet purpose and need.

BGE AERIAL POWERTRANSMISSION LINE

OPUS

SUSQUEHANNARIVER

APG



15

addition,thelocationisnotconsistentwiththeprojectpurposeandneed,specificallybeinglocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.

2.1.3 Prologis ThePrologisSiteislocatedonthenorthsideofAmtraksNECandapproximately1,800feetsouthofTrimbleRoadintheCityofEdgewood,Maryland.Thesiteisapproximately8,200feetlongandrangesfromapproximately30feetwidealongtherailroadtracksto1,300feetwidewithatotalsiteareaofapproximately73acres(seeFigure2.14).TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAwouldbeapproximately56acres.ThetotalestimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$483Million.ThePrologisSitewouldrequireconstructionofonenewcrossoverandonenewturnoutintheexistingMagnoliaInterlocking.Thissiterequiresfullacquisitionofanindustrialpropertyandseveralpartialresidentialpropertyacquisitions.SeveralhomesabuttheAmtrakrightofwayatthenorthendneartheexistingWoodInterlocking.Additionaltrainmovementsmayproducenoiseimpacts.Further,thislocationmayrequiremodificationtotheMD152andMD24bridges,ifitisfoundthattheretainingwallsrequiredforinstallationoftheleadtrackswouldbeinsufficienttosupporttheabutments.Constructionofthesitewouldrequirerelocationofastormwatermanagementpond.Additionalenvironmentalimpactsincludeimpactstoforestedareas(13.2acres)requiring16.5acresofreforestation;100and500yearfloodplain;and19wetlandsand6waterwayssystems.AlthoughthePrologisSitehastheappropriateacreage,thereareengineeringissuesthatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,stormwatermanagementpondrelocationandsevereimpactstoenvironmentalresourceswithsignificantcosttomitigatingtheseimpacts.Inaddition,thelocationisnotconsistentwiththeprojectpurposeandneed,specificallybeinglocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver.

2.1.4 PerryvilleB ThePerryvilleBSiteislocatedonthesouthsideoftheNEC,directlyeastoftheIKEADistributionCenter,andnorthwestofFurnaceBayinPerryville,CecilCounty,Maryland(seeFigure2.15).Thesiteisapproximately6,500feetlong,andrangesfromapproximately30feetwidealongtherailroadtracksto1,400feetwide.ThesitewouldbeadjacenttotheexistingAmtrakMaintenanceofWay(MOW)baseofoperationsforthepersonnelandequipmentthatmaintaintheNEC.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsfacilitywouldbeapproximately44acres.PerryvilleBwouldrequirethecompleterelocationoftheMOWfacility(estimatedcostof$58Million)andconstructionoftwonewcrossoversintheexistingPerryInterlocking.ThissitelocationmaycreatepossibleinterferencewithproposedfutureAmtrakcapacityimprovement

EMMORD

BRANCH

CANA

L CREE

K

New turnout and crossing requiredat the Magnolia Interlocking.

A

?

HOADLEY ROAD

SIEBER

T RD

WISE R

D

W ESTWOOD RD

IGLOO ST OWEN RD

LAGOON RD

CARMEN RD

MAGNOLIA ROAD

ATKISS

ONRD

42ND S

T

IVY RD 40TH ST

AUSTIN

RD

ALLEY

RD

TRIMBLE RD

34TH S T

P ARKER RD

38TH S

THA

NLON

R D

STARR S

T

YAHDEST

MAGNOLIA RD

ROPKA LN

NUTTAL AVE

34TH STALTERNATIVE SITEPROLOGIS

FIGURE 2.1-4


LEGENDAPPROX. SITE LOCATIONNORTHEAST CORRIDOR

55

55555

555

DELINEATED FOREST STAND

WATERWAYDELINEATED WETLAND100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITATCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICALAREA

Constraint Factors:1. Difficulty obtaining permits due to impact to 11 to 21 acres of wetlands.2. Construction of a new crossover and turnout in the interlocking may be required.3. Several homes near the proposed site would be subject to noise impacts.4. Requires relocation of existing stromwater management ponds.5. Potential impacts to 100-year floodplain and forests.6. Requires full acquistion of 3 industrial and partial acquistions of several residential properties.7. Modification to the MD152 and MD 24 overhead bridges if retaining walls would not support abutments.8. May require extensive clearing.9. Does not meet purpose and need.

OPUS

SUSQUEHANNARIVER

APG

PROLOGIS


MILL C REEK

FURNACE BAYAmtrak MOW

?

Construction of three new crossoversrequired at the Perry Interlocking.

SUSQUEHANNARIVER

Ikea

SusquehannaRiver bridge

Demolition of abandonedroad bridge

PHILADELP

HIA ROAD

IKEA WAY

COUDON BLVD

MILL CREEK RD

FIRESTONE RD

Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS UserCommunity

ALTERNATIVE SITEPERRYVILLE B

FIGURE 2.1-5



PROPERTY BOUNDARY

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITENWI or DNR Wetland

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT100-YEAR FLOODPLAINCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

Constraint Factors:1. Requires construction of three new crossovers in Perry interlocking.2. Deadhead to Penn Station greater than all other alternatives and equal to Perryville A site.3. Relocation of existing MOW Base presents coordination issues and schedule delays Amtrak expressed opposition to use of this site.4. Potential impacts to HAZMAT and Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.5. Amtrak considers this site as least favorable.6. Possible interference with the proposed future Amtrak High Speed Rail improvements, including new track alignment and new Susquehanna River Bridge.7. Possible demolition of an abandoned road bridge spanning the NEC is a major cost factor.8. No direct access to highways.

SUSQUEHANNARIVER

PERRYVILLE B Copyright: 2012 Esri,DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Sources:Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp.,



18

work(additionaltracksandnewSusquehannaRiverBridge).Theseconditionsarenotconsistentwiththeprojectsstatedpurposeandneed,specificallyAmtraksNECgrowthplan.PerryvilleBwouldrequire15.3acresoffullpropertyacquisition(MOWBase),45.6acresofpartialacquisition(IkeaDistributionCenter)and15.8acresoftemporaryeasements.ThetotalestimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilityis$531Million.PerryvilleSiteBislocatedwithinthevicinityofindustriallandusesthatmayposeahazardousmaterialssubsurfacecontaminationrisk.Additionalpotentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludeimpactsto2.3acresofforestedarea(requiring13.6acresofreforestation);impactswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalArea;andpotentialculturalresourcespresentwithinandadjacenttothesite.ThePerryvilleBlocationdoesnotmeettheprojectspurposeandneed.Inaddition,thereareengineeringissuesthatwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,thislocationcausesunacceptablesafetyandoperationalissueswithAmtrakoperationsontheNEC,andtherewouldbesignificantimpactstoenvironmentalresources.

2.1.5 PerryvilleA ThePerryvilleASiteislocatedonthenorthsideoftheAmtrakNEC,southofMD7(PrincipioFurnaceRoad),andsouthandeastoftheintersectionofMD7withBroadStreet(seeFigure2.16).Theproposedprojectsiteisapproximately8,000feetlongandrangesfrom30feetwidealongtherailroadtracksto1,500feetwidewheretheaccessroadisproposedandthetotalsiteareaisapproximately110acres.TheportionofthesitethatwouldbeoccupiedbyMTAsimprovementswouldbeapproximately56acres.PerryvilleAisusedforagriculturalpurposesbutiszonedhighdensityresidential.Themajorityofthesiteiscleared,providingpotentiallocationsforonsitemitigationofwetlandandforestareaimpacts.Potentialenvironmentalimpactswouldincludelessthan1acreofwetlandimpacts,4.4acresofforestedareaimpactsandprivatepropertyacquisitionfromtheedgeofagolfcourseandothercommercialpropertiesalongtheNEC.Thereisahighpotentialforfullacquisitionofhistoricresources(farmstead)locatedonthesite.ThetotalestimatedcosttodevelopthissiteforaMARCNortheastMaintenanceFacilitywouldbe$355Million,excludingpropertyacquisition.ThePerryvilleASitelocationmeetstheprojectspurposeandneedaswellasprovideslandforwetlandandforestareamitigation.However,therewouldbeasignificantimpacttohistoricresources,andMTAwouldberesponsibleforallrequiredminimizationandmitigationmeasures.

5555555555555555

5555555555

55

5555

5555555555555555555555555 5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

555555555555555555555555555

55

55

555 55555555555555555555555555555

555555555555555555

55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 55 5555555555555555555

5555

5555555555555555

5555

55

55555555555555555555

555555555555555555555555555555555

555555

5555555

5555555 5

5 55555

5555555

55555

55555555555555555555555

MILL CREEK

Furnace BayGolf Course

?

Potentialculturalresource

Iy

Amtrack MOW

Purchase of ROWfor construction ofnew lead trackand turnout

Construction ofnew lead trackand turnout

PHILADELPH

IA ROAD

IKEA WAY

COUDON BLVD

MILL CREEK RD

FIRESTONE RDSource: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS UserCommunity

ALTERNATIVE SITEPERRYVILLE AFIGURE 2.1-6


LEGENDLIMIT OF DISTURBANCENORTHEAST CORRIDOR

55

55555

555

DELINEATED FOREST STAND

DELINEATED WATERWAYDELINEATED WETLAND100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITATCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICALAREA

Constraint Factors:1. Heavy grading may be required to make the site level.2. No existing connection to NEC.3. Full acquisition of historic farmstead property.4. Several partial acquisitions required.5. No direct access to highways.6. Requires two turnouts connecting to main line Track 4.

SUSQUEHANNARIVER

PERRYVILLE B

PERRYVILLE A

Copyright: 2012 Esri,DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Sources:Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp.,





20

2.1.6 NewBengiesTheNewBengiesSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestsideoftheNECalongNewBengiesRoadinBaltimore,MarylandacrossfromtheMartinStateAirportMaintenanceFacility(Figure2.17).ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthattheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakTrack3whichisahighspeedtrack.Amtrakdoesnottypicallyallowtrackstodivergefroma125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilities,sotheymayrequiretheconstructionofa4thtrack.Theconstructionwouldbecostlyduetothelengthoftrackrequired,adistanceofapproximately5.3miles,whichcouldresultinapproximately$133$177Millioninadditionalprojectcosts.IfAmtrakwouldallowtheleadtrackstobeconnectedtoTrack3,thelayoutwouldrequiremodificationinordertoprovideadirectconnection.Additionally,theexistingMD43(WhitemarshBoulevard)bridgethatcrossesovertheNECwouldneedtobereconstructedtoaccommodatetheleadtracks.TheNewBengiessiteisalsoconstrainedtothenorthbyalargebuildingcurrentlyunderconstruction.Developingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately44acresofforestedarea,4acresofwetlands,and51acresofFIDSHabitat.Forestmitigationwouldlikelybeapproximately50to60acres,andforestmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately$750,000to$900,000forthissite.Wetlandsmitigationcostswouldcostapproximately$500,000forthissite,notincludingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition.Constructionofamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldresultinapproximately0.4acresofresidentialpropertyimpacts.TheNewBengieslocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed.Also,itisnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.TherequiredconstructionofoverfivemilesofTrack4andpotentialreconstructionofahighwaybridgewouldresultinengineeringissuesaddingsignificantcosttotheproject.Developmentofthissitewouldsignificantlyimpacttoenvironmentalresources,includingforestsandwetlands.

2.1.7 ChesapeakeTheChesapeakeSiteislocatedsouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,ontheeastsideoftheNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossestheGunpowderRiverandsouthofHoadleyRoadinEdgewood,Maryland(Figure2.18).ThissiteispartoftheAPGandiscurrentlyownedbytheU.S.Government.AccesstothissiteisprovidedthroughtheAPGproperty.NegotiationsregardingaccessrightswithAPGcoulddelaytheprojectforanextendedperiodoftime.ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlanandthestatedpurposeandneedfortheproject,inthattheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtrakthe

?

WHITE

MAR

SH BLVD

AxWILSON PO INT ROAD

AEASTE RN B

LVD

Residential Property


ALTERNATIVE SITENEW BENGIESFIGURE 2.1-7

1 INCH = 2,000 FEETSCALE:0 1,800900 FEETLEGEND

APPROX. SITE LOCATIONNORTHEAST CORRIDORWATERWAY

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITENWI OR DNR WETLAND

POTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN

Constraint Factors:1. Located south of the Susquehanna River.2. Not compatible with NEC Master Plan.3. Lead tracks to a facility at this site would diverge from Track 3 which is a future high speed track.4. A new Track 4 would be costly given 5.3 miles of required new track.5. The bridge over MD43 would need to be reconstructed to accomodate tracks.6. Environmental impacts include 44 acres of forests, 4 acres of wetlands, and 51 acres of FIDS habitat.7. There would be 0.4 acres of residential property impacts.

NEWBENGIESCopyright: 2012 Esri,DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Sources:Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp.,


A

MAGNOLIA ROADFORT HOYLE ROAD

GUNPOWDERF AL LS


ALTERNATIVE SITECHESAPEAKEFIGURE 2.1-8



POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITENWI OR DNR WETLANDPOTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

100-YEAR FLOODPLAINCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICALAREA

Constraint Factors:1. Located south of the Susquehanna River.2. Not compatible with NEC Master Plan or the stated purpose and need.3. Lead tracks to a facility at this site would diverge from Track 2 in a curve which is the northbound high speed track.4. Proposed site is on Aberdeen Proving Ground which will cause access difficulties.5. Developing the site would result in impacts to: unknown hazardous materials, 53 acres of forest, 5 acres of wetland, 22 acres of floodplain, 12 acres of Critical Area, and 47 acres for FIDS habitat.

CHESAPEAKECopyright: 2012 Esri,DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Sources:Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp.,



23

northboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrakwouldlikelynotallowthisconnectionwithtrackstodivergefrom125mphtrackintolowspeedfacilitiesduetosafetyconcerns.AnotheroptionforleadtrackstothissitewouldbetoextendtheexistingTrackAacrosstheGunpowderRiveronanewbridgefromanexistinginterlockingtothesite,whichwouldbeasignificantcost.DevelopingthissiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstounknownhazardousmaterialsontheAPG,53acresofforestedarea,5acresofwetlands,47acresofFIDShabitat,22acreswithinthe100yearfloodplain,and12acreswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalArea.Theforestimpactswouldrequireextensivecoordination,andmitigationwouldcostapproximately$750,000to$900,000forthissite.Impactstowetlandswouldcostapproximately$500,000forthissite,notincludingcostsfordesignorpropertyacquisition.Impactswithinthe100yearfloodplaincouldrequirecoordinationwithandapermitfromtheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)andcoordinationwiththeFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA).ImpactswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaandAtlanticCoastalBayswouldrequirecoordinationwiththeCriticalAreaCommission.TheChesapeakelocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed.Also,thissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.ThereareunknownrisksforencounteringcontaminatedmaterialsasthesiteispartoftheAPG,anddevelopmentofthissitewouldsignificantlyimpactenvironmentalresourcesprotectedunderFederalstatutes,includingforests,floodplain,wetlands,andCriticalArea.

2.1.8 ChelseaTheChelseaSiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onChelseaRoadontheeastsideoftheNEC,justnorthofwhereitcrossesBushRiverinAberdeen,Maryland(Figure2.19).ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthattheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromthenorthboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrakmayrequiretheconstructionofthefuture4thtracktoallowMARCtrainstodeceleratetoasuitableoperatingspeedforenteringthemaintenancefacility.Constructionofa4thtrackwouldlikelycost$110$147Millionduetothelengthoftrackrequired,adistanceofapproximately4.4miles.Also,thenorthleadtrackwouldrequireconnectiontotheNECinacurvedlocation,whichwouldnotbepermitted.Therefore,thenorthleadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardtoreachtangenttracknearChelseaRoadoverheadhighwaybridge.DevelopingtheChelseaSiteforamaintenancefacilitywouldresultinimpactstoapproximately26acresofforestedarea,1acreofwetlands,19acresofFIDShabitat,1acrewithinthe100yearfloodplain,and53acreswithintheCriticalArea.Forestmitigationwouldcostapproximately$400,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.Wetlandmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately$100,000forthissite,notincludingdesignorpropertyacquisition.Impactswithinthe100yearfloodplaincouldrequirecoordinationwithanda


ALTERNATIVE SITECHELSEAFIGURE 2.1-9

1 INCH = 2,000 FEETSCALE:0 1,800900 FEETLEGEND

APPROX. SITE LOCATIONNORTHEAST CORRIDORWATERWAY

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITENWI OR DNR WETLANDPOTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

100-YEAR FLOODPLAINCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICAL AREA

Constraint Factors:1. Located south of the Susquehanna River.2. Not compatible with NEC Master Plan.3. Lead tracks to a facility at this site would diverge from Track 2 which is a high speed track.4. Environmental impacts include 26 acres of forest, 1 acre of wetlands, 19 acres of FIDS habitat, 1 acre within the 100-year floodplain, and 53 acres within the Critical Area.

CHELSEA

SUSQUEHANNARIVER

Copyright: 2012 Esri,DeLorme, NAVTEQ, Sources:Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,Intermap, increment P Corp.,



25

permitfromMDEandcoordinationwithFEMA.ImpactswithintheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaandAtlanticCoastalBayswouldrequirecoordinationwiththeCriticalAreaCommission.TheChelsealocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed.Also,thissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan.Thelongleadtrackconstructionwouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject,aswellaspotentialconflictswithsafetyandoperations.Developmentofthissitewouldsignificantlyimpacttoenvironmentalresources,includingforests,floodplain,wetlands,andChesapeakeBayCriticalArea.

2.1.9 PerrymanThePerrymanSiteislocated,southoftheSusquehannaRiver,onthewestsideoftheNEC,nearPerrymanandCanningHouseRoadsjustnorthoftheBushRiver(Figure2.110).Thereisanexistingbridgecrossing(ChelseaRoad)thatcrossesovertheNECtrackswithinthePerrymanSite.Thisbridgewouldneedtobereconstructedtoaccommodatetheleadtracksonthenorthernend.Also,MD199(PerrymanRoad)wouldhavetoberelocated;therelocationwouldbeapproximately7000feetinlengthandcoulddisplaceresidentialpropertiesatthesouthendoftheproject.ThereisnoexistingtrackconnectiontoAmtraksNEC.AnewinterlockingplantwouldberequiredontheNECnorthofthesite.ThesouthleadtrackwouldentertheNECwithinacurveandwouldthereforerequireanapproximately4,800footextensionsouthwardtoreachtangenttrackandmakeaconnectiontothemainlineattheexistingBushInterlocking.TheinterlockingadditionswouldprovidethenecessarycrossoverstomakeMARCtrainmovementsbetweenanymainlinetrackandadoubleendedfacility.However,AmtrakhasstateditisnotinfavoroftheadditionofanewinterlockinginthesectionoftracknorthofthesitebecausetheMARCtraincrossovermovementswouldslowAmtraktrafficinwhatisconsideredhighspeedtrack.Theroadwayandtrackworkwouldresultinapproximately$25.8$33.3Millioninadditionalprojectcostsfortheconstructionoftherequiredleadtracks.ANortheastMaintenanceFacilityatthePerrymanSitewouldresultinimpactstoapproximately5.9acresofforestedarea,3.7acresofwetlands,and1.2acresofFIDShabitat.Forestmitigationwouldcostapproximately$90,000forthissite,notincludingpropertyacquisition.Wetlandmitigationcostswouldbeapproximately$400,000forthissite,notincludingdesignorpropertyacquisition.InaccordancewithTransitNoiseandVibrationImpactAssessment,May2006(FTAVA90100306),screeningdistanceswereappliedtothePerrymanSitetoidentifypotentialnoiseimpacts.TheCranberryMethodistChurch,aculturalresourceidentifiedbytheMarylandHistoricalTrust(MHT),islocatednorthofthesite,onthewestsideofPerrymanRoad(MD159)andfallswithinthescreeningdistanceandcouldpotentiallybeimpactedbynoise.Singlefamily

CRAN

BERRY RUN

RO MNEY C

REEK

AA

CHELSEAROAD

Iy

TEST HW

Y

MARYLAND BLVD

STATE HWY 7

PHILLIPS FIELD RD

CHELSEA

RD

CHANNEL P L

OLD STE

PNEY RD

LOFLIN RD

CRANBERRY RD

CIRELLI C

T

PERRYM

AN RD

PerrymanHistoric District

ALTERNATIVE SITEPERRYMANFIGURE 2.1-10



100-YEAR FLOODPLAINPOTENTIAL FIDS HABITAT

POTENTIAL FOREST NEAR SITE

DNR OR NWI WETLANDPERRYMAN WELLFIELDPROTECTION DISTRICTCHESAPEAKE BAY CRITICALAREA

SUSQUEHANNARIVERPERRYMAN

Located south of the Susquehanna River.The Chelsea Road bridge over NEC tracks wouldneed to be replaced.Environmental impacts include 5.9 acres of forest,3.7 acres of wetlands and 1.2 acres of FIDS habitat.No existing track connection to Amtrak's NEC.A new interlocking plant will be required on the NECnorth of the site.Potential impacts to the Perryman Historic District.

1.2.3.

4.

Constraint Factors:

5.



27

residentialpropertiesarelocatedadjacenttothesiteboundarytothenorth.Approximatelythirtytwo(32)residencesfallwithinthescreeningdistanceandcouldpotentiallybeimpactedbynoisefromtheproposedPerrymanSite.MTAwouldberesponsibleforidentifyingnoiseimpactsandmitigation,ifnecessary.ThePerrymanHistoricDistrictwasrecommendedeligiblein1991fortheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesandispartiallylocatedwithinandadjacenttothenortheasternboundaryoftheproposedPerrymansite.Approximately27acresofthishistoricdistrictliewithintheboundaryofthePerrymansiteandwouldpotentiallybedirectlyimpactedbydevelopmentofthissite.ThePerrymanlocation,whichissouthoftheSusquehannaRiver,doesnotmeettheprojectsstatedpurposeandneed.Also,Amtrakhasstatedthatitisnotinfavoroftheinstallationofanewinterlockinginthisarea.Developmentofthissitewouldimpactforests,wetlands,andculturalresources.

2.1.10 CarpentersPointTheCarpentersPointsiteislocatednorthoftheSusquehannaRiver,alongtheeastsideoftheNECinPerryville,MarylandsouthofUS40andMD7intersection,andeastoftheintersectionofMD7(PrincipioFurnaceRoad)andMD267(BaltimoreStreet)(Figure2.111).ThissitewouldnotbecompatiblewithAmtraksNECMasterPlan,inthatitislocatedadjacenttoaportionofthetwotracksectionoftheNEC,wherebothtracksareconsideredhighspeed.TheleadtrackstoamaintenancefacilityatthissitewouldhavetodivergefromAmtraksnorthboundhighspeedtrack.Amtrakmayrequiretheconstructionofthefuture4thtrack,whichwouldallowMARCtrainstodeceleratetoasuitableoperatingspeedforenteringthemaintenancefacility.Constructionofa4thtrackwouldbeadistanceofuptoapproximately6.4milesatacostupto$213Million.Atthissite,thenorthleadtrackcouldnotconnectintoacurveinthetracks.Theleadtrackwouldhavetobeextendedapproximately2milesnorthwardtoreachatangenttomaketheconnectiontothemainline.Thiswouldalsorequireasignificantlengthofretainingwallsandtheextension(reconstruction)oftheBaltimoreStreetandBladenStreetbridgesonMD267.Theleadtrackconstructionandthetwobridgereconstructionswouldaddsignificantcosttotheproject.ThesouthleadtrackconnectionwouldbemadeinthevicinityofthefutureAmtrakFurnaceInterlocking.ThismayrequireadditionalfuturecostsforrelocationoftheMARCturnouttoaccommodateAmtrakstracklayoutfortheinterlocking.Thispropertyiscurren

marc maintenance ea december 2014

Documents